About This Blog
Summaries and analysis of recent Delaware court decisions concerning business-related litigation.
Subscribe to Blog
JDSupra RSS
Join us on LinkedIn
Follow us on TwitterTopics
Top Posts
Top News
- February 19, 2021
- October 30, 2020
- April 1, 2024
Archives
Morris James Blogs
Showing 116 posts from 2022.
Stockholder Lacks Standing to Enforce the Merger Agreement but May Be Able to Recover Lost Premium Through an Action for Damages
Crispo v. Musk, C.A. No. 2022-0666-KSJM (Del. Ch. Oct. 11, 2022)
Stockholders generally have standing as third-party beneficiaries of corporate contracts under only limited circumstances. As this decision notes, whether contractual language gives standing to stockholders can be “a thorny legal issue.” More ›
Chancery Dismisses Claims in Favor of Arbitration in Dispute over Sale of Pittsburgh Penguins
Wildfire Productions, L.P. v. Team Lemieux LLC, C.A. No. 2021-1072-PAF (Del. Ch. June 29, 2022)
The Federal Arbitration Act and the public policy of Delaware favor the resolution of disputes through arbitration. When parties contractually agree to arbitrate their disputes, Delaware courts will enforce the terms of arbitration provisions. More ›
Chancery Finds That Stockholder’s Broad Section 220 Demand Lacked The Precision And Plus Factors Required To Entitle Shareholder To Additional Materials
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys. v. Amazon.com, Inc., C.A. No. 2021-0484-LLW (Del. Ch. June 1, 2022)
In reviewing the propriety of a stockholder’s Section 220 demand to inspect corporate records, Delaware courts must determine (1) whether the stockholder has stated a proper purpose; and (2) whether the requested documents are essential to the accomplishment of the proper purpose. Where the stated purpose of a Section 220 demand is to investigate alleged corporate wrongdoing which is the subject of other pending investigations or litigation, Delaware courts require one or more “plus factors” in addition to the mere pendency of an investigation or litigation to establish a credible basis to suspect wrongdoing. In this decision of the Court of Chancery, the Court held that the stockholder failed to establish the requisite plus factors and, in all events, the company had already produced sufficient records for the accomplishment of the stockholder’s purpose. More ›
Chancery Denies Bid to Dismiss Derivative Claims Amid Alleged “Gamesmanship” Regarding Composition of LLC’s Board of Managers
Schoenmann v. Irvin, C.A. 2021-0326-SG (Del. Ch. Jun. 2, 2022)
After the plaintiff filed his direct and derivative claims in April 2021, the defendants – the company and its controller – circulated in June 2021 a written consent purporting to change the composition of the company’s board of managers as of January 2021. The defendants then moved to dismiss the derivative claims on the grounds that the plaintiff did not plead demand futility with respect to the purported new board. Based on the plaintiff’s allegations, the Court agreed with the plaintiff that it was reasonably inferable that the consent was backdated. But the Court ultimately decided the matter on a different ground: even if the board composition validly changed in January 2021, equity would not reward the defendants’ gamesmanship in delaying notice of the change. Because it was reasonable to infer that the change was made in anticipation of the plaintiff’s derivative claims and to thwart them, and the plaintiff properly pleaded demand futility with respect to the board of which he had notice, the Court allowed those claims to proceed.
Chancery Holds That Requests for Admission Are Subject to Discovery Deadlines
NetApp, Inc. v. Cinelli, Inc., C.A. No. 2020-1000-LWW (Del. Ch. June 3, 2022)
This decision clarifies discovery deadlines under the Court of Chancery rules. Plaintiff served dozens of requests for admission months after the close of discovery, arguing that such requests are not subject to discovery deadlines, but merely “a mechanism to eliminate factual disputes.” Federal courts have rendered conflicting decisions on the issue. Here, the Court of Chancery holds that requests for admission under Rule 36 are subject to discovery scheduling cut-offs because they are part of the discovery process as specified under Rule 26 and 36.
