On February 4, 2025, the Delaware Supreme Court, on interlocutory appeal, reversed the decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery to deny defendants’ motion to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty claims against directors and a controller related to a decision to convert the state of incorporation of a travel guidance corporation and its parent (collectively, the “Corporation”) from Delaware to Nevada.  Maffei v. Palkon, No. 125, 2024 (Del. Feb. 4, 2025). 

On January 7, 2025, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a post-trial decision in favor of defendant, a private equity fund (the “Fund”), finding that the Fund’s sale of a portfolio company (the “Company”) was protected by the business judgment rule and did not harm the interests of minority stockholders.  Manti Holdings, LLC, et al. v. The Carlyle Group Inc., No. 2020-0657-SG, 2025 WL 39810 (Del. Ch. Jan. 7, 2025).

On December 2, 2024, Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to revise the Court’s post-trial decision to rescind a CEO compensation package based on a subsequent stockholder vote to “ratify” the package.  Tornetta v. Musk, C.A. No. 2018-0408-KSJM (Del. Ch. Dec. 2, 2024).

On October 18, 2024, Vice Chancellor Glasscock of the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to dismiss a putative class action brought by stockholders of special purpose acquisition company (“SPAC”) Mountain Crest Acquisition Corp. II (“MCAD”) against MCAD’s sponsor and alleged controlling stockholder (“Sponsor”), asserting that they breached their fiduciary duties in connection with MCAD’s acquisition of a digital therapeutics company in a so-called “deSPAC” merger. Solak v. Mountain Crest Capital LLC, Del. Ch., C.A. No. 2023-0460-SG (Oct. 18, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that defendants issued a materially misleading proxy, breaching their fiduciary duties by misrepresenting that the SPAC’s shares were worth $10 per share—the same as their redemption value. The Court held that, while the allegations were “not strong,” plaintiff “barely” alleged reasonably conceivable claims for breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty and unjust enrichment under the entire fairness standard.

On June 21, 2024, Vice Chancellor Nathan A. Cook of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a motion to dismiss a putative stockholder class action asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims against the officers and directors of a software company (the “Corporation”) after its acquisition.  In re Anaplan, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 2022-1073-NAC (Del. Ch. June 21, 2024). 

Plaintiff contended that certain post-signing equity grants allegedly violated a merger agreement and enabled the acquiror to negotiate a price reduction.  The Court, however, dismissed the claims under Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015), because the transaction was “approved by a fully informed, uncoerced vote of the disinterested stockholders.”

On May 23, 2024, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of breach of fiduciary duty claims brought by former shareholders of a fantasy sports company (the “Company”) against its directors and other defendants following a merger. Eccles v. Shamrock Capital Advisors, LLC, No. 49 (N.Y. May 23, 2024). The Company was incorporated in Scotland and headquartered in New York. As we reported previously, the New York State Appellate Division had found that the trial court erred in applying New York—rather than Scots—law and dismissed the claims. On appeal, the New York Court of Appeals held that the Appellate Division “correctly concluded” that Scots law applied under the internal affairs doctrine. The Court of Appeals nevertheless reversed the dismissal and found that the complaint adequately pleaded Scots law claims for breach of fiduciary duties.

On May 1, 2024, the Delaware Supreme Court, sitting en banc, reversed the dismissal of breach of fiduciary claims against Inovalon Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) and its CEO and directors in connection with the Company’s acquisition by a private equity firm (the “Acquiror”) and its co-investors (the “Transaction”). City of Sarasota Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 2022-0698 (Del. May 1, 2024). The Court held that the trial court erred in finding that the MFW1 requirements were met because plaintiffs adequately alleged that the proxy statement seeking approval for the Transaction failed to adequately disclose information that was potentially material to investors. The Court did not address plaintiffs’ argument that MFW “cleansing” was also unavailable because the Company allegedly failed to condition the Transaction ab initio on special committee approval.

On April 4, 2024, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz, Jr., the Supreme Court of Delaware sitting en banc held that the framework articulated in Kahn v. M&F Worldwide Corp., 88 A.3d 635 (Del. 2014) (“MFW”) applies to a controlling stockholder transaction, even if it does not involve a freeze-out merger. In re Match Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 368, 2022 (Del. Apr. 4, 2024). The Court reached this conclusion in considering the Delaware Court of Chancery’s dismissal of breach fiduciary duty claims asserted by pre-transaction minority stockholders relating to a reverse spin-off transaction. The Delaware Supreme Court clarified that “entire fairness” is the “presumptive standard of review” for a controlling stockholder transaction and that only compliance with the “procedural safeguards” of MFW changes it to “the more deferential business judgment standard.” The Court further held that the special committee required by MFW must be “wholly independent.” Because the complaint adequately pleaded that one of the special committee members was not independent of the controller, the Court reversed the dismissal.

On February 20, 2024, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied in part and granted in part a motion to dismiss a stockholder action against TripAdvisor, Inc. and its parent (together, the “Company”), controlling stockholder and certain directors and officers challenging the conversion of the Company from a Delaware to a Nevada corporation. Palkon v. Maffei, No. 2023-0449-JTL (Del. Ch. Feb. 20, 2024). The Court held that the conversion was subject to entire fairness review because it conferred benefits to the controller—in the form of more limited fiduciary obligations—that minority stockholders did not receive and found the complaint adequately stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty but stopped short of enjoining the conversion.

On February 19, 2024, Vice Chancellor Lori Will of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a derivative breach of fiduciary duty action against nominal defendant Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. (the “Company”) and its board of directors (the “Board”), alleging the Company’s billing practices for insulin resulted in unnecessary refill reminders and overbilling of third-party payers. Clem v. Skinner, No. 2021-0240-LWW (Del. Ch. Feb. 19, 2024). Plaintiffs asserted that pre-suit demand was excused because the Board faced a substantial likelihood of liability for breaching their duty of oversight. The Court found that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege facts suggesting that the Board acted in bad faith, as required to plead a Caremark claim, and thus granted the motion to dismiss, finding that pre-suit demand was not excused.

On February 23, 2024, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery invalidated a number of significant provisions in a stockholder agreement between a financial institution (the “Company”) and its founder and controlling stockholder. West Palm Beach Firefighters Pension Fund v. Moelis & Co., No. 2023-0309-JTL (Del. Ch. Feb. 23, 2024). The Court found that a number of the provisions impermissibly delegated to the controller authority over governance activities that, under Delaware General Corporation Law, are within the exclusive providence of the board, in violation of Section 141(a) and, as to a provision governing committee composition, Section 141(c). The Court so concluded notwithstanding that many of the provisions are commonly included in controller stockholder agreements.

On February 7, 2024, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion for a “mootness” fee of plaintiffs in a derivative action brought against the founder of a technology company (the “Company”), its CEO, certain of its directors, and other individuals affiliated with a counterparty to an acquisition by the Company. In re Oracle Corporation Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 2017-0337-SG (Del. Ch. Feb. 7, 2024). Plaintiffs had alleged that the founder and CEO caused the Company to overpay for the target and asserted claims for breaches of fiduciary duty seeking damages. After issuing a post-trial judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiffs applied for a $5 million fee for precipitating the appointment of two independent directors who served on the special litigation committee (“SLC”) of the board. The Court held that the appointment of the new directors “did not moot any issues in the case, nor was it an aim of [p]laintiffs’ litigation.” Accordingly, plaintiffs were not entitled to a fee under the corporate benefit doctrine.

In a January 30, 2024, post-trial ruling, Vice Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery rescinded a compensation package valued at $55.8 billion awarded by Tesla, Inc. to its CEO, notwithstanding that stockholders had previously voted to approve the package.  Tornetta v. Musk, No. 2018-0408-KSJM, 2024 WL 343699 (Del. Ch. Jan. 30, 2024).  In so holding, the Court found that neither the value of the compensation nor the process by which it was achieved was entirely fair to stockholders.

On January 24, 2024, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery awarded a stockholder plaintiff class more than $18 million, finding that the acquisition of the “Hometown” division of Sears Hometown and Outlet Stores, Inc. (“SHOS”) by its controlling stockholder failed the entire fairness test.  In re Sears Hometown and Outlet Stores, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 2019-0798-JTL (Del. Ch. Jan. 24, 2024).  The Court so ruled, even after finding, that the controlling stockholder’s conduct leading up to the transaction—including the ouster of two members of SHOS’s Special Committee and a bylaw amendment limiting the company’s alternatives—did not breach his fiduciary duties.

On December 28, 2023, Vice Chancellor Morgan T. Zurn of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed derivative breach of fiduciary duty and other claims asserted by a plaintiff shareholder after nCino, Inc. (the “Corporation”) acquired a portfolio company (the “Target”) of the Corporation’s alleged controlling shareholder. City of Hialeah Employees’ Retirement System v. Insight Venture Partners, LLC, C.A. No. 2022-0846-MTZ (Del. Ch. Dec. 28, 2023). Plaintiff generally contended that the Corporation overpaid for the Target to the benefit of the alleged controller and the detriment of the Corporation, as reflected in the decline in the Corporation’s stock price after the deal was announced. Plaintiff sought to establish that pre-suit demand was excused because the directors faced a substantial likelihood of liability and were beholden to the alleged controller. The Court found that plaintiff did not adequately allege that the board approved the acquisition in bad faith or lacked independence from the alleged controller and, therefore, failed to plead demand futility.

On June 27, 2023, Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will of the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a judgment in favor of a “leading media and entertainment” company with a “substantial presence in Florida” (the “Corporation”), rejecting a demand for corporate books and records under Delaware General Corporation Law Section 220.  Simeone v. The Walt Disney Company, C.A. No. 2022-1120-LWW (Del. Ch. June 27, 2023).  As explained by the Court, the Corporation publicly expressed opposition to certain Florida state legislation “limit[ing] instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in Florida classrooms” (the “Legislation”).  Thereafter, Florida’s legislature voted to dissolve a special district that had benefitted the Corporation.  Plaintiff, a stockholder, sought the records purportedly to investigate potential breaches of fiduciary duties by the Corporation’s directors and officers in connection with the opposition to the Legislation.  The Court explained that “Delaware law vests directors with significant discretion to guide corporate strategy—including on social and political issues” and found that plaintiff “decidedly” had not “demonstrated a proper purpose” for the records request.

On June 6, 2023, in an opinion authored by Justice Karen L. Valihura, the Supreme Court of Delaware sitting en banc unanimously affirmed judgment in favor of defendant, the CEO/Founder and then-Chairman (the “Chairman”) of Tesla Motors, Inc. (the “Company”), on derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty asserted by stockholders in connection with the Company’s acquisition of SolarCity Corporation (the “Target”).  In re Tesla Motors, Inc. Stockholder Litig., No. 181, 2022 (Del. June 6, 2023).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Chairman was the Company’s controlling stockholder and that he was conflicted because he also was the chairman of the board and largest stockholder of the Target.  As discussed in our prior post, following a trial, the Delaware Court of Chancery found that the transaction was “entirely fair” and rejected plaintiffs’ claims.  In re Tesla Motors, Inc. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 12711-VCS (Del. Ch. Apr. 27, 2022).  On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court held that the record supported the trial court’s determinations that “despite certain process flaws, the [a]cquisition was the product of fair dealing” and “the price paid was a fair one.”

On May 12, 2023, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled in favor of defendant, the founder and largest shareholder (the “Founder”) of a technology company (the “Company”), on derivative breach of fiduciary duty claims in connection with the Company’s acquisition of a financial software company (the “Target”), for which he was also a co-founder and the largest shareholder.  In re Oracle Corporation Derivative Litigation, No. 2017-0337-SG (Del. Ch. May 12, 2023).  Defendant owned approximately 28% of the Company and 40% of the Target.  Plaintiff shareholders alleged that the Founder, who was also a director and Chief Technology Officer of the Company, “used his outsized influence” to cause it to overpay because he owned a larger percentage of the Target than of the Company.  After a ten-day trial, the Court determined that the Founder “was not in control of [the Company] generally” and, although he “could have influenced the directors’ decision” in connection with the transaction, “he did not.”  Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Founder was not a “controller” and, therefore, the transaction was entitled to deferential review under the business judgment rule.

On May 1, 2023, Vice Chancellor Morgan T. Zurn of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss a putative stockholder class action asserting a breach of fiduciary duty claim against the directors of a telecommunications company (the “Corporation”) and seeking to enjoin alleged defensive measures.  In re Edgio, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 2022-0624-MTZ (Del. Ch. May 1, 2023).  The action was brought after the Corporation acquired a portfolio company of an investor (the “Investor”) in exchange for a 35% stake in the post-merger entity and entry into a stockholders’ agreement that allegedly “restricted the [I]nvestor’s voting and transfer rights.”  The stockholders of the Corporation voted in favor of the transaction in advance.  Defendants argued that they were entitled to the “irrebuttable presumption of the business judgment rule” that applies “when a transaction is approved by a fully informed, uncoerced vote of the disinterested stockholders” under Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015).  The Court, however, found that the relevant provisions in the stockholders’ agreement were subject at the pleading stage to “enhanced scrutiny” as alleged “defensive measures . . . designed to entrench the board.”  The Court held that “Corwin cleansing” does not apply to a claim seeking to enjoin such alleged defensive measures.

On March 15, 2022, Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled that the founder and former CEO of Mindbody Inc. (the “Company”) breached his fiduciary duties to stockholders in connection with the 2019 sale of the Company to private equity firm Vista Equity Partners Management, LLC (“Buyer”). In Re Mindbody, Inc., Stockholder Litigation, CA. No. 2019-0442-KSJM (Del. Ch. Mar. 15, 2023). The Court ruled that the founder breached his duty of loyalty by structuring the sale process to favor the Buyer for personal gain and breached his duty of disclosure by creating a “false narrative” in the proxy to obscure the truth about the flawed process. The Court also concluded that Buyer aided and abetted the founder’s disclosure breaches by failing to correct the inaccuracies in the proxy. The Court awarded $1 per share in damages for the fiduciary duty breach, based on the difference between the deal price and the price that the Court concluded Buyer would have paid in a fair process, and the same $1 per share as nominal damages for the disclosure breach and aiding and abetting.

On March 1, 2023, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed derivative claims brought by stockholders for breach of the fiduciary duty of oversight under Caremark against the directors of McDonald’s Corporation (the “Company”). The decision follows the Court’s earlier decision to deny a motion to dismiss similar claims brought against the Company’s officers and to extend the Caremark duty to corporate officers, as discussed here. In re McDonald’s Corp. S’holder Deriv. Litig., Case No. 2021-0324-JTL (Del. Ch. Mar. 1, 2023).

On March 1, 2023, Vice Chancellor Lori Will of the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to dismiss a putative class action brought by stockholders of special purpose acquisition company (or “SPAC”) GigCapital2, Inc. (“Gig2”) against Gig2’s controlling stockholder and directors, asserting that they breached their fiduciary duties in connection with Gig2’s acquisition of UpHealth Holdings, Inc. and Cloudbreak Health, LLC in a so-called “de-SPAC” merger. Laidlaw v. Gigacquisitions2, LLC, et. al., C.A. No. 2021-0821-LWW (Del. Ct. Ch. Mar. 1, 2023) (“Gigacquisitions2”). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants issued a false and misleading merger proxy to obtain approval of a value-destructive de-SPAC transaction and thereby enrich themselves through their unique ownership interests. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that (i) plaintiffs’ claims were derivative (alleging harm to the company rather to individual stockholders) but plaintiffs failed to make a demand or plead demand futility, and (ii) the business judgment rule applied. The Court held that plaintiffs’ claims were direct, not derivative, and that entire fairness—Delaware law’s most stringent standard of review—applied because inherent conflicts of interest existed between defendants and Gig2’s public stockholders.

