Showing 11 posts from February 2008.
It has long been recognized that a stockholder may lose her standing to bring derivative litigation by losing her shares in a merger. There is a recognized exception to this rule for mergers designed just to eliminate derivative litigation.
Here, the plaintiff sold the assets of his company in return for cash and stock in the buyer. The stock was held in escrow and when a dispute arose, the buyer revoked the stock as compensation for its claims against the seller. When the seller brought a derivative suit, the court dismissed it as he no longer owned stock in the buyer. Thus, the court refused to make another exception to the rule that a derivative plaintiff must continue to be a stockholder through out the litigation.
The Court of Chancery rarely interprets bond indentures; so in the spirit of the date of this decision, the Court did so here. What is particularly interesting about this case is the way the Court reasoned to the result. While focusing on the specific language of the indenture, the Court did not hesitate to apply that language to circumstances that probably were not considered by the drafters. In this very un-Justice Scalia way, the Court held the indenture was violated.
The lesson here is that the Court is very realistic about what language should mean in the business world. It will not be swayed by hyper-technical interpretations that are not what the drafters would have said had they focused on the circumstances at hand. This does not mean that the Court will stretch language beyond what it really means, however. Instead, a sort of middle ground of interpretation is the mark of Delaware law in this regard.Share
Yesterday, February 27, 2008, two new complaints were filed against Yahoo! in the Court of Chancery. The first is a class and derivative action, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund v. Yahoo!, C.A. 3578. The second, Mercier v. Yahoo!, C.A. 3579, an additional class action to those previously filed.
The plaintiff in the second action, Vernon A. Mercier, was also the lead plaintiff in Mercier v. Inter-Tel (Delaware), Inc., 929 A.2d 786 (Del. Ch. 2007). In a decision in that action last August, Vice Chancellor Strine denied the plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction and found that directors fearing that stockholders are about to make an unwise decision that poses the threat that all stockholders will irrevocably lose a unique opportunity to receive a premium for their shares have a compelling justification for a short postponement in the merger voting process to allow more time for deliberation. The decision is worth reviewing for its interesting discussion of the interplay between the Blasius and Unocal doctrines.Share
On Monday, February 11th, and Thursday, February 21st, two related class actions were filed in the Court of Chancery against the directors of Yahoo! for breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the offer by Microsoft, made on February 1st, to acquire Yahoo! for $31 per share, a price which reflected a 62 percent premium above the Yahoo! share value at the close of the day prior to the offer. The first complaint, Wayne County Employees’ Retirement Sys. et al. v. Yahoo!, Inc., Court of Chancery C.A. No. 3538, can be accessed here. The second complaint, Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit et al. v. Yahoo!, Inc., Court of Chancery C.A. No. 3561, can be accessed here.
The second complaint alleges that the Yahoo! board members have breached their fiduciary duties by rejecting Microsoft’s value-maximizing offer by refusing to consider and respond to the offer in good faith. The plaintiffs also seek an injunction preventing Yahoo! from initiating any defensive measures and an order compelling Yahoo! to redeem its poison pill and invalidate certain severance plans.Share
In an important ruling, the Delaware Supreme Court upheld bedrock principles of Delaware corporate law and governance and rejected plaintiff’s argument that directors of Delaware corporations should have standing to bring derivative suits on behalf of companies upon whose boards they sit.
In Schoon, Plaintiff Richard Schoon was a director of Troy Corporation. He was elected to the Troy board by the Series B stockholder, Steel, which had the right to appoint one member to a five member board. Schoon himself owned no Troy shares but rather acted at the behest of Steel. Schoon brought derivative claims purportedly on behalf of Troy alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by his fellow board members. Steel had also sought books and records pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”).
The defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Schoon lacked standing to assert such derivative claims. The Court of Chancery agreed and dismissed the action. The Court of Chancery relied upon well established precedent, albeit precedent that had never been tested at the Supreme Court level. Schoon appealed. More ›Share
District Court Finds Insurance Policy Language Precludes Breach Claim, But Estoppel and Waiver Claims Survive
Here the District Court evaluated a claim from an insured that a denial of coverage based on policy expiration constituted a breach of contract. The insured owned a property that sustained fire damage, and submitted a claim to Defendant, his insurer. The policy required annual renewal, but the insured did not submit the payment required for renewal until after both the policy expiration date and the subsequent grace period. However, the insured submitted his claim during the grace period, such that Defendant began to process the request and retain an adjuster and contractor. Defendant subsequently determined that the policy had expired prior to the insured’s claimed damages, and the insured had not submitted payment during the grace period. Defendant therefore denied coverage, and the insured sued on a theory of breach of contract, estoppel, and waiver. Defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims, while the insured moved for summary judgment on the breach claim. More ›Share
In this opinion the District Court granted the provider of a credit report monitoring service summary judgment on claims that it violated state consumer protection provisions and contractual obligations. Plaintiffs, who were spouses, had purchased a subscription to Defendant’s service, and alleged that Defendant failed to alert them to activity that resulted from theft of the husband’s social security number. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant had violated Kansas’ Consumer Protection Act (“KCPA”) as well as breached the Credit Monitoring Member Agreement (“Member Agreement”) that Plaintiffs entered into when purchasing the service. Plaintiffs moved for class certification and summary judgment on their KCPA claims, and Defendant moved for summary judgment on the KCPA and several breach of contract claims. The Court found that neither the activity nor the advertising and marketing activities of Defendant were in violation of the KCPA provisions on unconscionable acts and practices, and Defendant was not in breach of the Member Agreement. More ›Share
Sutherland v. Sutherland, C.A. No. 2399-VCL (February 14, 2008).
This is another decision that explains what must be done to have the report of a special litigation committee ("SLC") respected by the court. To begin with, the use of a single board member for the SLC "pressed the theory of Zapata to the extreme". Thus, one-member SLCs are generally not a good idea.
In addition, the report of an SLC needs to include sufficient detail to support its conclusions. It is better practice to include documentation of the report's conclusions, such as the documents it relied on, the interviews it conducted and the advice it received. This is controversial for a good reason. If the court refuses to dismiss the derivative litigation despite the SLC recommendation, then the report may serve as a roadmap for the plaintiff going forward. Thus, the decision on whether to use a SLC should be considered carefully. There are still excellent reasons for using a SLC, but it must be done correctly.Share
Gantler v. Stephens, C .A. No. 2392-VCP (February 14, 2008).
This decision illustrates the confusion that exists over the scope of review of a board's decision to not pursue a merger and largely eliminates the uncertainty. Briefly, the board here decided not to pursue a merger opportunity and the potential acquirer then withdrew its offer. The court held that the business judgment rule applied to the decision not to take the offer. In doing so, the court declined to apply the heightened scrutiny used under the Unocal decision as the board did not take any defensive steps to stop the suitor from going forward on its own.
Instead, the court held that to invoke a higher level of review, the plaintiff must show the board acted in bad faith or was not properly advised. Mere allegations that the board made the wrong decision are insufficient. More ›Share
Pfeffer v. Redstone, C.A. No. 2317-VCL (February 1, 2008).
At first this seems like a common disclosure case. It is more than that, however. The court here shows that it expects claims to be based on more than mere conjecture to survive a motion to dismiss. The Complaint alleged that the key corporate officers knew of a bad cash flow analysis but failed to disclose it in connection with an exchange offer. When the plaintiff''s counsel could not even say he had seen the alleged report or explain how it was disclosed to the defendant directors, the complaint was dismissed.
To support allegations of knowledge of a red flag, the allegation must be based on common sense or specific facts. It is common sense to infer the directors saw a report if it was common knowledge in the corporation and is a type of report that one would expect the board to have seen. It is not common sense to believe that an obscure memo generated by a lower level employee was shown to the board of a publicly traded corporation.Share
District Court Finds That Participation in Delaware Merger Confers Jurisdiction, Denies Motion to Dismiss
In this opinion declining to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the District Court found that it had personal jurisdiction over both the directors/officers of a Delaware corporation and over a foreign corporation that invested in a Delaware corporation. Plaintiff was a Virginia limited liability company that loaned $2.5 million to a Utah corporation. Plaintiff was granted a security interest in the Utah corporation’s assets, and perfected that interest by filing the required financing statements in Utah. However, the Utah corporation subsequently was merged with and into a Delaware corporation. Plaintiff asserted that this was done at the insistence of various defendants that were seeking to invest in the Utah corporation after Plaintiff informed them that it would not agree to subordinate its security interest to theirs. Plaintiff posited that the investor defendants thereafter controlled the Utah corporation and the Delaware corporation it was merged into, and fraudulently concealed the merger to prevent Plaintiff from perfecting its security interest upon the merger, while at the same time perfecting their own in Delaware. Plaintiff pointed to numerous instances where the Utah corporation, the Delaware corporation, their counsel, the directors/officers of the Delaware corporation (who were appointed by the investor defendants), and the investor defendants failed to notify Plaintiff of the merger and/or made misrepresentations regarding the continuing status of the corporation as a Utah corporation. Taking the allegations as true, the Court found that the actions of the investor defendants and the directors they appointed was sufficient to confer specific jurisdiction over them. More ›Share