Showing 6 posts from March 2007.
Holman v Northwest Broadcasting LP, C.A. No. 1572-VCN (Del. Ch. March 29, 2007).
When a stockholder or, as here, a partner demands inspection of an entity's records, the usual test of what records are to be produced is what is "essential and necessary" to the proper purpose for that inspection. Here the partner seeking inspection rights had been given audited financial information already. Thus, the Court had to decide if he needed more than those audited reports to accomplish his proper purpose, a valuation of his partnership interests.
As to those items in the audited report that were in enough detail to be used for valuation purposes, the Court denied further inspection. However, the result was different in the case of the audited reports' treatment of executive compensation. In that case, the Court concluded, the information was too general to be useful. How the compensation was allocated was important to any determination of whether that cost could be cut and the entity's value thereby increased. Therefore, the Court ordered that further information breaking down that cost be provided.Share
Troy Corporation v. Schoon, C.A. No. 1959-VCL (Del. Ch. March 26, 2007).
Forum selection clauses will be upheld by Delaware courts. However, when the dispute that is the subject of litigation in Delaware is not clearly subject to a contract clause requiring the dispute to be litigated elsewhere, the Delaware courts will not enforce such an unclear contract provision to bar litigation here.
In this decision, the contract required any litigation to be filed in federal court in New York. However, the federal courts lacked jurisdiction over the dispute set out in the complaint filed in Delaware. Thus, the Court of Chancery held that the forum selection clause was not enforceable.
This result illustrates the need to carefully draft forum selection clauses as they will not be read expansively.Share
In this shareholder derivative action, the plaintiff shareholder sued two defendants, both of whom occupied board positions with the corporation, for allegedly purchasing stock in the corporation and then selling it at a profit within six months, in violation of Section 16(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. After each side filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the SEC adopted Amendments to SEC Rules 16b-3 and 16b-7, which exempt certain transactions from the prohibitions of Section 16(b). Defendants argued that the transaction that formed the basis of Plaintiff’s complaint, whereby Defendant’s preferred stock in the corporation was “automatically” converted to common stock upon completion of an IPO, was an exempt “reclassification” transaction under the SEC Rules. Conversely, Plaintiff argued that the exemption did not apply. The Court found that the SEC had acted within its power in exempting reclassification transactions from Section 16(b), and that as a result of that exemption, Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. More ›Share
In re Netsmart Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 2563-VCS, 2007 WL778612 (Del. Ch.).
When a company is to be sold, then the board of directors have so-called Revlon duties that basically come down to getting the best price. There is no set methodology or procedure the board must employ. However it proceeds, its actions will be subject to a level of increased scrutiny by a reviewing court. In other words, the normal business judgment rules do not apply in such a case. This important decision illustrates what the Court of Chancery expects a board in "Revlon land" to do.
Here the board was faced with two possible sets of potential buyers for their company: (1) so-called strategic investors who would acquire the company to run it as part of their other business interests and (2) private equity investors who would let current management run the company after taking it private. The board never really explored the possibility of a sale to strategic investors and, apparently, preferred a sale to private equity from the outset. Only one bidder stayed the course and the court was faced with a complaint that the price was not high enough. After finding some disclosure problems with the proxy materials, the Court held that the stockholders should be given an amended disclosure statement that included more financial information and enjoined the meeting until that was done. More importantly, the Court also ordered that the stockholders be told that their board had not really pursued a sale to strategic investors. More ›Share
Plaintiff asserted breach of contract, fraud, and intentional interference with contractual relations, arising out of a purported agreement between the parties to manufacture wheel covers for motorcycles. Under Plaintiff’s theory, Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to manufacture the covers based on allegedly confidential information and proprietary technology that Plaintiff provided. Plaintiff asserted that Defendant breached their contract to manufacture and supply the covers, then misappropriated Plaintiff’s confidential information, proprietary technology, and actual and potential contractual relations. The District Court of Delaware granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence on any of its claims to withstand the motion. More ›Share
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International v. Jerney, C.A. No. 19947 (Del. Ch. March 1, 2007).
Payment of bonuses to officers and directors often seems so routine that extra care is not required to be sure they are fair. This case shows what can go wrong when fair process and fair amounts are not properly considered.
Because each member of the board was to receive a bonus under the plan in issue, the bonuses were subject to the rigorous entire fairness review by the Court. That involves testing to see if the process used to approve the bonuses was fair in the sense of using appropriate safeguards to protect the corporation's interests and fair in the sense that the amounts involved were within a range of reasonableness. These bonuses failed on both counts.
To begin with, the committee to whom the bonus plan was referred consisted of persons who would receive a bonus and a majority of the committee were closely allied with the CEO who was targeted for a $30 Million bonus under the plan. The consultant they hired came in after the plan was set up and was really only asked to justify the amounts involved.
Second, the amounts were extremely high compared to other bonuses and were for work that had not just been done already before the plan was announced but that had in a sense already been the subject of prior bonuses. All in all, this was just too much and the Court voided the bonuses. More ›Share