On January 25, 2023, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss a derivative suit brought by stockholders asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims against a former officer of McDonald’s Corporation (the “Company”).  In Re McDonald’s Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litig., Case No. 2021-0324-JTL (Del. Ch. Jan. 25, 2023).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendant, who served as the Chief People Officer responsible for human resources at the Company, breached oversight duties by “consciously ignoring red flags” regarding sexual harassment at the Company.  The Court acknowledged that Delaware courts had not previously “expressly held that officers . . . owe oversight duties” comparable to the duty of oversight owed by directors under In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996).  But the Court sustained the claim, noting that “[t]his decision clarifies that corporate officers owe a duty of oversight.”  The Court also found that plaintiffs adequately pled a claim against defendant for breach of the duty of loyalty based on specific purported acts of sexual harassment in which he allegedly engaged.

On December 15, 2022, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss claims as untimely in a derivative action brought by stockholders against the officers and directors of AmerisourceBergen Corporation (the “Company”).  Lebanon County Employees’ Retirement Fund v. Collis, C.A. No. 2021-1118-JTL (Del. Ch. Dec. 15, 2022).  The Company is a wholesale distributor of pharmaceuticals that faced extensive investigations and litigation related to the opioid epidemic.  Plaintiffs primarily alleged that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by ignoring “red flags” related to the Company’s purported failure to report suspicious opioid orders.  Although the challenged conduct began nearly a decade earlier, plaintiffs did not even seek books and records until 2019.  The Court highlighted that “[n]o Delaware court has addressed the timeliness principles that govern” a Caremark red-flags claim.  The Court held that the “separate accrual approach” applies and, therefore, plaintiffs could assert claims with respect to alleged “conduct and consequences” that occurred within the three-year limitations period prior to their “vigilant[]” pursuit of claims.

On November 30, 2022, Vice Chancellor Glasscock of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a motion to dismiss claims asserted against directors who served as members of the special committee (the “Special Committee”) of Isramco Inc. (the “Company”) for failure to plead a breach of the duty of loyalty in connection with a take-private merger. Ligos v. Tsuff, et. al., C.A., No. 2020-0435-SG (Del. Ct. Ch, Nov. 30, 2022). Plaintiff asserted that the Special Committee lacked independence because it was selected by the Company’s controlling stockholder, who also allegedly controlled the company with whom the Company merged, Naptha Israel Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (the “Buyer”) and allegedly negotiated in bad faith. Vice Chancellor Glasscock held that even with the “plaintiff-friendly inferences” required on a motion to dismiss, there was no reasonably conceivable basis for Plaintiff’s claims.

On October 13, 2022, a five-judge panel of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, First Department, unanimously reversed a trial court decision and dismissed a breach of fiduciary duty action brought by former shareholders of an online fantasy sports company (the “Company”) against its directors and officers following a merger.  Eccles v. Shamrock Cap. Advisors, LLC, Case No. 2022-00866 (N.Y. App. Div. Oct. 13, 2022).  The Company was incorporated in Scotland and headquartered in New York.  The trial court had upheld the claims under New York law, declining to apply the internal affairs doctrine to former directors and officers.  Applying Scots law, the Appellate Division reversed, explaining: “To the extent our past decisions could be interpreted as suggesting otherwise we clarify that the internal affairs doctrine applies to an officer or director at the time of the conduct at issue.”

On September 6, 2022, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a motion to dismiss derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty brought by stockholders of a software company (the “Company”) against its directors following a cyberattack.  Construction Industry Laborers’ Pension Fund v. Bingle, No. CV 2021-0940-SG (Del. Ch. Sep. 6, 2022).  After the Company allegedly fell victim to hackers who accessed confidential information on the systems of thousands of its customers, plaintiffs alleged that defendants had failed to adequately address the risk to cybersecurity in breach of their oversight obligations under Caremark.  The Court indicated that cybersecurity is “mission critical” for online service providers and the complaint alleged oversight practices that were “far from ideal.”  But the Court held that pre-suit demand was not excused because the complaint did not plead “specific facts” from which the Court could “infer bad faith liability.”

On April 11, 2022, Vice Chancellor Paul A. Fiorvanti of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a stockholder challenge to an amendment of the certificate of incorporation of The Trade Desk, Inc. (the “Company”).  According to the complaint, the amendment effectively extended the voting control of the Company’s co-founder, Chairman, and CEO (the “CEO”) by extending the duration of a dual-class stock structure.  Plaintiff asserted claims against the CEO and other directors for breach of fiduciary duties in approving the amendment.  The Court dismissed the complaint because it found that the transaction process complied with the procedural protections necessary for application of the deferential business judgment rule pursuant to Kahn v. M & F Worldwide Corp., 88 A.3d 635 (Del. 2014) (“MFW”).

On July 19, 2022, in an opinion authored by Justice Gary F. Traynor, a majority of the Supreme Court of Delaware sitting en banc affirmed in part and reversed in part the dismissal of breach of fiduciary duty claims against the directors of a real estate investment trust (the “Company”) brought by former stockholders of the Company after its acquisition.  In re GGP, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, No. 202, 2021 (Del. July 19, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that the merger was structured to eliminate the statutory appraisal rights of the Company’s stockholders and that the proxy disclosures regarding appraisal rights were misleading.  The Delaware Court of Chancery had dismissed the claims.  On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the claim alleging an improper merger structure because “defendants did not, by paying a large portion of the merger consideration by way of a pre-closing dividend, structure the merger in a manner that effectively and unlawfully eliminated appraisal rights.”  However, the Court reversed the dismissal of the disclosure claim because it found the complaint adequately alleged that defendants “consciously crafted the transaction and the related disclosures in such a way as to deter [the Company’s] stockholders from exercising their appraisal rights.”

On June 30, 2022, Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a motion to dismiss derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty brought by a stockholder of an energy company (the “Company”) against its directors following an incident involving explosions in the pipeline system of one of its natural gas distribution subsidiaries. City of Detroit Police and Fire Retirement System v. Hamrock, C.A. No. 2021-0370-KSJM (Del. Ch. June 30, 2022).  Plaintiff claimed that the board breached its oversight obligations under Caremark by allegedly failing to implement a reporting and monitoring system relating to pipeline safety and ignoring “red flags.”  The Court held that pre-suit demand under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 was not excused because the complaint did not adequately plead that the directors faced a substantial likelihood of liability.

On June 30, 2022, Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss stockholder derivative claims for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty against the CEO/Chairman of an e-commerce car company (the “Company”).  In Re Carvana Co. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 2020-0415-KSJM (Del. Ct. Ch, Jun. 30, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that the CEO/Chairman and his father controlled the Company and “orchestrated” a $600 million direct offering to selected investors in which they purchased $50 million of common stock in March 2020 when the Company’s stock price was depressed due to pandemic-related volatility.  The Court held that plaintiffs adequately pleaded that pre-suit demand was excused because two of the Company’s other directors lacked independence from the CEO/Chairman.  The Court further found that the transaction was subject to entire fairness—rather than deferential business judgment—review because it allegedly involved a non-ratable benefit not shared by the public stockholders and half the board lacked independence.  Finally, the Court held that the CEO/Chairman’s abstention from the board’s vote approving the offering was insufficient to warrant dismissal at the pleadings stage.

On May 25, 2022, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss a stockholder derivative claim against a director of Fat Brands Inc. (the “Corporation”) for alleged breach of fiduciary duty.  Harris v. Junger, C.A. No. 2021-0511-SG (Del. Ch. May 25, 2022).  Plaintiffs challenged the merger of the Corporation with Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc. (the “Merger Partner”), which allegedly held more than 80% of the Corporation’s stock before the merger.  In a previous oral ruling, the Court had found that the Complaint sufficiently pleaded that the merger “constituted reasonably conceivable bad faith and waste,” but reserved judgment on the claim against one director who had been a minority stockholder of the Merger Partner before the merger and therefore abstained from voting on the merger.  In this decision, the Court declined to dismiss the claim against that director at the pleading stage because the complaint adequately alleged that it was “reasonably conceivable” that he “breached his duty of good faith by participating in negotiating a [m]erger that constituted corporate waste.”

On April 27, 2022, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied, in part, a motion to dismiss a derivative complaint against directors for breaches of fiduciary duties brought by stockholders of Universal Health Services Inc. (the “Corporation”).  Knight v. Miller, C.A. No. 2021-0581-SG (Del. Ch. Apr. 27, 2022).  Plaintiff, a stockholder, alleged that the directors serving on the board’s compensation committee took advantage of an “obvious dip” in stock price in the wake of the emergence of COVID-19 in March 2020 to grant option awards, including to themselves.  Noting that “[s]elf-interested compensation decisions are subject to the entire fairness standard of review,” the Court found that plaintiff “cleared the low hurdle of pleading sufficient facts to make it plausible that the price and process of the option awards transaction were not entirely fair.”

On May 13, 2022, Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed certain stockholder derivative claims for breaches of fiduciary duty brought against the founder-CEO and other directors of Flashpoint Technology, Incorporated (the “Corporation”).  SDF Funding LLC v. Fry, C.A. No. 2017-0732-KSJM (Del. Ch. May. 13, 2022).  Plaintiffs were a limited liability company (the “New LLC”) that held shares in the Corporation and its sole owner (the “Beneficial Owner”).  The New LLC received its shares from another limited liability company (the “Old LLC”) — a nonparty to the suit — also wholly owned by the Beneficial Owner.  Plaintiffs challenged certain related-party transactions, including leases from and loans to entities affiliated with the CEO.  Applying the “contemporaneous ownership requirement,” the Court granted summary judgment to defendants for claims based on conduct that predated the acquisition of shares by the New LLC.  In doing so, the Court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that the Beneficial Owner should have “equitable standing.”

On April 27, 2022, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery entered judgment in favor of defendant, the CEO/Founder and then-Chairman (the “Chairman”) of Tesla Motors, Inc. (the “Company”), following a trial on derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty asserted by stockholders in connection with the Company’s acquisition of SolarCity Corporation (the “Target”).  In re Tesla Motors, Inc. S’holder Litig., C.A. No. 12711-VCS (Del. Ch. Apr. 27, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that at the time of the acquisition, the Chairman, who held approximately 22% of the Company’s stock, was its controlling stockholder.  He also was the chairman of the board and largest stockholder of the Target.  Plaintiffs asserted that the Chairman caused the Company’s allegedly conflicted Board to approve the deal—despite the Target’s alleged insolvency—at a purportedly “patently unfair price.”  Assuming without deciding that the Chairman was the Company’s controlling stockholder and that a majority of the Company’s Board was conflicted, the Court reviewed the claims under an “entire fairness” standard.  Noting that the process was “far from perfect” and that “defense verdicts after an entire fairness review” are “not commonplace,” the Court nevertheless found that the Company’s Board “meaningfully vetted” the acquisition and the price paid was “entirely fair in the truest sense of the word”—and rejected plaintiffs’ claims.

On April 7, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of derivative claims brought by shareholders of Centene Corporation (the “Corporation”) against directors and officers of the Corporation following its merger with Health Net, Inc. (the “Target”).  Carpenters’ Pension Fund of Ill. v. Neidorff, No. 20-3216 (8th Cir. Apr. 7, 2022).  In connection with the merger, the companies issued a joint proxy statement soliciting shareholder approval of the merger.  Plaintiffs’ central allegation was that defendants purportedly concealed their knowledge of “significant financial problems” faced by the Target.  Plaintiffs thus asserted derivative claims for violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and breaches of fiduciary duty.  The Court held that pre-suit demand was not excused, because the complaint failed to adequately plead that at least five of the nine board members at the time the suit was filed faced a substantial likelihood of liability.

On March 7, 2022, Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to stay a putative class action brought by legacy stockholders of DiamondPeak Holding Corp., a special purpose acquisition company (“SPAC”), alleging that its directors and controlling stockholders breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the SPAC’s acquisition of Lordstown Motors Corp. (“Legacy LMC”).  In re Lordstown Motors Corp. Stockholders Litigation, CA. No. 2021-1066-LWW (Del. Ch. March 10, 2022) (the “Delaware Action”).  Plaintiffs alleged that  defendant directors failed to disclose certain information about Legacy LMC’s business and that the SPAC’s controlling stockholders pursued the acquisition to advance their own interests to the detriment of minority stockholders.  Defendants argued that the Delaware Action should be stayed pending resolution of an earlier-filed securities class action (the “Securities Action”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.  The Court declined to grant the stay, reasoning that application of Delaware fiduciary duty law to SPACs “raises emerging issues” and that the Court’s “essential role in providing guidance in developing areas of our law would be impaired if the court were to denude its jurisdiction because a federal securities action resting on similar facts was filed first.”

On February 14, 2022, Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will of the Delaware Court of Chancery entered judgment in favor of Lee Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) and its directors following an expedited trial on claims for breach of the Company’s bylaws and the directors’ fiduciary duties.  Strategic Investment Opportunities LLC v. Lee Enterprises, Inc., C.A. No. 2021-1089-LWW (Del. Ch. Feb. 14, 2022).  Plaintiff, a beneficial stockholder, sought declaratory and injunctive relief to allow its nomination of directors—attempted in conjunction with a takeover bid by plaintiff—to move forward.  The Court found that plaintiff did not comply with advance notice requirements for director nominations in the Company’s “clear and unambiguous” bylaws.  Applying “enhanced scrutiny,” the Court also concluded that the board did not breach fiduciary duties by rejecting plaintiff’s nomination based on “a validly adopted bylaw with a legitimate corporate purpose.”

On February 14, 2022, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss a post-closing damages action for breaches of fiduciary duty brought by former stockholders of Authentix Acquisition Company, Inc. (“Authentix” or the “Company”), rejecting defendant’s claim that stockholders waived the right to bring suit.  Manti Holdings, LLC v. Carlyle Grp. Inc., C.A. No. 2020-0657-SG, (Del. Ch. Feb. 14, 2022).  The Court concluded that language in a Stockholders Agreement consenting to the transaction was not sufficiently specific to waive the stockholders’ right to challenge the sale.

On January 21, 2022, Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a derivative lawsuit brought by a stockholder of GrafTech International Ltd. (the “Company”) against the Company’s directors and the Company’s controlling stockholder, Brookfield Asset Management (“Brookfield”), in connection with the Company’s repurchase of shares from Brookfield.  Simons v. Brookfield Asset Mgmt., C.A. No. 2020-0841-KSJM (Del. Ch. Jan. 21, 2022).  The Court held that the demand was not excused because five of the nine board members were capable of impartially considering a litigation demand under the recently affirmed Zuckerberg “universal test.”  United Food & Com. Workers Union v. Zuckerberg, 250 A.3d 862 (Del. Ch. 2020).

On January 31, 2022, Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery partially granted a protective order brought by Zoox, Inc. (“respondent” or “Zoox”) limiting discovery requests by stockholders in a post-merger appraisal proceeding. Wei v. Zoox, Inc., C.A. No. 2020-1036-KSJM (Del. Ch. Dec. 07, 2020). The Court concluded that the “real purpose” of the discovery was “to facilitate a pre-suit investigation of a fiduciary duty claim,” therefore, discovery would be limited to information petitioners could have obtained in a typical action to inspect a company’s books and records.

On January 10, 2022, Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will held that shares of defendant Matterport Inc. (“New Company”) issued to plaintiff in connection with the acquisition of Matterport Operating, LLC (“Legacy Company”) by a special purpose acquisition company (“SPAC”) in a “de-SPAC” merger were not subject to a transfer restriction in the New Company’s bylaws.  As part of the transaction, Legacy Company stockholders, including plaintiff, were given the right to receive shares of the New Company.  Prior to closing, the SPAC adopted a bylaw that restricted the transfer by such stockholders of shares “held . . . immediately following the closing” of the transaction.  After a two-day trial, the Court found that plaintiff was not issued shares of the New Company until more than three months after the merger when he executed letters of transmittal to the transfer agent.  Concluding that the “plain language” of the bylaw was “straightforward,” and that plaintiff had not held shares “immediately” following the merger, the Court granted declaratory relief in favor of plaintiff.

