Showing 5 posts in Advance Notice Bylaws.
Chancery Denies Request for Mandatory Preliminary Injunction to Waive Advance Notice Bylaw and Permit Director Nominees to Stand for Election
Paragon Tech., Inc. v. Cryan, C.A. 2023-1013-LWW (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2023).
In Delaware, a preliminary injunction is granted “sparingly and only upon a persuasive showing that it is urgently necessary, that it will result in comparatively less harm to the adverse party, and that, in the end, it is unlikely to be shown to have been issued improvidently.” A party seeking a mandatory injunction must also show entitlement to the relief it seeks as a matter of law based on undisputed facts – akin to a summary judgment standard. In this case, “with some trepidation[,]” the Court of Chancery denied a request for preliminary mandatory injunctive relief due to factual disputes concerning whether a stockholder plaintiff complied with advance notice bylaws requiring disclosure of plans to change the corporation’s business and potential conflicts of interest. More ›
Strategic Investment Opportunities, LLC v. Lee Enterprises, No. 2021-1089-LWW (Del. Ch. Feb. 14, 2022)
This case reflects that incumbent directors’ decision to enforce an advance notice bylaw generally will be upheld where a stockholder’s nomination materials do not comply with the bylaw’s plain terms and enforcement is not inequitable in the circumstances. Here, directors rejected an activist stockholder’s nominees for election because of non-compliance with certain requirements of an advance notice bylaw, specifically that nominations (i) must be made by the record holder (here, Cede & Co.), and (ii) must include information on a form required by the company. Given the context – the defense of a proxy contest – the Court proceeded to review whether the decision to enforce the bylaw complied with the directors’ fiduciary duties, applying enhanced scrutiny under Unocal and Blasius. Because the bylaw was adopted on a “clear day,” because it served valid corporate purposes and because the board did not engage in any manipulative conduct impeding the stockholder’s ability to comply with the bylaw, the Court held that the board’s decision to uphold the bylaw was valid.
Blue v. Fireman, C.A. No. 2021-0268-MTZ (Del. Ch. Feb. 28, 2022)
This case illustrates circumstances in which allegedly improper pre-merger transactions that divert merger consideration from stockholders may be considered direct challenges to a merger, rather than derivative claims, thus permitting a former stockholder to continue to pursue them after closing. Here, in the run-up to a merger, a large creditor with a proxy representing 85% of the corporation’s voting power sought and obtained beneficial amendments to its notes and warrants. The amendments had the alleged effect of diverting $40 million of $130 million total merger consideration from the stockholders and to the creditor. Reviewing Parnes v. Bally and its progeny, the Court reasoned that the claims were direct because merger consideration allegedly was diverted, with a material effect on the merger’s price and fairness, in transactions allegedly involving breaches of fiduciary duty. Accordingly, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss premised on a lack of derivative standing.
Delaware Court of Chancery Upholds Incumbent Directors’ Decision not to Excuse Stockholders’ Non-Compliance with Advance Notice Bylaw
Previously posted on Business Law Today
Rosenbaum v. CytoDyn Inc., 2021 WL 4775410 (Del. Ch. Oct. 13, 2021)
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently upheld incumbents’ decision not to include insurgent director nominees on the ballot due to their failure to comply with an advance notice bylaw. For months, the director nominees and certain affiliated stockholders were aware of the requirements of the bylaw, which had been adopted on a clear day. On the eve of the deadline, they submitted a deficient notice that failed to disclose (i) the supporters of the nominees or their proposals, and (ii) the fact one nominee recently tried to have the corporation purchase his separate business, and that he may do so again. The court reasoned that, had the stockholders proceeded sooner, and submitted a deficient notice with “ample time” before the deadline, then directors exercising their fiduciary duties may have had to work with the dissidents to address the deficiencies. Id. at *17. As it stood, however, the incumbents’ decision to enforce the bylaw did not evince “manipulative conduct” in violation of the incumbents’ fiduciary duties. See id. at *14-17.
Delaware Supreme Court Finds That Stockholder Failed to Satisfy Unambiguous Requirements of Advance Notice Bylaw
The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery’s decision requiring two closed-end trusts (together, the “Trusts”) to count the votes of Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd’s (“Saba”) slate of dissident nominees at the Trusts’ respective annual meetings. The Supreme Court ruled that Saba’s nominations were ineligible because Saba had failed to respond to the Trusts’ request for supplemental information within the clear and unambiguous 5 day compliance deadline in the Trusts’ advance notice bylaws (the “Bylaws”). More ›Share