Superior Court Upholds Highly Confidential Designations in Discovery
Surf’s Up Legacy Partners, LLC v. Virgin Fest, LLC, C.A. No. 19C-11-92 (Del. Super. June 6, 2022)
Delaware courts generally do not permit the redaction of non-responsive material that is otherwise not privileged. Two-tiered confidentiality stipulations, allowing for highly confidential attorneys’ eyes-only designations, are available to prevent sensitive information from being widely disseminated amongst an opposing party if such disclosure is substantially likely to cause injury to the producing party and a standard confidential designation would be insufficient to prevent that injury. More ›
Chancery Dismisses Claims Seeking to Unwind Secondary Transactions that Allegedly Jeopardized Recovery for Primary Fraudulent Transfers
Burkhart v. Genworth Fin., Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0691-JRS (Del. Ch. May 10, 2022)
The plaintiffs were a putative class of policyholders and insurance agents with an interest in long-term care insurance policies written by the defendant's insurance company. Plaintiffs alleged that the company’s parent and related entities fraudulently removed assets and support from the company and impaired the company’s ability to make payments to the policyholders and agents. The plaintiffs sought to unwind the purported fraudulent transactions under Delaware’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. After failing to obtain the dismissal of the DUFTA claims, the defendants allegedly diverted assets away from the initial transferees. Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to include additional DUFTA claims seeking to unwind these secondary diversions. Defendants moved to dismiss the new claims on the grounds that plaintiffs were not creditors of the transferees, and thus lacked standing, and that plaintiffs had sought improperly to unwind transactions, rather than plead a right to payment. More ›
Delaware Supreme Court Explains Appraisal Rights and Finds Disclosure Violation Relating to Pre-Closing Dividend Contingent on a Merger
In re GGP, Inc. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 2018-0267 (Del. July 19, 2022)
Here, the defendants organized a merger so that a large majority of the total value of the merger would be granted as a pre-closing dividend to stockholders and that the remaining amount would be granted in return for the stockholder’s shares. In the resulting litigation, stockholders argued that the defendants’ structuring of the merger unlawfully denied or diluted the stockholders’ right to seek appraisal and that the defendants’ disclosures regarding the structuring were deficient. The defendants prevailed on a motion to dismiss before the Court of Chancery. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court found that the dividend conditioned on the merger’s consummation was part of the merger consideration for appraisal purposes under Delaware law, that receipt of the dividend did not disqualify stockholders from seeking appraisal, and that plaintiff’s claim regarding the structure, therefore, was properly dismissed. But the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the related disclosure claim. The plaintiffs alleged that the director defendants, aided and abetted by the acquirer, had deprived stockholders of their appraisal rights by improperly describing what would be subject to appraisal. The Supreme Court agreed and held that the disclosures were confusing and materially misleading. The proxy stated that stockholders were entitled only to the amount that remained after the pre-closing dividend. But this was incorrect as a matter of Delaware law, as the stockholders were also entitled to appraisal for the pre-closing dividend. Two justices dissented from the majority’s holding regarding the disclosure claim.
Delaware Supreme Court Enforces Class Vote Requirement, Reasons There Is No Insolvency Exception to Section 271 Of The Delaware General Corporation Law
Stream TV Networks, Inc. v. SeeCubic, Inc., No. 360, 2021 (Del. June 15, 2022)
Section 271 of the Delaware General Corporation Law provides, among other things, that a majority vote of stockholders is required to sell all or substantially all of a corporation’s assets. As an issue of first impression, the Delaware Supreme Court reasoned that there is no insolvency exception to Section 271’s requirement of a stockholder majority vote. More ›
On Motion To Dismiss, Court of Chancery Holds That Alleged Disclosure Violations Were Insufficient To Rebut Corwin Protections Of A Fully Informed Stockholder Vote
Teamster Members Ret. Plan v. Randall S. Dearth et al., C.A. No. 2020-0807-MTZ (Del. Ch. May 31, 2022)
Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Corwin and its progeny, a transaction approved by a fully informed, uncoerced stockholder vote, not involving a controlling stockholder, receives business judgment rule protection. However, one sufficiently alleged disclosure deficiency is enough to put into question whether a stockholder vote is fully informed and, thus, to defeat a motion to dismiss. More ›
Chancery Dismisses Caremark Claim Against Energy Company Alleging Failure of Board Oversight Related to Fatal Pipeline Explosion
City of Detroit Police and Fire Retirement System v. Hamrock, C.A. No. 2021-0370-KSJM (Del. Ch. June 30, 2022)
Stockholder plaintiff filed a derivative suit on behalf of an energy company alleging that certain of the company’s former and current directors were liable for oversight failures leading to the fatal explosion of an over-pressurized gas pipeline. When the defendants moved to dismiss for failure to make a demand on the board, the plaintiff argued that demand was excused because a majority of the demand board faced a substantial likelihood of liability for oversight failures based on the following three theories of Caremark liability: (1) the board’s utter failure to implement a pipeline safety monitoring or reporting system; (2) the board’s failure to acknowledge “red flags” that put it on notice of the company’s numerous violations of pipeline safety laws; and (3) the board’s knowing encouragement of legal violations in the pursuit of corporate profit. The Court rejected all three of the plaintiff’s theories of Caremark liability and dismissed the action for failure to make a demand. The Court reasoned as follows: (1) according to the plaintiff’s own allegations, the company had set up a pipeline safety monitoring and reporting system which included a committee specifically tasked with pipeline safety that was active, therefore the plaintiff had not adequately pled “utter failure” to set up such a system; (2) any causal connection between the “red flags” identified by the plaintiff and the explosion were too tenuous to put the board on notice of the corporate trauma that occurred; and (3) plaintiff had not adequately pled that the board was “in the business” of encouraging violation of the law for profit because, according to plaintiff’s own allegations, the company actually discouraged legal violations through the formation of several committees tasked with regulatory compliance.