On December 15, 2021, Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed stockholder derivative claims for breaches of fiduciary duty asserted on behalf The Kraft Heinz Company (the “Company”) against an investment firm (the “Investment Firm”) that had previously held 24.2% of the Company’s shares, as well as against certain alleged dual fiduciaries of the two entities.  In re Kraft Heinz Company Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 2019-0587-LWW (Del. Ch. Dec. 15, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants sold $1.2 billion in Company stock on the basis of nonpublic information that the Company was expected to miss its full-year earnings target by $700 million.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to establish demand futility because the complaint did not raise a reasonable doubt that a majority of the Company’s board members lacked independence from defendants.

On January 3, 2022, Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will of the Delaware Court of Chancery largely denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action brought by the stockholders of Churchill Capital Corp. III, a special purpose acquisition company or “SPAC” (“Churchill”) alleging that the company’s controlling stockholder, officers, and directors (“the Company Defendants”) breached their fiduciary duties and the company’s financial advisor aided and abetted that breach in connection with the SPAC’s acquisition of MultiPlan, Inc. (“MultiPlan”).  In re MultiPlan Corp. Stockholders Litig., C.A. No. 2021-0300-LWW (Del. Ch. Jan. 3, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants omitted to disclose that a large customer of MultiPlan would soon stop using MultiPlan’s services, allegedly causing stockholders to approve the merger based on faulty information.  Defendants argued that the claim was derivative in nature, rather than one that could be asserted directly, and moved to dismiss for failure to plead demand futility and on the grounds that the business judgment rule applied.  The Court held that plaintiffs’ claims were direct, rather than derivative, and that entire fairness applied because of what it found to be inherent conflicts of interest between defendants and the company’s public stockholders.

On November 23, 2021, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed stockholder derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the directors of Wayfair, Inc. (the “Company”).  Equity-League Pension Tr. v. Great Hill Partners, C.A. No. 2020-0992-SG (Del. Ch. Nov. 23, 2021).  Plaintiff challenged the sale by the Company of $535 million in convertible notes at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic to a consortium of investors allegedly tied to four of the Company’s directors, including the two co-chairmen, one of whom was also the CEO.  There was no dispute that two of the nine board members were disinterested and independent.  As to three others, plaintiff alleged that their service on the audit committee presented a substantial likelihood of liability because it was charged with reviewing conflicted transactions.  Highlighting that the Company’s charter exculpated directors for breaches of the duty of care, however, the Court explained that the complaint must therefore plead bad faith, which it referred to as a “rara avis.”  Although the Court acknowledged that the transaction was not a “model of best practices,” it found that the complaint and the documents incorporated by reference therein did not support an inference of bad faith.

On October 29, 2021, Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duties brought by stockholders of BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. (the “Company”).  Drachman v. BioDelivery Scis. Int’l, Inc., C.A. No. 2019-0728-LWW (Del. Ch. Aug. 25, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the board improperly adopted two amendments to the Company’s certificate of incorporation.  Plaintiffs made a pre-suit demand on the board requesting that it deem the amendments ineffective and indicating they would otherwise commence litigation.  The board responded by noting that it had determined the demand was “without merit.”  The Court held that plaintiffs adequately pleaded wrongful refusal because the allegations raised a reasonable doubt as to the good faith of the board in “rebuffing” the demand.

On September 20, 2021, in a decision authored by Justice Karen L. Valihura, the Delaware Supreme Court sitting en banc reversed the denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty claims brought by former stockholders of TerraForm Power, Inc. (the “Company”).  Brookfield Asset Management, Inc. v. Rosson, No. 406, 2020, 2021 WL 4260639 (Del. Sept. 20, 2021).  As we discussed in our prior post, plaintiffs alleged that a private placement of stock to the Company’s controlling stockholder at a price that undervalued the shares diluted the financial and voting interest of the minority stockholders.  The trial court found that the claims were nearly identical to corporate overpayment claims asserted by former stockholders and upheld as “direct”—rather than “derivative”—by the Delaware Supreme Court in Gentile v. Rossette, 906 A.2d 91 (Del. 2006).  Reversing, the Delaware Supreme Court reaffirmed the “classic” test for distinguishing stockholder “derivative” claims from “direct” claims established in Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc., 845 A.2d 1031 (Del. 2004), and expressly overruled Gentile and its carve-out from Tooley.

On September 23, 2021, in a decision authored by Justice Tamika Montgomery-Reeves, the Delaware Supreme Court sitting en banc affirmed the dismissal of a derivative complaint filed by a stockholder of Facebook, Inc. (the “Company”) against the CEO, who is also the founder, controlling stockholder and chairman of the board, as well as certain other directors.  United Food and Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Fund v. Zuckerberg, et al., No. 404, 2020 (Del. Sept. 23, 2021).  Plaintiff asserted that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by improperly approving a stock reclassification allegedly for the benefit of the CEO, which though ultimately abandoned resulted in litigation and settlement costs.  The Court concluded that the Delaware Court of Chancery properly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failing to make a pre-suit demand on the board.  In so holding, the Court adopted a refined test for demand futility and also determined that exculpated claims cannot excuse demand because they do not entail a substantial likelihood of liability.

On September 7, 2021, Vice Chancellor Morgan T. Zurn of the Delaware Court of Chancery largely denied a motion to dismiss a stockholder derivate suit against the directors of The Boeing Company (the “Company”) in the wake of two fatal crashes of an airplane it manufactured.  In re The Boeing Co. Derivative Litigation, No. 2019-0907-MTZ (Del. Ch. Sept. 7, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the board breached its fiduciary duty of oversight under Caremark by failing to ensure adequate safety and quality control.  The Court found that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded that the board failed to establish board-level reporting systems related to “mission critical” airplane safety and did not adequately respond to red flags, including media reports about the crashes.  Accordingly, the Court held that the complaint demonstrated that the directors faced a substantial likelihood of liability and that pre-suit demand on the board was excused.

On August 16, 2021, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed breach of fiduciary duty and other claims brought by a stockholder of Genomic Health, Inc. (the “Company”) in connection with its acquisition by Exact Sciences Corp.  Flannery v. Genomic Health Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2020-0492-JRS (Del. Ch. Aug. 16, 2021).  The Court held that the transaction did not violate Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) § 203, entire fairness did not apply because there was no conflicted controlling stockholder, and enhanced scrutiny under Revlon did not apply because the merger was not a change in control transaction.  Accordingly, the Court found that plaintiff failed to overcome the presumption of the business judgment rule.

On July 23, 2021, Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied defendants’ motion to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty claims brought by a putative class of minority stockholders of Empire Resorts, Inc. (the “Company”) challenging the Company’s take-private acquisition by the Company’s majority shareholder.  The MH Haberkorn 2006 Trust v. Empire Resorts, Inc., C.A. No. 2020-0619 (Del. Ch. Jul. 23, 2021) (Transcript).  Plaintiffs alleged that a special committee approved the deal even though it undervalued the Company and asserted claims against officers, directors, the controlling shareholder and certain of their affiliates.  Defendants argued that the transaction complied with the procedural protections necessary for deferential review—under the business judgment standard—of a merger process involving a controller pursuant to Kahn v. M & F Worldwide Corp., 88 A.3d 635 (Del. 2014) (“MFW ”).  But the Court found the complaint adequately pleaded “deficiencies” in the MFW conditions, including that they were not “irrevocable.”  Therefore, the Court applied the entire fairness standard and found that defendants did not show “conclusively” at the pleading stage that the transaction was entirely fair.

On July 15, 2021, Vice Chancellor Morgan T. Zurn of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion by stockholders of OptimisCorp (the “Company”) to dismiss claims brought by the Company against them for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment for failing to turn over to the Company a derivative arbitration award that they won in their capacity as derivative plaintiffs.  OptimisCorp v. Atkins, C.A. No. 2020-0183-MTZ (Del. Ch. June 1, 2021).  After succeeding in the derivative case against another stockholder—who had been the Company’s outside counsel and a “confederate” of the Company’s CEO—defendants allegedly escrowed the award with intentions to distribute it to certain stockholders but exclude their adversaries.  At an earlier stage in this action, the Court directed defendants to transfer the award to the Company.  In this decision, the Court held that defendants “owed fiduciary duties to the Company and its stockholders with respect to the corporate asset entrusted to them” and the Company adequately alleged that defendants “breached their duty of loyalty by withholding the Award out of animus toward [the CEO] and the Company, and to benefit themselves.”

On June 28, 2021, in an en banc opinion authored by Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz, Jr., the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a decision by the Delaware Court of Chancery, which had upheld a contested stock sale by the board of UIP Companies, Inc. (the “Company”).  Coster v. UIP Cos., Inc., No. 49, 2020 (Del. June 28, 2021).  Plaintiff was one of the Company’s two equal stockholders.  Plaintiff alleged that defendant, the other stockholder, who was also the board chairman, and the two other directors voted to issue stock to one of them in order to dilute plaintiff’s ownership interest.  The Court of Chancery found that the board approved the stock sale at a fair price and through a fair process.  Reversing and remanding, the Delaware Supreme Court held that—although the sale may have satisfied its entire fairness review—“inequitable action does not become permissible simply because it is legally possible.”  The Delaware Supreme Court further held that, if the board acted for the “primary purpose of thwarting” the stockholder’s vote or reducing her leverage as an equal stockholder—even in good faith—the board must demonstrate a “compelling justification.”

On June 28, 2021, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a derivative lawsuit brought by a stockholder of FedEx Corporation (the “Company”) against the Company’s directors for failure to plead that pre-suit demand on the board would have been futile. Pettry v. Smith, et al., No. 2019-0795-JRS (Del. Ch. June 28, 2021).  Plaintiff primarily alleged that defendants breached their Caremark duties by failing to oversee the Company’s compliance with laws governing the transportation and delivery of cigarettes.  The Court, however, concluded that the complaint did not plead particularized facts demonstrating that a majority of the board faced a substantial likelihood of liability.

On June 21, 2021, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed breach of fiduciary duty claims brought by stockholders of Oracle Corporation (the “Company”) against two of its officer-directors in connection with its acquisition of NetSuite, Inc., but upheld a claim against the chairperson of the special committee that had been established to evaluate the transaction.  In Re Oracle Corp. Deriv. Litig., C.A. No. 2017-0337-SG (Del. Ch. June 21, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the acquisition was a “controlled self-dealing transaction” in which the Company overpaid for the target to the benefit of the entities’ common founder, who allegedly controlled both.  As discussed in a prior post, the Court previously dismissed claims for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty that had been asserted against the target’s CEO and Chairman.  Finding that the complaint failed to plead facts demonstrating gross negligence or disloyalty, the Court dismissed fiduciary-duty breach claims against two officer-directors.  The Court, however, found the complaint adequately alleged that it is “reasonably conceivable” that the director on the special committee was “not independent” of the founder and “actively participated in the formulation” of the transaction to advance the alleged controller’s interest.

On June 1, 2021, Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied defendants’ motion to dismiss a stockholder derivative action against the founders of Tilray, Inc. (the “Company”) for breach of fiduciary duties in connection with a merger with Privateer Holdings, Inc., a parent entity through which the Company’s founders had maintained their holdings.  In re Tilray, Inc. Reorganization Litig., C.A. No. 2020-0137-KSJM (Del. Ch. June 1, 2021).  The alleged purpose of the merger was to effect a reorganization of the business to mitigate expected federal capital gains tax consequences that the founders would incur in connection with the anticipated divestment of their holdings.  The Court found that the Company’s three founders constituted a control group and that the reorganization constituted a self-dealing transaction subject to entire fairness review.  The Court also found that demand on the board would have been futile as a majority of the board was conflicted.

On May 10, 2021, Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a motion to dismiss claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment brought by former stockholders of Voltari Corporation, challenging the take-private buyout of the company by its controlling stockholder.  Franchi, et al. v. Firestone, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0503-KSJM (Del. Ch. May 10, 2021).  In an effort to comply with the procedural protections necessary for deferential review of a merger process involving a controller—under Kahn v. M & F Worldwide Corp., 88 A.3d 635 (Del. 2014) (“MFW”)—the buyout offer was conditioned on approval by an independent special committee and a fully informed majority of the company’s minority stockholders.  Nevertheless, plaintiffs claimed that the purchase price did not account for the value of the company’s net operating loss carryforwards and therefore the controller and the company’s directors breached their fiduciary duties.  The Court, however, held that defendants were entitled to the benefit of the business judgment rule under MFW because plaintiffs did not adequately plead (i) a lack of independence as to the members of the special committee; (ii) that the committee acted with gross negligence in approving the merger; or (iii) that the proxy in connection with the stockholder vote failed to disclose material facts.

On April 30, 2021, then-Vice Chancellor Kathaleen S. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted sellers specific performance in a breach of contract action against buyers KCAKE and Kohlberg Funds, arising out of the sale of DecoPac Holdings Inc. (“DecoPac”).  Snow Phipps Group, LLC., et al. v. KCake Acquisition, Inc., et al., 2020-0282-KSJM (Del. Ch. Apr. 30, 2021).  The Court found that DecoPac had not suffered a Material Adverse Event (“MAE”) and had complied with its ordinary course of business covenant, but that the buyers breached the purchase agreement because they had not used reasonable best efforts to secure the debt financing necessary to close the deal and their actions had caused the debt financing to become unavailable.

On March 30, 2021, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard dismissed a derivative suit brought by a stockholder of LendingClub Corporation (the “Company”) against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers for failure to plead demand futility.  Fisher v. Sanborn, et al., No. 2019-0631-AGB (Del. Ch. March 30, 2020).  Plaintiff asserted breach of fiduciary duty claims against defendants after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against the Company for allegedly violating certain consumer protection laws by engaging in deceptive and unfair practices in connection with its lending business.  Specifically, plaintiff alleged that defendants (i) breached their oversight duties by failing to monitor and oversee the Company’s compliance with consumer protection laws, and (ii) misrepresented the subject of the FTC investigation.  The Court, however, found the complaint did not adequately plead that defendants failed to implement a monitoring system relevant to consumer protection law compliance or consciously disregard indications of noncompliance, as required to be alleged under Caremark.  The Court also found that the complaint did not adequately plead that defendants “deliberately lied to investors.”  The Court therefore held that the complaint did not demonstrate that the directors faced a substantial likelihood of liability and thus pre-suit demand on the board was not excused. 
 

On February 26, 2021, Vice Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery entered judgment in favor of stockholder plaintiffs against the directors of energy corporation The Williams Companies, Inc. and invalidated a stockholder rights plan—or “poison pill”—adopted by the corporation.  In re The Williams Cos. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 2020-0707-KSJM (Del. Ch. Feb. 26, 2021).  The board adopted the poison pill to deter stockholder activism in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and a global oil price war.  Finding after a trial that the rights plan was not proportional to any legitimate threat identified, the Court held that the directors breached their fiduciary duties, declared the plan unenforceable, and permanently enjoined its operation.
 

On January 29, 2021, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied in part a motion to dismiss class action claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the CEO and Chairman of Presidio, Inc. (“Presidio”), its directors, and its controlling stockholder, as well as aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against its financial advisor and BC Partners Advisors LP (“BCP”).  The suit was brought by a former Presidio stockholder in connection with BCP’s 2019 acquisition of Presidio.  Firefighters’ Pension Sys. of the City of Kansas City, Missouri Trust v. Presidio, Inc., C.A. No. 2019-0839-JTL, 2021 WL 298141 (Del. Ch. Jan. 29, 2021).  The Court found that plaintiff adequately alleged that Presidio’s financial advisor and CEO “steered the sale process” toward a bidder who made an inferior offer, but that related claims against the board and controlling stockholder must be dismissed for failure to plead non-exculpated and money damages claims.

