Posts in Entire Fairness

Chancery Grants Motion to Dismiss Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims Against Officers in Controlling Stockholder Transaction Subject to Entire Fairness Review

Kormos v. Playtika Hldg. UK II Ltd., C.A. 2023-0396-SG (Del. Ch. May 3, 2024)
In this decision involving breach of fiduciary duty claims against two officers, the Court granted the individual defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In a prior decision, the Court found the transaction, which involved a corporation’s self-tender offer providing non-pro rata benefits to a controlling stockholder, was subject to the entire fairness standard of review. Although the two officer-defendants presumably lacked independence from the controlling stockholder, the Court focused on the complaint’s failure to plead sufficient, non-conclusory facts of wrongdoing by the officers. While the plaintiff alleged conclusorily they had engaged in “unauthorized” communications with the controlling stockholder, the complaint also alleged that the board had directed management to assist the controlling stockholder with exploring potential transactions to sell some of its shares. The alleged communications also did not violate the plain terms of a special committee’s subsequent guidelines on communications with the controlling stockholder. The complaint also alleged that the communications at-issue were reported to the special committee, without suggesting that the committee found any fault with them. The complaint also failed to allege that the officers played a role in structuring the terms of the transaction that allegedly unfairly benefited the controller. In dismissing the claims, the Court explained it was not enough for the plaintiff to allege the officers lacked independence. Rather, to state a claim against them, the plaintiff must also allege facts supporting the officer-defendants actually “worked to advance the controller’s interest in detriment to [the corporation].” 

Share

Chancery Finds AT&T Failed to Satisfy Entire Fairness Review in a Freeze-Out of Minority Partners in Local Spectrum Partnership

In re Cellular Telephone P’ship Litig., Coordinated C.A. No. 6885-VCL (Del. Ch. Mar. 9, 2022)
A controller that stands on both sides of a freeze-out transaction has the burden to prove that its acquisition was entirely fair to minority partners in terms of the acquisition’s process and price. The freeze-out of minority partners at an opportune time for the controller may not satisfy entire fairness review. More ›

Share

Chancery Makes Post-Trial Award of $22K in Damages for $5.3 Million Fiduciary Breach Claim, and Orders an Accounting for Suspicious Expenses Totaling $235K Arising Out of Self-Dealing Transactions

Avande Inc. v. Evans, C.A. No. 2018-0203-AGB (Del. Ch. Aug. 13, 2019).

A director of a Delaware corporation who stands on both sides of a challenged transaction must prove the entire fairness of the transaction. Such a defendant must show that the transaction was the product of both fair dealing and fair price. Where the dispute involves more than one transaction, the Court “may place on a fiduciary the burden to demonstrate the fairness of a series or group of expenditures, or may order an accounting of such expenditures.” However, the fiduciary will bear this burden only if the plaintiff, by substantial evidence, first makes a prima facie showing that the fiduciary stood on both sides of the transactions at issue. Applying Technicorp Int’L II Inc. v. Johnston, 2000 WL 713750 (Del. Ch. May 31, 2000) and its progeny, the Court in Avande ruled post-trial that plaintiff had failed to make a prima facie showing that the defendant, a former director and CEO, was self-interested in the challenged transactions. Plaintiff had challenged nearly $4.7 million dollars in transactions reported on the company’s ledger over five years (comprising roughly 45% of the company’s total expenses), asserting that the transactions were the result of the defendant’s self-dealing. However, the plaintiff was able specifically to identify only $30,500 of potentially problematic expenses (less than 1% of the disputed amounts), only one $3,500 transaction of which appeared to have personally benefitted the defendant-fiduciary, but sought to shift the burden to the defendant to prove the entire fairness of the remaining amounts. Among the factors that led the Court not to shift the burden was that Evans did not exercise exclusive control over Avande’s finances. The Court also found it was inconceivable that at least a substantial portion of the challenged amount was not the result of valid business expenses needed to operate the business over five years, and declined to shift the burden. However, the Court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated self-interest sufficient to shift the burden and that defendant had failed to prove the fairness of $235K in payments for services billed to Avande by the defendant’s wholly owned business. The Court ordered an accounting of these transactions to be conducted by a third-party chosen by the parties because it was unclear how much was paid for each service performed. Because the self-dealing transactions were subject to entire fairness, and because the defendant had not proved the fairness of the transactions at trial, the defendants were responsible for the costs of the accounting proceeding. 

Share