Chancery Upholds Brophy Claim and Finds Post-Merger Direct Standing Based On Process Challenge
Goldstein v. Denner, C.A. No. 2020-1061-JTL (Del. Ch. June 2, 2022)
This motion to dismiss decision upholds a Brophy claim against an activist investor and director who was alleged to have concealed an eventual acquiror’s expression of interest while he leveraged that inside information to buy more stock and profit after the short-swing period’s expiration. The Court of Chancery found it was reasonable in the circumstances to infer materiality of the expression of interest, which represented a nearly 65% premium over the company’s trading price, and that the fiduciary was motivated to act upon it. The Court also found that a merger did not eliminate the plaintiff’s standing under the contemporaneous ownership requirement. The Court rejected the defendant's argument under Primedia regarding the asserted immateriality of the value of the plaintiff’s claims in the context of the merger. As the Court explained, under Parnes, a stockholder could may assert “a direct claim challenging a merger if the facts giving rise to what otherwise would constitute a derivative claim led either to the price or the process being unfair.” Here, the plaintiff’s allegations challenged the fairness of the sale process – a process that the activist allegedly delayed to serve his own interests at the expense of the Company running a better process or remaining independent.
Delaware Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal Under Zapata
Diep v. Trimaran Pollo Partners, No. 313, 2021 (Del. June 28, 2022)
After the Court of Chancery denied an initial motion to dismiss, the company formed a special litigation committee (“SLC”) to investigate the claims and determine whether the company should allow the plaintiff to proceed, take over the litigation, or move to dismiss. The SLC investigated and then moved to dismiss the claims, which the Court of Chancery granted under Zapata. Among other rulings, the Supreme Court affirmed and upheld the Court of Chancery’s rejection of the plaintiff’s contention that the SLC did not meet its burden to establish the independence of the SLC members. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that the record did not establish that as directors the SLC members had specific knowledge of the facts and circumstances that led the Company, as nominal defendant, to join the initial motion to dismiss those claims that the SLC later was charged with investigating. Justice Valihura dissented because she believed that material issues of fact existed regarding the SLC members’ independence.
Chancery Holds That A General Partner Of A Limited Partnership Cannot Breach Fiduciary Duties It Does Not Owe
JER Hudson Group XXI LLC, et al. v. DLE Investors, LP, C.A. No. 2021-0478-MTZ (Del. Ch. May 2, 2022)
Under Delaware law, the purpose of a limited partnership and a general partner’s authority and fiduciary duties may be defined by the terms of a limited partnership agreement (“LPA”). In this post-trial decision, the Court of Chancery held, among other things, that a limited partner failed to prove fiduciary claims against a general partner because the partnership’s express purpose and the general partner’s fiduciary duties did not require it to take actions the limited partner alleged would be value-maximizing. More ›
Chancery Addresses Entitlement to Indemnification
Evans v. Avande, Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0454-LWW (Del. Ch. June 9, 2022)
This decision highlights the need for a nexus between legal expenses and one’s corporate capacity in the context of indemnification, as well as Delaware law’s claim-by-claim approach to indemnification. Here, the Court of Chancery denied indemnification to a former director and officer for tortious interference and defamation claims that he defeated because they concerned conduct occurring post-termination of employment. The Court also denied indemnification relating to a breach of fiduciary duty claim that the fiduciary lost but avoided most of the requested damages, finding partial indemnification would “contravene[] the claim-by-claim approach to indemnification consistently followed by Delaware courts.”