On December 10, 2020, in an en banc opinion authored by Justice Gary F. Traynor, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed a decision by the Delaware Court of Chancery ordering the production of books and records by AmerisourceBergen Corporation pursuant to a Section 220 inspection demand.  AmerisourceBergen Corporation v. Lebanon County Employees’ Retirement Fund, C.A. No. 60, 2020 (Del. Dec. 10, 2020).  Under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, a stockholder may inspect company records for a “proper purpose.”  A stockholder who seeks company records for the purpose of investigating corporate wrongdoing must establish a “credible basis” from which the court can infer that wrongdoing may have occurred.  Affirming the order of the Court of Chancery, the Delaware Supreme Court clarified that a stockholder who demonstrates such a credible basis “is not required in all cases to establish that the wrongdoing under investigation is actionable.”
 

On November 20, 2020, Vice Chancellor Morgan T. Zurn of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed stockholder derivative claims against the directors of Christopher & Banks Corporation.  Gottlieb v. Duskin, C.A. No. 2019-0639-MTZ (Del. Ch. Nov. 20, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by wrongfully enacting defensive measures to rebuff an unsolicited acquisition offer at a substantial premium to the company’s stock price even though the company was in “dire financial condition.”  The Court determined that the complaint pled facts sufficient to trigger enhanced scrutiny of the directors’ conduct under Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 493 A.2d 946 (Del. 1985), rather than the deferential business judgment rule.  Nevertheless, the Court held that the complaint did not sufficiently plead that the “directors face a substantial likelihood of bad-faith liability.”  Therefore, the Court granted the motion to dismiss for failure to plead that pre-suit demand on the directors was excused, as required for a derivative action under Delaware Court of Chancery Rule 23.1.
 

On October 30, 2020, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery upheld breach of fiduciary duty claims brought by former stockholders of TerraForm Power, Inc. (the “Company”) against its majority stockholder, CEO, and several directors.  In re TerraForm Power, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 2019-0757-SG (Del. Ch. Oct. 30, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company engaged in a private placement of stock to the controlling stockholder at a price that undervalued the shares that were issued.  Accordingly, plaintiffs contended that the transaction diluted the financial and voting interest of the minority stockholders.  Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing that such dilution claims are “quintessential derivative claims” that cannot be asserted by former stockholders.  Vice Chancellor Glasscock, however, denied the motion to dismiss under “controlling precedent” because the Delaware Supreme Court upheld similar claims by former stockholders in Gentile v. Rossette, 906 A.2d 91 (Del. 2006).
 

On October 2, 2020, Vice Chancellor Kathaleen S. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty claims brought by stockholders of Mindbody, Inc. (the “Company”) against two of its officers in connection with the Company’s $1.9 billion sale to a private equity firm.  In Re Mindbody, Inc., Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 2019-0442-KSJM (Del. Ch. Oct. 2, 2020).  Plaintiffs asserted that the Company’s founder-CEO/Chairman tilted the sale process toward the favored buyer, motivated by a need for liquidity and the prospect of post-merger employment with the firm.  In particular, plaintiffs alleged that the CEO orchestrated (i) the provision of reduced diligence information in a less timely fashion to other potential bidders, and (ii) the lowering of earnings guidance to depress the stock price and make the Company a more attractive target to the favored firm while enhancing the premium apparent to stockholders.  The Court found the allegations sufficient to support a “paradigmatic Revlon claim” and the determination at the pleading stage that the proxy was materially misleading such that the alleged breach was not cleansed under Corwin.
 

On September 30, 2020, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard dismissed a derivative suit brought by stockholders of TrueCar, Inc. (the “Company”) against certain of its officers and directors (along with allegedly related entities) asserting breaches of fiduciary duty, insider trading, unjust enrichment, contribution and indemnification, as well as aiding and abetting.  In Re TrueCar, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 2019-0672-AGB (Del. Ch. Sept. 30, 2020).  According to the complaint, the Company operated an internet platform designed to facilitate purchases of cars that allegedly depended on consumer traffic directed to TrueCar by its “affinity partners.”  The gravamen of the claims was that defendants did not disclose in the Company’s SEC filings that an impending redesign of the website of its most significant affinity partner would negatively impact the Company’s business and that certain defendants and their alleged affiliates engaged in stock sales before the public disclosure of this allegedly adverse development.  Dismissing the suit in its entirety, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to plead “particularized facts sufficient to impugn the ability” of any of the directors to consider a pre-suit demand because the allegations did not demonstrate that the directors learned of the development or ignored any red flags before the challenged disclosures and stock sales.
 

On August 31, 2020, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed breach of fiduciary duty claims asserted against the directors of USG Corporation by former stockholders following its acquisition by a privately held German manufacturer of building materials.  In re USG Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 2018-0602-SG (Del. Ch. Aug. 31, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants failed to secure maximum value for their shares in connection with the merger and sought damages, including by way of quasi-appraisal.  Even though an overwhelming majority of the disinterested stockholders approved the sale, the Court declined to dismiss the claims based on Corwin cleansing because plaintiffs had adequately pleaded that the proxy was materially misleading.  Nevertheless, the Court granted the motion to dismiss because USG’s corporate charter exculpated the directors, and plaintiffs failed to adequately allege bad faith or disloyalty as required to plead a non-exculpated claim.
 

On August 17, 2020, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss claims brought by stockholders of Coty Inc. (the “Company”) against its directors and affiliates of its alleged controller.  In re Coty, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 2019-0336-AGB (Del. Ch. Aug. 17, 2020).  Plaintiffs claimed that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by initiating and approving a tender offer in which the alleged controller increased its holdings from 40% to 60% allegedly at an unfair price and through an unfair process.  Four of the nine director defendants, who were associated with the alleged controller (the “Controller Directors”), recused themselves from the board vote to recommend the tender offer and approve a related stockholders agreement.  Nevertheless, the Court held that the “abstention defense” is “not absolute and often implicates factual questions that cannot be resolved on the pleadings.”  As to all defendants, the Court upheld the claims even of stockholders that did not tender their shares because a de facto controller may “obtain real benefits from securing mathematical control of a corporation in a transaction and, as a corollary, . . . other stockholders of the corporation potentially may suffer harm as a result of such a transaction.” 
 

In July 2020, shareholders filed three separate but substantially similar derivative suits in U.S. district courts in California against certain directors and officers of three major technology companies, asserting claims related to alleged failures to uphold commitments to diversity.Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to ensure diversity in particular at the board and executive levels, as well as violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged misrepresentations about the companies’ commitments to diversity.In addition to monetary damages, the complaints seek to compel the companies to advance several wide-ranging proposals regarding diversity initiatives for shareholder votes.
 

On June 26, 2020, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed breach of fiduciary duty claims brought against former officers and directors of Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. (“Old Fox”) in connection with a transaction in which it spun off part of its business into a new public company, Fox Corporation (“New Fox”), and sold the rest of its business to The Walt Disney Company in a merger (the “Transaction”).  Brokerage Jamie Goldenberg Komen Rev Tru U/A 06/10/08 Jaime L Komen Tr. for the Benefit of Jamie Goldenberg Komen v. Breyer, No. 2018-0773-AGB (Del. Ch. June 26, 2020).  According to the complaint, the compensation committee of Old Fox approved an incentive compensation program in connection with the Transaction, including an alleged $82.4 million in stock awards granted to Old Fox’s three top executives, who were allegedly the company’s controlling stockholders and collectively owned shares worth over $11.7 billion.  Plaintiff was a stockholder of Old Fox that became a stockholder of New Fox in the Transaction.  Plaintiff alleged that it was unnecessary and wasteful to approve any “incentive” compensation for these alleged controller-executives because they “already were highly incentivized to pursue and implement the transaction given their collective holdings.”  The Court held that plaintiff’s claims were derivative because they challenged a compensation decision by the board of Old Fox and did not adequately plead that the Transaction was “tainted by unfair dealing.”  The Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims for lack of standing because plaintiff was not a stockholder of New Fox at the time of the alleged misconduct and, therefore, could not satisfy the continuous ownership requirement for derivative claims.
 

On June 30, 2020, in an en banc opinion authored by Justice Karen L. Valihura, the Supreme Court of Delaware reversed the Delaware Court of Chancery’s dismissal of a stockholder lawsuit arising out of the merger between Towers Watson & Co. (“Towers”) and Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company (“Willis”).  City of Fort Myers Gen. Emps.’ Pension Fund v. Haley, C.A. 2018-0132-KSJM (Del. June 30, 2020).  As we discussed in our prior post, plaintiffs, who had been stockholders of Towers, alleged that the CEO of Towers breached his fiduciary duty of loyalty by negotiating the merger without adequately disclosing to the rest of the Towers board a compensation proposal he had received from Willis’s second-largest stockholder, whose co-founder and Chief Investment Officer served on the Willis board.  Reversing, the Delaware Supreme Court found that plaintiffs adequately pleaded facts sufficient to rebut the business judgment rule.
 

On June 22, 2020, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a motion to dismiss a derivative claim for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty brought by stockholders of Oracle Corporation against the CEO and Chairman of NetSuite, Inc., in connection with alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Oracle’s directors arising from its acquisition of NetSuite.  In Re Oracle Corp. Deriv. Litig., C.A. No. 2017-0337-SG (Del. Ch. June 22, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants had aided and abetted breaches by Oracle’s directors by failing to disclose in NetSuite’s public filings certain aspects of the negotiations that allegedly would have alerted Oracle’s special committee for the merger to the fact that Oracle was overpaying.  The Court acknowledged the “incongruity” of plaintiffs’ theory that fiduciaries of a target whose obligation to their stockholders is to “maximize price” could be held liable for aiding and abetting the acquirer’s fiduciaries by not disclosing information that would have led the latter to “scuttle” a deal favoring the target.  The Court suggested that there could be such a case—in the Court’s language, “in the infinite garden of theoretical inequity, such a flower may bloom”—but this is not it.  Instead, the Court held that it was not reasonably conceivable that the difference between what was disclosed and what plaintiffs alleged should have been disclosed constituted “substantial assistance”—a necessary element for aiding and abetting—to the acquirer’s fiduciaries in their alleged breaches.
 

On May 4, 2020, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled in a post-trial opinion that a controlling investor’s efforts to accumulate cash in anticipation of its preferred stock redemptions were entirely fair.  Frederick Hsu Living Trust v. ODN Holding Corp., No. 12108-VCL (Del. Ch. May 4, 2020).  Plaintiff, a common stockholder of ODN Holding Corporation, alleged that the private equity firm that held a controlling interest—including a majority of the common stock and a series of preferred stock—along with the company’s directors and officers, breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in a cash accumulation strategy, rather than seeking to enhance the company’s long-term growth.  Having previously sustained plaintiff’s claims at the pleadings stage, the Court held that defendants proved at trial that their conduct was entirely fair and entered judgment in favor of defendants.
 

On April 28, 2020, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III granted a motion to dismiss a derivative action alleging claims of breach of fiduciary duty and improper trading brought by stockholders of GoPro, Inc. against certain of the company’s current and former directors and officers.  In re GoPro, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 018-0784-JRS (Del. Ch. April 28, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants failed to disclose that the company’s revenue guidance was unachievable in light of emerging problems with a product launch.  Dismissing the claims, the Court held that the complaint did not plead with particularity that a majority of the board faced a substantial risk of liability, and therefore, rejected plaintiffs’ contention that pre-suit demand on the board to sue was excused as futile.  Specifically, the Court found that the board presentations incorporated by reference into the complaint revealed that management regularly advised the board that the company was still on track to meet the revenue guidance.  As the Court explained, the board was “under no obligation to disclose what it did not know or did not believe to be true.”
 

On February 26, 2020, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty claims brought by former shareholders of AmTrust, Inc., challenging the take-private buyout of the company by its controlling stockholders and a private equity firm.  In re AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 2018-0396-AGB (Del. Ch. Feb. 26, 2020).  In an effort to comply with the procedural protections necessary for deferential review of a merger process involving a controller—under Kahn v. M & F Worldwide Corp., 88 A.3d 635 (Del. 2014) (“MFW”)—the buyout group conditioned its offer on approval by an independent special committee and a fully informed majority of the company’s minority stockholders.  Plaintiffs challenged the independence of three of four members of the special committee because the buyout allegedly was expected to extinguish their potential liability in a pre-existing derivative action.  The Court held that the MFW requirement of “independent” special committee approval “was intended to ensure not only that members of a special committee must be independent in the sense of not being beholden to a controlling stockholder, but also that the committee members must have no disabling personal interest in the transaction at issue.”  Therefore, the Court found the transaction subject to entire fairness rather than business judgment review and denied the motion to dismiss as to the controlling stockholders and their affiliated directors.
 

On January 13, 2020, in an opinion authored by Justice Karen L. Valihura, the Supreme Court of Delaware held that defendants—two investment trusts—were permitted to disqualify the board nominees of a plaintiff shareholder for missing a deadline in the trusts’ bylaws to respond to board requests for additional information.  Blackrock Credit Allocation Income Trust v. Saba Capital Master Fund Ltd., C.A. No. 2019-0416-MTZ (Del. Jan. 13, 2020).  The Supreme Court’s decision reversed in part a ruling by Vice Chancellor Morgan T. Zurn of the Delaware Court of Chancery that plaintiff’s nominees were improperly excluded.  Even though the requests for information may have exceeded the contemplated scope and plaintiff may have misread the bylaws and believed the deadline was inapplicable, the Delaware Supreme Court held that a rule that would excuse deadline non-compliance could “potentially frustrate the purpose of advance notice bylaws” intended to facilitate orderly meetings and election contests.

On January 13, 2020, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz, Jr., the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the dismissal by Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery of a stockholder derivative suit for lack of pre-suit demand.  McElrath v. Kalanick, et al., C.A. No. 2017-0888 (Del. Jan. 13, 2020).  As discussed in our post on the prior decision, plaintiff alleged that the directors of a technology company had breached fiduciary duties in connection with the approval of an acquisition, in particular as related to purported intellectual property infringement by the target.  Noting that the company had an exculpatory charter provision, the Delaware Supreme Court explained that the directors were insulated from due care violations and could only be liable for bad faith.  Referring to allegations that the board heard a presentation that summarized the transaction, reviewed the risk of litigation, generally discussed due diligence and asked questions, the Court found that the complaint raised an inference of a “functioning board” and did not reasonably suggest the board intentionally ignored relevant risks.  Thus, the Court affirmed the dismissal because a majority of the board was disinterested for purposes of pre-suit demand as it “had no real threat of personal liability.” 

On December 30, 2019, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed breach of fiduciary duty claims brought by former stockholders of Essendant Inc. after it was acquired in a tender offer and cash-out merger by a private equity firm.  In re Essendant Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 2018-0789-JRS (Del. Ch. Dec. 30, 2019).  The claims focused on Essendant’s decision to terminate a merger agreement providing for a stock-for-stock merger with Genuine Parts Co. (“GPC”) in favor of an all-cash deal offered by the private equity firm.  Plaintiffs’ central allegation was that Essendant’s directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to obtain the maximum value reasonably available.  Highlighting that Essendant’s charter contained an exculpatory provision, as authorized under 8 Del. C. § 102(b)(7), the Court explained that the claims against them could only be maintained if the complaint adequately pleaded a breach of the duty of loyalty.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient to show that Essendant’s board was dominated and controlled by the acquiror, or that a majority of the directors had acted in self-interest or bad faith.

On October 31, 2019, Vice Chancellor Kathaleen S. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a stockholder derivative suit against the directors of LendingClub Corporation for failure to plead demand futility.  In re LendingClub Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 12984-VCM (Del. Ch. Oct. 31, 2019).  Plaintiffs asserted breach of fiduciary duty claims against the directors after the company disclosed that it had self-reported certain alleged misconduct by the CEO and others to the SEC, as well as the problems that prompted the company’s internal investigation, the results of that investigation, and the company’s remediation efforts.  Plaintiffs alleged that the board did not adequately implement a system of controls or monitor company operations and “thus disabled itself from being informed of problems requiring its attention.”  Determining that the complaint did not allege facts demonstrating bad faith—as is necessary to prevail on a Caremark claim for violation of oversight duties—and, therefore, that a majority of the directors did not face a substantial risk of liability, the Court concluded that pre-suit demand was not excused.
 

On October 11, 2019, Vice Chancellor Kathaleen S. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed all but one claim arising out of an asset sale by Pro Performance Sports, LLC (“Pro Performance”) to private equity firm Implus Footcare LLC (“Implus”) in which the senior unitholder, venture capital fund Steelpoint Capital Partners, LP (“Steelpoint”), received all of the sale consideration.  JJS Ltd. et al., v. Steelpoint CP Holdings LLC et al., C.A. No. 2019-0072-KSJM (Del. Ch. Oct. 11, 2019).  The common unitholders challenged the sale, asserting that the LLC managers breached their fiduciary duties by structuring and approving the transaction and violated the terms of the LLC Agreement because the common unitholders were not permitted to vote as a separate class on approval of the sale.  The Court dismissed the claims based on the LLC Agreement, but sustained the fiduciary duty claim.
 

On September 30, 2019, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied defendants’ motion to dismiss a stockholder derivative action for breach of fiduciary duties in connection with BGC Partners, Inc.’s (“BGC”) acquisition of Berkeley Point Financial LLC.  In re BGC Partners, Inc. Deriv. Litig., C.A. No. 2018-0722-AGB (Del. Ch. Sept. 30, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that BGC’s CEO and Chairman was a controlling stockholder of both companies who purportedly disproportionately benefited from the transaction.  The Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that demand was “automatically” excused because the transaction was subject to entire fairness review as a result of the allegations regarding a purported controlling stockholder on both sides of the deal.  Nevertheless, based on its “holistic[]” review of the complaint’s allegations of the CEO’s alleged unilateral ability to remove directors, as well as his alleged relationships with a majority of the other directors, the Court held that the complaint adequately pleaded demand futility because the allegations created a reasonable doubt as to the independence of those directors.

On August 28, 2019, Vice Chancellor Kathaleen S. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a shareholder’s demand under 8 Del. C. § 220 to inspect the books and records of defendant GGP Inc. for the purpose of investigating potential mismanagement.  Kosinski v. GGP Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0540 (Del. Ch. Aug. 28, 2019).  Plaintiff’s demand stemmed from a merger in which defendant, a real estate company, was acquired by Brookfield Property Partners L.P., another real estate company that owned approximately one third of defendant’s common stock at the time.  Plaintiff contended that the buyer had been defendant’s de facto controlling shareholder and the procedural protections necessary for deferential review of a merger process involving a controller—under Kahn v. M & F Worldwide Corp., 88 A.3d 635 (Del. 2014) (“MFW”)—had not been implemented.  Following trial, the Court granted plaintiff’s Section 220 demand, holding that where procedural protections are absent, “it is possible that the transaction was not at arm’s length,” and finding that plaintiff had demonstrated facts that established a “credible basis” to investigate potential breaches of fiduciary duty.  But the Court noted that it was making an “exceptionally modest point” and not announcing a rule that noncompliance with MFW procedural protections “automatically supplies a credible basis.”

On July 29, 2019, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a stockholder derivative action asserting breaches of fiduciary duty claims against the directors of J.C. Penney Company, Inc. for failure to make a pre-suit demand on the board.  Rojas v. Ellison, C.A. No. 2018-0755-AGB (Del. Ch. July 29, 2019).  After the Los Angeles City Attorney initiated litigation against the company asserting violations of California’s consumer protection laws, plaintiff filed this derivative action alleging that the company’s directors consciously disregarded their responsibility to oversee the company’s compliance with laws governing price-comparison advertising.  Repeating past statements of the Court about the difficulty of proving director liability for a failure to monitor corporate affairs—known as a Caremark claim—Chancellor Bouchard determined that the complaint failed to plead facts demonstrating that the directors would face a substantial likelihood of personal liability.  In particular, the Court found that a settlement of a consumer class action suit without any admission of liability was not a “red flag” with respect to any ongoing violations of law.  Therefore, the Court concluded that pre-suit demand on the board was not excused. 

On July 25, 2019, Vice Chancellor Kathaleen S. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a stockholder suit challenging the $18 billion merger of equals between Towers Watson & Co. and Willis Group Holdings plc, finding that plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient to rebut the presumption of the business judgment rule.  In Re Towers Watson & Co. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 2018-0132-KSJM (Del. Ch. July 25, 2019).  Asserting claims for breaches of fiduciary duty, plaintiffs, who had been Towers Watson stockholders, argued that the company’s CEO did not properly disclose to the board a compensation proposal he had received from Willis’s second largest stockholder while the CEO was negotiating the merger.  But the Court found that the compensation proposal was ultimately immaterial and that the otherwise independent board members were well aware that the merger would likely lead to increased compensation for the CEO.  Noting that because the transaction was primarily a stock-for-stock merger, the Court explained that there was no dispute that the “business judgment rule presumptively applies,” and concluded that plaintiffs had failed to rebut that presumption. 

On July 15, 2019, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed an aiding and abetting claim asserted against a private equity buyer and its principals in a stockholder class action involving breach of fiduciary duty claims against the former CEO of a technology company in connection with its take-private sale to the private equity buyer.  In re Xura Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 12698-VCS (Del. Ch. July 12, 2019).  As we discussed in a prior post, Vice Chancellor Slights declined to dismiss a different stockholder’s breach of fiduciary duty claims against the former CEO based on his allegedly self-interested participation in the merger, but the Court dismissed aiding and abetting claims asserted against the buyer and its principals.  In re Xura, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 12698-VCS (Del. Ch. Dec. 11, 2018).  Ten days after this opinion was issued, a different stockholder filed a “nearly identical” complaint—this time asserting class action claims—raising “the same theories of aiding and abetting” that the Court had dismissed just days earlier.  In a separate summary order, the Court denied the former CEO’s motion to dismiss this new complaint.  In this decision, the Court dismissed the aiding and abetting claims for the same reason it did so in the prior suit—the complaint failed to include “well-pled allegations that [the buyer] ‘knowingly participated’ in the … alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.”

On June 18, 2019, in a decision authored by Chief Justice Leo E. Strine Jr., the Delaware Supreme Court en banc reversed the dismissal of a stockholder derivative suit against the directors and officers of Blue Bell Creameries USA, Inc. (the “Company”).  Marchand v. Barnhill, No. 533, 2018, (Del. June 18, 2019).  After a listeria outbreak at the ice cream manufacturer, the Company purportedly faced a liquidity crisis and accepted a dilutive private equity investment.  Plaintiff alleged that the CEO and vice president of operations breached their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty by disregarding contamination risks and that the directors breached their duty of loyalty under In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996).  As to the claims against the executives, the Court held that the complaint adequately pleaded demand futility because it alleged facts regarding the personal relationship of an additional director to the CEO sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the director could impartially consider a demand.  Reversing the dismissal of the Caremark claim, the Court found that “the complaint supports an inference that no system of board-level compliance monitoring and reporting existed at [the company].”
 

On June 13, 2019, Vice Chancellor Kathaleen S. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery largely denied a motion to dismiss a derivative action for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against directors and officers of a biosciences company (the “Company”) in connection with the alleged repricing of stock options shortly before the company announced the issuance of a “key” patent to its subsidiary.  Howland  v. Kumar, C.A. No. 2018-0804-KSJM (Del. Ch. June 13, 2019).  Plaintiff, a stockholder in the Company, alleged that the directors and officers were aware of the patent issuance yet delayed the public announcement until after the board’s compensation committee approved the reduction in the strike price of more than 2 million stock options primarily held by defendants.  The Court held that pre-suit demand on the board was excused, because a majority of the board was “interested by virtue of having received the repriced options.”  Applying an “entire fairness” standard of review, the Court found that it was reasonably conceivable from the pleadings that the process and price were unfair and, therefore, denied the motion to dismiss.  

On May 30, 2019, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a stockholder demand to inspect Facebook’s books and records in connection with their Caremark claims arising from alleged data privacy breaches.  In re Facebook, Inc. Section 220 Litig., C.A. No. 2018-0661-JRS (Del. Ch. May 30, 2019).  The Court concluded that, as a matter of law, it would be improper to assess the merits of plaintiffs’ Caremark claims in the context of a books-and-records demand and ruled that plaintiffs met the minimum burden of proof under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“Section 220”), noting that this standard was more easily met where, as here, the underlying claims allege the failure to prevent corporate violations of law, rather than challenging routine business operations.

On May 16, 2019, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed a judgment by Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery in favor of Potomac Capital Partners II, LP on claims by shareholder plaintiffs that the activist investor aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by the board of PLX Technology Inc. in connection with its acquisition by Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc.  In re PLX Technology Inc. S’holders Litig., C.A. No. 571, 2018 (Del. May 16, 2019).  As discussed in our post regarding that decision, the Court of Chancery found in a post-trial opinion that defendant had aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty but also concluded that plaintiffs failed to prove damages because the deal price likely exceeded the standalone value and no higher bidders had emerged.  On appeal, plaintiffs contended that the Court of Chancery erred in deciding the damages issue by importing principles from appraisal jurisprudence to give deference to the deal price.  In a summary order, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s “decision that the plaintiff-appellants did not prove that they suffered damages.”  The Court expressly declined to reach defendant’s arguments on cross-appeal that it had not aided and abetted any breaches of fiduciary duty because its affirmance on the damages issue “suffices to affirm the judgment.” 

On April 5, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part a decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery that had dismissed a stockholder challenge to an all-stock business combination between Earthstone Energy, Inc. (“Earthstone”) and Bold Energy III LLC (“Bold”).  Olenik v. Lodzinski et al., No. 392, 2018 (Del. April 5, 2019).  Plaintiffs claimed that Earthstone’s directors, officers, and Earthstone’s alleged controlling stockholder, Oak Valley Resources, LLC (“Oak Valley”), breached their fiduciary duties by entering into an unfair transaction that benefited Oak Valley and EnCap Investments, L.P. (“EnCap”), a private equity firm with majority stakes in both Bold and Oak Valley, at the expense of Earthstone and its minority stockholders.  As discussed in our prior post on the case, the Court of Chancery dismissed the case after concluding that the transaction was properly structured under Kahn v. M&F Worldwide, 88 A.2d 635 (Del. 2014) (“MFW”), and the business judgment rule applied.  On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed, finding that Earthstone initiated economic negotiations before the requisite MFW protections were put in place.  Accordingly, the Court reinstated the breach of fiduciary claim as to the terms of the transaction; the Court sustained dismissal of the disclosure-based claim.

On March 20, 2019, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed class action claims asserted by former shareholders of NCI, Inc. against its former directors for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the company’s acquisition by affiliates of H.I.G. Capital, LLC in a tender offer followed by a merger.  
English v. Narang, C.A. No. 2018-0221-AGB (Del. Ch. Mar. 20, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company’s founder, who held approximately 34% of the shares and controlled about 83.5% of the voting power, orchestrated a sale of the company at a discounted price to address a personal need for liquidity prompted by his retirement as the company’s CEO at age 73.  But the Court found that the complaint “contained no concrete facts from which it reasonably can be inferred that [the founder] had an exigent or immediate need for liquidity.”  Therefore, the Court applied Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015), and dismissed the claims because a majority of NCI’s disinterested stockholders tendered their shares in an uncoerced and fully-informed tender offer.

On April 1, 2019, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed for lack of demand a stockholder derivative suit against directors of Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) that asserted breach of fiduciary duty claims in connection with Uber’s acquisition of self-driving car startup Ottomotto, LLC (“Otto”).  McElrath v. Kalanick, et al., C.A. No. 2017-0888-SG (Del. Ch. April 1, 2019).  After Uber acquired Otto, which was founded by a former Google employee, Google sued for infringement and Uber paid $245 million to resolve the claims.  Plaintiff in McElrath claimed that the Uber board violated its duties by failing to adequately investigate the Otto transaction.

On March 11, 2019, Vice Chancellor Kathaleen S. McCormick enjoined a stockholder vote to approve the proposed combination of Medley Management, Inc. (“Medley Management”) with two affiliates it advised, Medley Capital Corporation (“Medley Capital”) and Sierra Income Corporation (“Sierra”).  Medley Capital stockholders FrontFour Capital Group LLC and FrontFour Master Fund, Ltd. (together, “FrontFour”) sued to suspend the vote until competing offers were solicited and additional proxy disclosures were made.  Plaintiffs alleged that the merger was not entirely fair because the two controlling stockholders of Medley Management controlled the deal process, and the process and the terms were unfair to Medley Capital, and further claimed that the proxy made inadequate disclosures; plaintiffs also asserted an aiding and abetting claim against Sierra.  After expedited litigation and trial, the Court enjoined the vote, ruling that corrective disclosures were necessary but that a go-shop period could not be required because Sierra’s rights under the transaction agreements would be negatively impacted.

On March 15, 2019, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to dismiss a derivative suit brought by minority stockholders of Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation (the “Company”) against the Company’s controlling stockholder, JBS S.A. (“Parent”), and five of the Company’s directors affiliated with Parent.  In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. Deriv. Litig., No. C.A. 2018-0058 (Del. Ch. Mar. 15, 2019).  Plaintiffs challenged the Company’s $1.3 billion acquisition of one of Parent’s other subsidiaries in a deal that Parent solicited, alleging that the Company did not engage in “true arm’s-length bargaining” and that it paid a price unsupported by the Company’s internal analyses.  Parent, an entity organized under Brazilian law, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The Court held that Parent “consented implicitly” to personal jurisdiction in Delaware “when its representatives on the Board participated in the vote to adopt [a Delaware] Forum-Selection Bylaw.”  The Court also found allegations of participation in the deal sufficient at the pleading stage to preclude dismissal of the claims against each of the Parent-affiliated directors, even though the board had delegated exclusive negotiation and approval authority to a special committee of independent directors.

On February 12, 2019, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a books and records demand of a mattress company’s (the “Company”) stockholder in connection with the termination of the Company’s contract with its largest customer and related litigation. Hoeller v. Tempur Sealy Int’l Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0336-JRS (Del. Ch. Feb. 12, 2019). Plaintiff sought the records pursuant to Delaware General Corporation Law Section 220, 8 Del. C. § 220, purportedly to investigate breaches of fiduciary duty by the board. Attempting to articulate his justification, plaintiff relied on what the Court referred to as a “where there’s smoke there’s fire syllogism” in plaintiff’s contention that such a significant customer does not “just leave” in the absence of board culpability. Rejecting the request, the Court held that a “smoke then fire circumstantial connection” does not provide the “credible basis” to suspect wrongdoing that is required to entitle a stockholder to inspect a corporation’s books and records.
 

On December 21, 2018, Vice Chancellor Morgan T. Zurn of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied plaintiff stockholder’s motion for summary judgment in an action to determine the board composition of SPAR Group, Inc. (“SGRP”) under 8 Del. C. § 255.  Brown v. Kellar, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0687-MTZ (Del. Ch. Dec. 21, 2018).  Plaintiff claimed that written consents delivered to the SGRP board by plaintiff and a fellow majority stockholder removed and replaced an incumbent director.  The defendant directors asserted that the consents were ineffective for two reasons:  (i) the majority stockholders were engaged in an inequitable scheme to divert corporate opportunities and entrench themselves as directors, and (ii) the company had not given notice of the written consents to minority stockholders.  The Court rejected plaintiff’s assertion that Delaware law prohibited the Court from considering the alleged inequitable conduct because it fell outside the proper scope of a § 225 action.  The Court also found, however, that the consents were effective upon delivery (unless inequitable conduct precluded replacement of the director) and ordered that trial proceed with respect to the equitable defenses raised by defendants.  
 

On December 11, 2018, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty claims against the former CEO of a technology company (the “Company”) in connection with its take-private sale to a private equity firm.  In re Xura, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 12698-VCS (Del. Ch. Dec. 11, 2018).  Plaintiff alleged that the CEO was conflicted by self-interest while he steered the Company into the transaction.  As a stockholder at the time of the transaction, plaintiff simultaneously pursued appraisal of its shares of the Company.  Defendant argued that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue breach of fiduciary duty claims in light of the pending appraisal petition and, in any event, the approval by the majority of the stockholders cleansed the transaction under Corwin v. KKR Fin. Hldgs. LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015).  The Court, however, held that a plaintiff seeking appraisal can nevertheless maintain breach of fiduciary duty claims related to the same transaction and that the alleged omission from the proxy of various information material to the stockholder vote precluded the application of the Corwin doctrine at the pleading stage.

On November 14, 2018, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a motion to dismiss a stockholder derivative suit asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims against certain directors of Richardson Electronics (the “Company”).  Busch v. Richardson Electronics, Ltd., C.A. No. 2017-0868-AGB (Del. Ch. Nov. 14, 2018).  The claims were based on allegations that the board improperly refused plaintiff’s demand to take action to unwind certain allegedly improper related-party transactions.  Plaintiff also asserted he was misled by the board about its involvement in the underlying transactions before he issued the litigation demand.  Therefore, according to plaintiff, the motion to dismiss should have been evaluated under the test applicable when demand is excused, as articulated in Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779 (Del. 1981), which does not entail the same broad deference to a board’s decision whether to bring claims as the standard typically applicable in demand-refused cases under Spiegel v. Buntrock, 571 A.2d 767 (Del. 1990).  The Court rejected the argument that the Zapata standard applied but concluded that under either test plaintiff’s claims were subject to dismissal. 

On November 20, 2018, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty brought by former stockholders of Tangoe, Inc. (the “Company”) against former members of its board of directors in connection with the take-private acquisition of the Company by a private equity buyer group in June 2017.  In Re Tangoe, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 2017-0650-JRS (Del Ch. Nov. 20, 2018).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants recommended an ill-advised and self-interested sale while a restatement of audited financials was pending and following the NASDAQ delisting of the Company.  Defendants contended that they were entitled to business judgment rule deference under Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015)—because a majority of stockholders tendered their shares—and that dismissal was also required because of an exculpatory charter provision pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 102(b)(7).  But the Court concluded that the alleged failures to provide adequate company financial information and to disclose the status of the restatement efforts precluded dismissal under Corwin.  The Court also found that plaintiffs adequately pled a non-exculpated claim for breach of the duty of loyalty, given the timing and structure of certain director compensation adjustments, which allegedly incentivized a change in control and supported an inference that defendants acted out of material self-interest.

On November 14, 2018, the New York State Appellate Division Second Judicial Department reversed the dismissal of a shareholder derivative suit against directors and officers of a U.K. company and certain of its affiliates asserting claims for breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the companies’ conduct underlying penalties and settlement agreements related to alleged sanctions violations.  Michael Mason-Mahon v. Douglas J. Flint, 602052/14 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 14, 2018).  

On October 16, 2018, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery found in a post-trial opinion that Potomac Capital Partners II, LP (“Potomac”), an activist investor, aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by the board of PLX Technology Inc. (“PLX”) in connection with its acquisition by Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc. (“Avago”), but entered judgment in favor of Potomac because plaintiffs failed to show causally related damages.  In re PLX Technology Inc. S’holders Litig., C.A. No. 9880-VCL (Del. Ch. Oct. 16, 2018).  After the deal closed, plaintiffs alleged that the sale process was unreasonably influenced by Potomac’s managing member, who became a director of PLX and chaired the special committee charged with exploring strategic alternatives for the company.  As discussed in our prior post, see Shearman & Sterling LLP, Declining To Find Enhanced Scrutiny Inapplicable To Post-Closing Damages Actions, Delaware Court Of Chancery Denies Motion For Summary Judgment, Need-to-Know Litigation Weekly, Feb. 21, 2018, https://www.lit-ma.shearman.com/declining-to-find-enhanced-scrutiny-inapplicable-, the Court previously denied a summary judgment motion filed by Potomac, finding that the PLX board’s actions in connection with the sale were subject to enhanced scrutiny and disputes of material fact existed as to whether the sale process was reasonable.  Following trial, the Court concluded that although Potomac aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by PLX’s board, plaintiffs had failed to prove damages because the deal price likely exceeded the standalone value and no higher bidders had emerged.

On October 9, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed a decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissing a lawsuit brought by stockholders of Synutra International Inc. (the “Company”) challenging a controlling stockholder’s takeover of the Company.  Flood v. Synutra Int’l, Inc., No. 101, 2018 (Del. Oct. 9, 2018).  Plaintiffs asserted breach of fiduciary duty claims and argued that the transaction did not meet the requirements of Kahn v. M&F Worldwide Corp., 88 A.3d 635 (Del. 2014) (“MFW”) for business judgment review because the controller group’s initial proposal did not contain the MFW conditions—recommendation by a special committee and approval by a majority of the disinterested stockholders—although they were added later.  As discussed in our prior post on this case, the Court of Chancery applied business judgment review (rather than entire fairness review) and dismissed the complaint because the controller announced the conditions before any negotiations took place.  Affirming, the Delaware Supreme Court confirmed that MFW does not require that the conditions be included in the controller’s first offer, but instead that the controller condition its offer on the two key procedural protections “early in the process—i.e., before any substantive economic negotiations begin.”  The Court also clarified that the sufficiency of the price is not subject to evaluation under the business judgment standard and affirmed the Court of Chancery’s finding that plaintiffs failed to allege that the Company’s special committee acted with gross negligence with respect to the negotiations.

On September 20, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing brought against the controlling unitholder and its affiliates on the board of a company that provides services to children with disabilities in connection with the sale of that company.  Miller v. HCP Trumpet Investments, LLC, No. 107, 2018 (Del. Sept. 20, 2018).  Pursuant to a waterfall set forth in the company’s operating agreement (the “OA”), the controlling investor was entitled to nearly all of the first $30 million in proceeds in the event of a sale.  The OA, which included an explicit waiver of fiduciary duties, provided that the board could approve a sale of the company to an independent third party and “determine in its sole discretion the manner in which [such sale] shall occur, whether as a sale of assets, merger, transfer of [m]embership [i]nterests or otherwise.”  After the company was sold for $43 million, minority members sued for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, arguing that it imposed an obligation to conduct an “open-market” sale process to ensure maximum value for all members.  Although the Delaware Supreme Court disagreed with the Delaware Court of Chancery’s holding that the implied covenant did not apply to the sale, the Court affirmed the dismissal on the basis that the implied covenant did not imply Revlon-type sale requirements.

On August 29, 2018, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied defendants’ motions to dismiss an amended complaint in a long-running lawsuit arising from a sale of an interest in a pipeline by a general partner to a master limited partnership in which it held a controlling interest.  Mesirov v. Enbridge Energy Co. Inc., C.A. No. 11314 (Del. Ch. Aug. 29, 2018).  Plaintiff, a common unitholder of a Delaware master limited partnership (the “MLP”), brought claims for breach of the MLP’s Limited Partnership Agreement (“LPA”) against the general partner (the “GP”), its parent, and other affiliates.  Plaintiff alleged that the GP acted in bad faith by purportedly selling the interest for $1 billion even though it had previously acquired the same interest from the MLP five years earlier for $800 million and earnings metrics had declined over the period by 20%.  As discussed in our previous post, Vice Chancellor Slights originally dismissed this suit in April 2016, but the Delaware Supreme Court reversed and remanded in March 2017, holding that bad faith was sufficiently pleaded.  Here, Vice Chancellor Slights denied the GP’s motion to dismiss claims for breach of the LPA, finding them to be duplicative of the claims in the motion rejected by the Delaware Supreme Court in 2017.  Vice Chancellor Slights also declined to dismiss new claims for aiding and abetting against the GP’s financial advisor, which had delivered a fairness opinion regarding the transaction.

On August 17, 2018, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied all of plaintiffs’ claims challenging a series of transactions culminating in the acquisition of defendant Design Within Reach, Inc. (“DWR”) by Herman Miller, Inc. (“HM”) in July 2014.  Charles Almond as Trustee for the Almond Family 2001 Trust v. Glenhill Advisors LLC, C.A. No. 10477-CB (Del. Ch. Aug. 17, 2018).  The claims related in large part to the documentation of a reverse stock split by DWR in 2010 that had the unintended effect of diluting the number of shares of common stock into which preferred stock could be converted by a factor of 50.  As this went unnoticed until after the merger, the preferred stock was converted into common stock as if there had been no error.  Plaintiffs, who were pre-merger minority stockholders of DWR, asserted various claims that defendants, including DWR’s controlling stockholder, thus improperly benefited from a greater percentage of equity and merger consideration than that to which they were legally entitled.  HM ratified the correction of the conversion factor (pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 204) and asserted a counterclaim for judicial validation of the defective corporate acts (under 8 Del. C. § 205).  Finding all relevant factors weighed “overwhelmingly in favor of judicial validation” the Court granted defendants’ request to validate the defective corporate acts and rejected plaintiffs’ claims.  Separately, the Court rejected breach of fiduciary duty claims unrelated to the merger.

On July 20, 2018, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a stockholder challenge to an all-stock business combination between Earthstone Energy, Inc. (“Earthstone”) and Bold Energy III LLC (“Bold”).  Olenik v. Lodzinski, et al., C.A. No. 2017-0414 (Del. Ch. July 20, 2018).  Plaintiffs claimed that Earthstone’s directors, officers, and an allegedly controlling stockholder, Oak Valley Resources, LLC (“Oak Valley”), breached their fiduciary duties by entering into an unfair transaction that benefited Oak Valley and EnCap Investments, L.P. (“EnCap”), a private equity firm with majority stakes in both Bold and Oak Valley, at the expense of Earthstone and its minority stockholders.  Plaintiffs argued that, because EnCap was a majority stockholder in Oak Valley, and thus also a beneficial controlling stockholder in Earthstone, as well as a majority stockholder in Bold, Oak Valley and EnCap stood on both sides of the transaction, making it unfair.  The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims, concluding that, because Earthstone structured the transaction in the manner prescribed by Kahn v. M&F Worldwide, 88 A.3d 635 (Del. 2014) (“MFW”), the business judgment rule standard of review applied.

On July 9, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed and remanded a decision by the Delaware Court of Chancery to dismiss stockholder class claims for breach of fiduciary duty brought against the former directors of The Fresh Market (TFM) after its acquisition in a two-step take-private merger by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC (“Apollo”).  Morrison v. Berry, No. 445, 2017 (Del. July 9, 2018).  As discussed in our prior post on this case, the Court of Chancery dismissed claims that the sale process undertaken by TFM was a “sham” designed by TFM’s founder to deliver the company into the hands of a favored suitor.  Specifically, the Court of Chancery concluded that the facts regarding the involvement of TFM’s founder with Apollo were adequately disclosed in connection with the tender offer—in which 68.2% of shares were tendered—and the deal was therefore subject to the deferential business judgment rule under Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015).  Finding that the complaint adequately alleged several “materially incomplete and misleading” disclosures, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed.

On June 18, 2018, Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss claims of breach of fiduciary duty brought by a putative class of minority stockholders of Hansen Medical Inc. (“Hansen”) against an alleged group of controlling stockholders, in connection with the squeeze-out merger of Hansen into Auris Surgical Robotics, Inc. (“Auris”). In re Hansen Medical, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 12316-VCMR (Del. Ch. June 18, 2018).

On June 8, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Delaware Court of Chancery’s dismissal of a putative class action challenging the merger of El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. (the “MLP”) with a subsidiary of its general partner, El Paso Pipeline GP Company, L.L.C. (the “GP”), all of which were controlled by defendant Kinder Morgan, Inc.

Read more.

On April 23, 2018, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed a decision by Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery appraising the shares of Clearwire Corporation at $2.13 per share, notwithstanding that Clearwire was acquired for $5.00 per share.  ACP Master, Ltd., et al. v. Sprint Corporation, et al. & ACP Master, Ltd., et al. v. Clearwire Corporation, C.A. No. 8508-VCL, C.A. No. 9042-VCL (Del. Apr. 23, 2018).  As discussed in our post regarding that decision, stockholder petitioners had challenged the merger of Clearwire with Sprint Nextel Corporation, alleging that Sprint had been a controlling shareholder of Clearwire prior to the transaction and had breached its fiduciary duties during merger negotiations.  Petitioners also sought appraisal, asserting that the $5.00 deal price substantially undervalued their shares.  As we highlighted previously, the Court of Chancery found no breach of fiduciary duties even under an entire fairness standard and determined that fair value of the shares amounted to $2.13, even though that price reflected nearly a 60% discount to the deal price.  With regard to the breach claims, the Court of Chancery concluded that instances of unfair dealing in an early phase of the process were “render[ed] immaterial” in light of subsequent arm’s-length negotiations and “overwhelming evidence” that the final deal price was fair.   As to the appraisal finding, the Court of Chancery explained that the appraisal statute requires the exclusion of “any synergies present in the deal price” and was persuaded by the discounted cash flow analysis offered by defendants’ expert.  The Delaware Supreme Court, sitting en banc, affirmed without issuing an opinion.

Read more

On March 23, 2018, Justice Charles E. Ramos of the Commercial Division of the New York Supreme Court dismissed with prejudice a purported derivative suit alleging that the board of Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Intercept”) breached their duty of loyalty and good faith and squandered corporate assets by approving, without a stockholder vote, a non-employee director compensation policy.  Solak v. Fundaro, No. 655205 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 23, 2018).  Though plaintiff sent a letter to Intercept prior to filing suit, demanding that the company take “all action necessary” to remedy the waste allegedly caused by the directors’ compensation policy, plaintiff argued that the letter was not a demand within the meaning of Delaware Court of Chancery Rule 23.1, and that demand would have been futile because self-compensation decisions are inherently conflicted transactions.  The Court held that plaintiff’s letter fulfilled all the requirements of a demand under Delaware law and that the board’s investigation of and response to the demand was sound under the business judgment rule.

Read more

On March 28, 2018, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss several derivative and class action claims brought by stockholders of Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) asserting that its directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with its acquisition of SolarCity.  In re Tesla Motors, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 12711-VCS (Del. Ch. Mar. 28, 2018).  Plaintiffs claimed the acquisition was an effort to rescue a distressed SolarCity to the detriment of Tesla stockholders, allegedly at the direction of Elon Musk, Tesla’s Chairman and CEO, who held 22.1% of Tesla’s common stock and was also SolarCity’s Chairman and largest stockholder.  Defendants contended that the claims were subject to dismissal pursuant to Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015), in light of the approval of the deal by a majority of Tesla’s disinterested stockholders.  Plaintiffs argued that Corwin was inapplicable because the acquisition allegedly involved a conflicted controlling stockholder.  Declining to dismiss the claims, the Court explained that, notwithstanding his minority stake, the allegations demonstrated “extraordinary influence” and the complaint adequately pleaded that Musk “exercised his influence as a controlling stockholder with respect to the [a]cquisition.” 

Read more

On March 9, 2018, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III, of the Delaware Court of Chancery, dismissed a stockholder class action complaint seeking damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by directors of Rouse Properties Inc. (“Rouse”) and its 33.5% stockholder, Brookfield Asset Management, Inc. (“Brookfield”), arising out of Rouse’s merger with Brookfield in 2016. In Re Rouse Properties, Inc. Fiduciary Litigation, C.A. No. 12194-VCS (Del. Ch. Mar. 9, 2018). Plaintiffs, pre-merger stockholders of Rouse, alleged that breaches of fiduciary duty by a special committee of the Rouse board that negotiated the deal, and Brookfield, as an alleged controlling stockholder, led to a transaction that grossly undervalued Rouse. The Court found that the complaint did not come even “remotely close” to pleading that Brookfield exercised the “managerial clout and retributive power to infer actual control.” Concluding that Brookfield was not a controlling stockholder, the Court dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claims against Brookfield and, in light of the approval of the deal by a majority of the disinterested stockholders, applied the business judgment rule in accordance with Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015), to dismiss the claims against the special committee directors as well.

Read more

On March 15, 2018, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Delaware Court of Chancery’s dismissal of a putative stockholder class action asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty and quasi-appraisal against the directors of Kreisler Manufacturing Corporation (“Kreisler”) in connection with Kreisler’s sale to Arlington Capital Partners (“Arlington”). Kahn v. Stern, No. 393, 2017 (Del. March 15, 2018). As discussed in our post regarding that decision, plaintiffs argued that merger consideration was improperly diverted into payments for two management directors. In a short order, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on the basis that the pled facts did not support a rational inference that these payments were improperly diverted. Kahn v. Stern, C.A. No. 12498-VCG (Del. Ch. Aug. 28, 2017). However, the Supreme Court expressed its disagreement with the Court of Chancery’s opinion “to the extent” that it “suggests that it is an invariable requirement that a plaintiff plead facts suggesting that a majority of the board committed a non-exculpated breach of its fiduciary duties in cases where Revlon duties are applicable, but the transaction has closed and the plaintiff seeks post-closing damages.” The Court noted that Revlon duties remain applicable notwithstanding an exculpatory charter provision even though directors may only be held liable for a non-exculpated breach of those duties.

Read more

On February 28, 2018, Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed claims against the directors of Orexigen Therapeutics Inc. (“Orexigen”) for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the company’s clinical drug trials.  Orexigen Therapeutics Inc. v. Michael A. Narachi, et al., C.A. No. 12412-VCMR (De. Ch. Feb. 28, 2018).  Plaintiffs asserted that the directors violated the law because they failed to follow best practices with respect to clinical trials; consequently, plaintiffs argued that demand was futile because a majority of the board faced substantial risk of liability.  The Court dismissed these claims, finding that the Company’s actions were not “so egregious or irrational” as to violate the business judgment rule and, accordingly, demand futility had not been adequately pleaded.

Read more

On February 20, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Leo E. Strine, Jr., reversed the dismissal of a suit brought by former stockholders of Diamond Resorts International (“Diamond”) challenging the company’s two-step cash-out merger.  Appel v. Berkman, No. 316, 2017 (Del. Feb. 20, 2018).  As discussed in our prior post on this case, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claims because the disinterested stockholders of Diamond, who were “fully informed,” overwhelmingly accepted the tender offer.  In reaching that decision, the Court of Chancery found it immaterial that the proxy did not disclose that Diamond’s chairman—who abstained from the board vote on the deal—had expressed disappointment with the price and indicated that “it was not the right time to sell.”  Reversing and remanding, the Delaware Supreme Court held that when a board discloses its reasons for recommending a transaction, “the contrary view of an individual board member may be material.”  In this case, the Delaware Supreme Court concluded, the chairman’s expressed views regarding the wisdom of the sale were material and the omission rendered the proxy misleadingly incomplete.

Read more

On February 6, 2018, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a summary judgment motion by defendant Potomac Capital Partners II, LP (“Potomac”) in an action by stockholders challenging the sale of PLX Technology, Inc. (“PLX”) to Avago Wireless, Inc.  In re PLX Technology Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 9880-VCL (Del. Ch. Feb. 6, 2018).  Plaintiffs alleged Potomac, which was PLX’s largest shareholder, aided and abetted members of the PLX board in committing breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the sale.  In its concise order holding that the case would need to go to trial, the Court rejected Potomac’s contention that the business judgment rule, rather than the enhanced scrutiny test, was the operative standard by which to review the deal.  The Court further determined that—under the enhanced scrutiny standard—there existed disputes of material fact regarding the PLX board’s actions.

Read more

On February 8, 2018, Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich of the New York Supreme Court denied a motion for final approval of a disclosure-only settlement in a class action suit brought by shareholders of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (“MMM”) regarding its acquisition of Texas Industries, Inc. (“TXI”).  City Trading Fund v. Nye, 2018 WL 792283 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 8, 2018).  Plaintiff, which owned only ten shares in MMM, asserted breach of fiduciary duty claims and sought to enjoin the merger on the ground of inadequate disclosures in the proxy provided to shareholders.  The parties, however, reached a settlement, which required defendants to make certain “supplemental disclosures” and provided for the payment of $500,000 in attorneys’ fees to plaintiff’s counsel.  Justice Kornreich previously denied approval of the settlement, but that decision was reversed by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division and remanded for a fairness hearing.  City Trading Fund v. Nye, 144 A.D.3d 595, 21 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016).  Moreover, in the interim, the Appellate Division, in Gordon v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 148 A.D.3d 146 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017), adopted a more lenient approval standard for disclosure-only settlements than that followed recently by courts in Delaware and elsewhere.  Nevertheless, Justice Kornreich found the supplemental disclosures “utterly useless to the shareholders” and, therefore, declined to approve the settlement.

Read more

On February 2, 2018, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a stockholder challenge to the buyout of Synutra International Inc. (“Synutra”) in a squeeze-out merger by a controlling stockholder group.  In re Synutra International Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 2017-0032 (Del. Ch. Feb. 2, 2018).  Plaintiffs asserted breach of fiduciary duty claims against the controller group and the special committee of the Synutra board.  They alleged that the transaction did not satisfy the ab initio requirement under Kahn v. M&F Worldwide, 88 A.3d 635 (Del. 2014) (“MFW”), because the controller group did not initially condition the proposed transaction on recommendation by a special committee and approval by a majority of the disinterested stockholders, features added weeks after the controller’s initial proposal letter and after the Synutra board had already met and formed a special committee.  Finding that “the controller announce[d] the conditions before any negotiations took place,” the Court held the ab initio requirement was satisfied and dismissed the complaint under MFW. 

Read more

​On January 25, 2018, the Supreme Court of Delaware ruled that the Court of Chancery’s  dismissal on issue preclusion grounds of the derivative claims of stockholder plaintiffs against the directors of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”)—after a parallel derivative suit in federal court was dismissed for failure to allege demand futility—did not violate plaintiffs’ due process rights.  In re Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Del. Deriv. Litig., C.A. No. 7455-CB (Del. Jan. 25, 2018).  In affirming the dismissal, the Delaware Supreme Court declined to adopt the recommendation of the Delaware Court of Chancery to adopt a rule refusing to give preclusive effect to other courts’ decisions on demand futility on federal due process grounds.

Read more

On January 10, 2018, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to compel the production of attorney-client privileged documents under the Garner doctrine in the context of direct breach of fiduciary duty claims brought by former minority shareholders of R.L. Polk & Co. Inc. (“Polk”) against its controlling shareholders in connection with a self-tender.  Buttonwood Tree Value Partners, L.P., et al. v. R.L. Polk & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9250-VCG (Jan. 10, 2018).  As discussed in our post regarding a prior decision, the Court denied a motion to dismiss the complaint, which alleges that the self-tender was a self-dealing transaction by the controlling shareholders “as part of an overall scheme to later sell the Company for three times the [s]elf-[t]ender valuation.”  In the subsequent course of discovery, plaintiffs moved to compel the production of documents relating to legal advice Polk sought in connection with the sale of the company, the self-tender, and various restructuring options that were considered at the time.  The Court declined to compel the production because plaintiffs failed to establish that “the information contained in the privileged documents is both necessary and unavailable from other sources.” 

Read more

On December 29, 2017, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a stockholder’s demand to inspect books and records related to the acquisition of West Corporation (“West”)  by Apollo Global Management (“Apollo”), pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220.  Lavin v. West Corp., C.A. No. 2017-0547-JRS (Del. Ch. Dec. 29, 2017).  The Court found that plaintiff established a valid primary purpose for seeking inspection of the materials:  to investigate whether West’s directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties under Revlon by approving the sale of West to Apollo when other bids indicated that a sale of West’s various business segments to different purchasers may have yielded greater value for West stockholders.  Plaintiff alleged that the Apollo transaction was preferred because West’s CEO, directors, and financial advisor would receive greater compensation for a whole-company sale than a segmented sale.  Importantly, the Court rejected West’s argument that Corwin v. KKR Fin. Holdings, LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015), precluded a § 220 demand because any possible breaches of fiduciary duties that plaintiff sought to investigate were cleansed by stockholder approval of the Apollo acquisition.  

Read more

On December 22, 2017, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to dismiss a direct breach of fiduciary duty claim brought by a shareholder plaintiff against directors and officers of casino company Twin River Worldwide Holdings, Inc. (“Twin River”) for allegedly misleading disclosures in an offer-to-purchase circular in connection with a tender offer.  Chatham Asset Mgmt. LLC, et al. v. Papanier, et al., C.A. No. 2017-0088-AGB (Del. Ch. Dec. 22, 2017).  Plaintiff, which sold a portion of its shares in the tender offer, alleged that the circular stated that defendants “may” sell shares “from time to time,” but the “true intent” of defendants was to increase the price of Twin River stock and sell their shares shortly after the tender offer closed (even though they ultimately did not).  Plaintiff, however, acknowledged that it participated in the tender offer only because of a regulatory requirement that capped its ownership position.  The Court found that the complaint stated a disclosure claim because “stating an outcome as a possibility” when in fact there was a “firm intention by defendants to sell their shares” is misleading.  But the Court noted that the “recourse appears to be limited” to nominal damages because plaintiff’s allegations “suggest that it likely will be unable to establish reliance and causation.”    

Read more

On December 18, 2017, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Delaware Court of Chancery’s dismissal of a shareholder derivative action asserting that the directors of The Williams Companies, Inc. (“Williams”) breached their fiduciary duties in connection with its entry into, and subsequent cancellation of, an agreement to acquire the remaining interest in its affiliate, Williams Partners L.P. (“WPZ”).  Ryan v. Armstrong, No. 230, 2017 (Del. Dec. 18, 2017).  As discussed in our post regarding that decision, plaintiff alleged that the directors sought to entrench themselves by approving the WPZ transaction while Williams was the subject of acquisition overtures from another company.  Ryan v. Armstrong, C.A. No. 12717-VCG (Del. Ch. May 15, 2017).  The Court of Chancery held that even a “well-pled” claim under Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 493 A.2d 946 (Del. 1985)—which applies enhanced scrutiny to certain takeover defensive measures—is not, standing alone, sufficient to excuse a pre-suit demand on the board under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 where plaintiff failed to plead sufficient “particularized facts to imply a substantial likelihood of liability for damages . . . on the part of a majority of the directors.”  In its short order, the Supreme Court affirmed on the basis of the Court of Chancery’s opinion.

Read more

On December 13, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery’s dismissal of fiduciary duty breach claims brought derivatively by stockholders of Investors Bancorp, Inc. against its directors in connection with the directors’ decision to grant themselves restricted stock and stock options under an equity compensation plan previously approved by a stockholder vote. In re Inv’rs Bancorp, Inc. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 12327-VCS (Del. Ch. December 13, 2017).  As discussed in our post regarding that decision, the Court of Chancery dismissed the claims, finding that the stockholder approval constituted ratification of the awards, rendering them subject to the presumption of protection under the business judgment rule.  In an opinion by Justice Collins J. Seitz, Jr., however, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed, holding that defendants must demonstrate the entire fairness of their equity awards, because plaintiffs adequately alleged that the directors “inequitably exercised [their] discretion” under the compensation plan’s “general parameters,” notwithstanding stockholder approval.

Read more

On December 11, 2017, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a putative stockholder suit asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims against NRG Energy, Inc. (“NRG”), the controlling stockholder of NRG Yield, Inc. (“Yield”), and the Yield directors in connection with a reclassification of Yield’s shares.  IRA Trust FBO Bobbie Ahmed v. David Crane, et al., Consol. C.A. No. 12742-CB (Dec. 11, 2017).  Plaintiff claimed that the reclassification enabled NRG to maintain its control over Yield and that this qualified as a “non-ratable” benefit that was not shared with Yield’s minority stockholders.  The Court agreed that plaintiff adequately pleaded that the reclassification was a conflicted transaction such that the entire fairness standard would apply but ultimately dismissed the case after finding that the transaction met the requirements for application of the business judgment rule under Kahn v. M&F Worldwide, 88 A.3d 635 (Del. 2014) (“MFW”).

Read more

On December 5, 2017, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion for reargument concerning the Court’s rejection of a shareholder’s demand to inspect documents pertaining to alleged related-party transactions pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220.  Silverberg v. ATC Healthcare, Inc. C.A. No. 2017-0242-JRS (Del. Ch. Dec. 5, 2017).  After a trial, the Court had rejected the request of plaintiff—a shareholder in ATC Healthcare, Inc. (“ATC”)—for books and records from ATC concerning alleged related-party transactions with Travel Healthcare Solutions, LLC (“Travel Healthcare”), an entity allegedly affiliated with ATC’s controlling shareholders.  Denying plaintiff’s motion to reargue, the Court held that a change in contractual terms favorable to the related party “is not enough on its own to establish a credible basis of wrongdoing; something more is needed.” 

Read more

​On November 30, 2017, Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed breach of fiduciary duty claims against the board of Opower, Inc. (“Opower”) in connection with Opower’s acquisition by Oracle Corporation (“Oracle”).  Van der Fluit v. Yates, C.A. No. 12553-VCMR (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2017).  The Court found that the failure to disclose that certain executives who received transaction-related benefits were the primary negotiators of the transaction constituted a material disclosure violation.  Therefore, the Court declined to rely on stockholder approval to cleanse the transaction under the doctrine of Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015), because the tender was not fully informed.  Nevertheless, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, concluding that plaintiff had failed to plead a non-exculpated claim for breach of the duty of loyalty. 

Read more

On November 27, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed a decision by the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissing a stockholder derivative complaint against certain directors and officers of BioScrip, Inc. for failing to allege that a demand on BioScrip’s board of directors to bring the litigation would have been futile.  Park Employees’ and Retirement Bd. Employees’ Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago v. Smith, No. 198 (Del. Nov. 27, 2017).  As discussed in our post regarding that decision, the Court of Chancery departed from its usual practice of assessing plaintiff’s allegations of demand futility based on the composition of the board on the date the complaint was filed.  Park Employees’ and Retirement Bd. Employees’ Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago v. Smith, C.A. No. 11000-VCG (Del. Ch. May 31, 2016).  Instead, the Court of Chancery made an “equitable” exception to that rule and dismissed the complaint for failing to establish demand futility based on the board as it existed four days later based on “unique facts,” including that it was publicly known that those board changes were imminent prior to the filing of the complaint and that the new board was in place by the time defendants had received service of the complaint.  In its short order, the Supreme Court affirmed without further elaboration. 

Read more

​At a recent hearing, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery provided guidance on the application of the attorney-client privilege to draft stockholder communications in the context of a stockholder class action involving claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the directors of Windstream Holdings, Inc. (“Windstream”).  Doppelt v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 10629-VCS (Del. Ch. September 11, 2017) (Transcript).  During discovery, plaintiffs moved to compel the production of drafts of various documents related to communications with stockholders—including talking points, FAQs, and mailings drafted by the company in conjunction with proxy communication firms—which were withheld by defendants on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.  The Court determined that such drafts were not likely to be privileged in their entirety, but could be redacted to the extent they reflect legal advice from counsel, such as comments intended “to ensure that the company is complying with its legal obligations.”   

Read more

On November 20, 2017, the New York State Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of derivative claims brought by a shareholder of Scottish Re Group, Limited (“Scottish Re”)—a Cayman Islands company—against the company, its directors, and various other entities.  Davis v. Scottish Re Grp. Ltd., No. 111 (N.Y. Nov. 20, 2017).  The New York State Appellate Division had previously affirmed the dismissal of those derivative claims for lack of standing because plaintiff had not sought leave of the Cayman Islands Grand Court to commence a derivative action, as required under Rule 12A of the Rules of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands.  Reversing and remanding, the Court of Appeals held that “Rule 12A is procedural, and therefore does not apply where, as here, a plaintiff seeks to litigate his derivative claims in New York.” 

Read more

On November 7, 2017, Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a motion to dismiss a derivative and putative class action brought by a minority stockholder of Erin Energy Corporation (“Erin”), challenging a series of transactions involving Erin, Allied Energy PLC (“Allied”)—an entity affiliated with Kase Lukman Lawal, Erin’s chairman, CEO, and controlling stockholder—and another party, Public Investment Corporation Limited (“PIC”).  Lenois v. Lawal, C.A. No. 11963 (Del. Ch. Nov. 7, 2017).  Plaintiff alleged that the CEO—who together with an affiliated entity (Allied’s parent company) controlled nearly 60% of Erin’s shares—effectively stood on all sides of the challenged transactions and negotiated in his own self-interest.  Plaintiff asserted derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the CEO and the remaining directors.  The Court found that plaintiff adequately pleaded that the CEO acted in bad faith, but dismissed the derivative claims because the complaint “failed to plead non-exculpated claims against a majority of the Erin Board” and, thus, demand on the board was not excused.

Read more

On October 24, 2017, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action by former stockholders of Morgans Hotel Group Co. (“Morgans”), challenging its $794 million merger with an affiliate of SBEEG Holdings LLC.  In re Morgans Hotel Group Co. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 12433 (Del. Ch. Oct. 24, 2017).  Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against an alleged controlling stockholder, Ron Burkle, and his affiliated entities, The Yucaipa Companies LLC and affiliates (collectively, “Yucaipa”).  Plaintiffs claimed that Yucaipa (i) owed fiduciary duties—even though it only owned a minority stake in Morgans—because it had contractual blocking rights that gave it effective control; and (ii) breached those duties by causing Morgans to enter into the merger, which allegedly “enriched” Yucaipa.  The Court rejected these arguments and held that the exercise of contractual blocking rights—without more—is insufficient to impose fiduciary duties on a minority stockholder.

Read more

On October 12, 2017, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed a decision by the Delaware Court of Chancery to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty claims against the directors of Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. (“CCOH”) in connection with (i) a debt offering and asset sales allegedly undertaken in order to fund special dividends for the purpose of enabling its controlling stockholder to address liquidity needs, and (ii) the alleged failure of CCOH to extricate itself from unfavorable intercompany agreements with the controlling stockholder as its financial condition deteriorated.  GAMCO Asset Management Inc. v iHeartMedia Inc., et al., C.A. No. 12312-VCS (Del. Oct. 12, 2017).  As discussed in our post regarding that decision, as to the debt offering and asset sales, the Court of Chancery applied the business judgment rule because the allegations regarding the debt offering and asset sales did not fall within the “very narrow circumstances” in which “a controlling stockholder’s immediate need for liquidity could constitute a disabling conflict of interest irrespective of pro rata treatment.”  In its short order, the Supreme Court affirmed without further elaboration.  As to the intercompany agreements, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to reach the Court of Chancery’s determination that the claims were barred by a settlement agreement and res judicata because “the Court of Chancery properly found that under the pled circumstances, which included the board acting within the framework established by a forward-looking settlement agreement and the company’s binding contractual obligations . . . the complaint failed to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.”  

Read more

On September 28, 2017, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed stockholder class claims for breach of fiduciary duty brought against the former directors of The Fresh Market (“TFM”) after its acquisition in a two-step merger by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC (“Apollo”).  Morrison v. Berry, et al., C.A. No. 12808-VCG (Del. Ch. Sept. 28, 2017).  Among other allegations, plaintiff had alleged that the auction process in which the company had engaged was a “sham” designed by TFM’s founder to deliver the company into the hands of a favored suitor.  The Court, however, dismissed the claims because plaintiff did not satisfy its burden, under Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015), and In re Volcano Corp. Stockholder Litigation, 143 A.3d 727 (Del. Ch. 2016), “to plead facts from which it is reasonably conceivable that the potentially ratifying tender was materially uninformed.”

Read more

On September 1, 2017, Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed claims for breaches of contract and fiduciary duty brought by plaintiffs against a prospective business partner, finding that the forum selection clause in which defendant consented to personal jurisdiction in Delaware was part of an unenforceable contract.  Eagle Force Holdings, LLC v. Campbell, C.A. No. 10803-VCMR (Del. Ch. Sept. 1, 2017).  Specifically, the Court found that a limited liability company agreement and associated contribution agreement (the “Transaction Documents”) under which plaintiffs purported to bring claims were not binding because they lacked several “essential” terms.  Absent agreement on these critical points, the Court held that the parties “did not intend to bind themselves to the written terms of the Transaction Documents.”  Finding no other grounds for personal jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the action.

Read more

On August 28, 2017, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a putative stockholder class action against the directors of Kreisler Manufacturing Corporation (“Kreisler”), rejecting plaintiff’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and quasi-appraisal in connection with the sale of Kreisler to Arlington Capital Partners (“Arlington”) as inadequately pleaded.  Kahn v. Stern, C.A. No. 12498-VCG (Del. Ch. Aug. 28, 2017).  Plaintiff alleged that the directors conditioned the merger on “side deals” that benefited themselves at the stockholders’ expense and that misstatements and omissions in the information statement disseminated to stockholders following the execution of a stockholder support agreement that bound more than 50% of outstanding stock in favor of the merger prevented stockholders from exercising their appraisal rights.  The Court found that the complaint failed to plead that the directors acted in bad faith, and thus dismissed the claims, notwithstanding that certain of the allegedly inadequate disclosures—if raised in a pre-closing suit—likely would have warranted injunctive relief pending corrective disclosures.  

Read more

On August 18, 2017, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a putative shareholder suit asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Martha Stewart, the controlling stockholder of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (“MSLO”), and aiding and abetting claims against third-party acquirer Sequential Brands Group Inc. (“Sequential”) in connection with Sequential’s strategic merger with MSLO.  In re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. Stockholders Litig., Consol. C.A. No. 11202-VCS (Del. Ch. Aug. 18, 2017).  Plaintiffs asserted that the sale was conflicted because Stewart negotiated for greater consideration for herself than for other stockholders and that the transaction did not meet the standards for application of the business judgment rule.  The Court found that plaintiffs failed to plead that the transaction was conflicted and that, even if it were, the protections afforded to stockholders through the establishment of an independent special committee and imposition of a majority-of-the-minority approval requirement warranted dismissal under the business judgment rule, in accordance with the standards set forth in Kahn v. M&F Worldwide, 88 A.3d 635 (Del. 2014) (“MFW”).  

Read more

On August 17, 2017, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a shareholder suit asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims against the directors of MeadWestvaco Corporation (“MW”) in connection with MW’s strategic stock-for-stock merger with Rock-Tenn Company (“RockTenn”).  In re MeadWestvaco S’holders Litig., Consol. C.A. No. 10617-CB (Del. Ch. Aug. 17, 2017).  Plaintiffs’ central contention was that MW’s directors had entered into the merger in bad faith in reaction to a threatened proxy contest by an activist investor, leaving behind $3 billion of additional value.  The Court ruled that plaintiffs’ own pleadings suggested the board had been “actively engaged” in the merger process, and that plaintiffs’ contention that the board acted in bad faith was “simply not credible.”

Read more

​On August 1, 2017, Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss a stockholder complaint asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty against directors and executives of AGNC Investment Corp. (the “Company”) in connection with the renewals of investment management agreements with American Capital Mortgage Management, LLC (the “Manager”) and the Company’s subsequent acquisition of the Manager.  H&N Mgmt. Group, Inc. & Aff Cos Frozen Money Purchase Plan v. Couch, C.A. No. 12847-VCMR (Del. Ch. Ct. Aug. 1, 2017).  The Court concluded that the complaint pleaded particularized facts sufficient to establish demand futility and to allege that the board was grossly negligent in approving the transactions, a non-exculpated breach under the company’s charter. 

Read more

On July 27, 2017, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery found that stockholder plaintiffs had not satisfied their burden of showing “good cause” under the Garner fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege doctrine to require defendant Genworth Financial, Inc. (“Genworth”) to produce privileged communications in response to a books and records demand.  Salberg v. Genworth Fin., Inc., C.A. No. 2017-0018-JRS (Del. Ch. July 27, 2017).  The demand under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, 8 Del. C. § 220, sought documents relating to the same plaintiffs’ claims in a separate derivative action against Genworth’s directors and officers.  The Court held that the Garner exception did not require Genworth to produce the privileged communications during the pendency of the derivative action, because the communications related to the “bona fides” of plaintiffs’ claims in that action.

Read more

On July 24, 2017, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss former stockholders’ claims for breach of fiduciary duty brought in connection with a self-tender by R. L. Polk and Co., Inc. (“Polk”) against the family that held approximately 90% of Polk shares (the “Controlling Family”) and affiliated directors, but dismissed related claims against the company’s independent directors and its financial and legal advisors on the transaction.  Buttonwood Tree Value Partners, L.P. v. R.L. Polk & Co., C.A. No. 9250-VCG (Del. Ch. Ct. July 24, 2017).  The Court concluded that plaintiffs pled facts sufficient to allege that the self-tender was “a self-dealing transaction” by a controlling group of stockholders “as part of an overall scheme to later sell the Company for three times the [s]elf-[t]ender valuation.”  Therefore, the Court held that an “entire fairness” standard of review was applicable and declined to dismiss the claims against the Controlling Family and their affiliated directors.  The Court nevertheless dismissed fiduciary duty breach claims against the independent directors, finding bad faith inadequately pleaded.  The Court also dismissed aiding and abetting claims against the outside advisors, finding the complaint inadequate “to support an inference of scienter or knowing participation in a breach” (emphasis in original). 

On July 21, 2017, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery (i) entered judgment in favor of defendants Sprint Nextel Corporation (“Sprint”) and Softbank Corp. (“Softbank”) on claims of breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting, respectively, in connection with Sprint’s merger with Clearwire Corporation (“Clearwire”); and (ii) appraised the fair value of Clearwire’s stock at the time of the merger, awarding the dissenting stockholder petitioners $2.13 per share, notwithstanding that the transaction closed at $5.00 per share.  ACP Master, Ltd., et al. v. Sprint Corporation, et al. & ACP Master, Ltd., et al. v. Clearwire Corporation, C.A. No. 8508-VCL, C.A. No. 9042-VCL (Del. Ch. July 21, 2017).  Stockholder petitioners had challenged the merger, alleging that Sprint was a controlling stockholder of Clearwire and allegedly breached its fiduciary duties during negotiations leading to a deal price that substantially undervalued Clearwire.  Applying an entire fairness standard of review, the Court found that Sprint did not breach any fiduciary duties.  Noting that the appraisal statute requires the exclusion of “any synergies present in the deal price,” the Court evaluated the competing discounted cash flow (“DCF”) analyses offered by the parties and adopted the $2.13 per share value determined by the approach offered by Sprint, even though it amounted to less than half of the $5.00 per share deal price. 

Read more

On July 13, 2017, Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a former stockholder’s breach of fiduciary duty claims against the former directors of Diamond Resorts International (“Diamond”) and an aiding and abetting claim against Diamond’s financial advisor in connection with Apollo Global Management LLC’s (“Apollo”) acquisition of Diamond in a two-step merger under Section 251(h) of the Delaware General Corporation Law, 8 Del. C. § 251(h).  Appel v. Berkman, C.A. No. 12844-VCMR (Del. Ch. July 13, 2017).  Relying on Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015) and In re Volcano Corp. Stockholder Litigation, 143 A.3d 727 (Del. Ch. 2016), the Court held the merger was “cleanse[d]” because “the disinterested stockholders of Diamond were fully informed and uncoerced when they overwhelmingly accepted the tender offer.” 

Read more

On June 28, 2017, Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves of the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to dismiss purported derivative and direct stockholder claims for breaches of fiduciary duty against the directors of Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (“Sorrento”) regarding the directors’ decisions to grant themselves stock options in several subsidiaries and their decision to condition a private placement investor’s acquisition of newly issued shares on a voting agreement requiring the investor to vote the shares as the board directs.  Williams v. Ji, C.A. No. 12729-VCMR (Del. Ch. June 28, 2017).  Declining to dismiss the complaint, the Court determined that the options grants to the directors themselves “are subject to the same entire fairness review as any other interested transaction.”  As to the voting agreement, the Court held that defendants must establish that “the agreement is intrinsically fair and not designed to disenfranchise Sorrento stockholders.”     

Read more

On June 15, 2017, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed dismissal of a putative stockholder class action alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the directors of Blount International, Inc. (“Blount”) and aiding and abetting claims against other defendants, including Blount’s financial advisor, following Blount’s acquisition by a buyout group consisting of Blount’s CEO and COO, who are also board members, and several entities.  Chester Cty. Ret. Sys. v. Collins, No. 603, 2016 (Del. June 15, 2017).  Plaintiffs claimed that the proxy statement was materially misleading because it failed to disclose inter alia that the special committee chairman would become a partner at the law firm advising the committee shortly after closing.  Although Chief Justice Strine, writing for the Court, observed that “prudence would seem to have counseled for bringing [] to light earlier” the chairman’s impending partnership, the Court agreed with the decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery in Chester Cty. Ret. Sys. v. Collins, 2016 WL 7117924 (Del. Ch. Dec. 6, 2016), that this and the other omissions were immaterial and affirmed the dismissal. 

Read more

On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the dismissal of a shareholder derivative suit against the board of directors of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (“BNYM”) in which plaintiff had asserted a breach of fiduciary duty claim regarding certain alleged misconduct in the bank’s foreign currency exchange business.  Zucker v. Hassell, C.A. No. 11625-VCG (Del. June 19, 2017).  Without further elaboration, the Delaware Supreme Court’s brief order provides that the decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery “should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned” in its opinion (see Zucker v. Hassell, C.A. No. 11625-VCG (Del. Ch. Ct. Nov. 30, 2016)).  As discussed in our post regarding that decision, the Chancery Court found that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead that BNYM’s board of directors wrongfully refused the demand to sue, after the board had formed a special committee of independent directors, which hired competent and unconflicted outside counsel, to conduct an investigation and evaluate the demand.    

Read more

On June 16, 2017, Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed breach of fiduciary duty and other claims brought derivatively against the directors and former chief financial officer of Qualcomm, Inc. (“Qualcomm”) for failure to plead demand futility, finding that the complaint did not adequately demonstrate that the directors faced a substantial likelihood of personal liability.  In re Qualcomm Inc. FCPA Stockholder Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 11152-VCMR (Del. Ch. June 16, 2017) (letter).  The stockholder plaintiffs’ derivative complaint alleged that Qualcomm’s board ignored red flags that resulted in alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and a March 2016 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) cease-and-desist order.  The Court found, however, that the complaint did not adequately allege that “the board consciously disregarded the [alleged] red flags” and dismissed the claims.  

Read more

On May 26, 2017, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted plaintiffs’ request to sever and stay fiduciary duty breach claims settled with directors of Good Technology Corporation (“Good”) and other defendants, notwithstanding the opposition of the sole remaining defendant, a financial advisor to Good, in connection with the acquisition of Good by BlackBerry Ltd. (“BlackBerry”), alleged to have aided and abetted those breaches.  In re Good Tech. Corp. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 11580-VCL (Del. Ch. May 26, 2017) (Transcript).  Stockholder plaintiffs reached agreement on preliminary settlement terms with defendants other than the financial advisor weeks before a scheduled trial and sought to sever and stay those settled claims.  The financial advisor opposed the severance and sought a continuance of the trial, arguing that the settlement contravened the settlement consent and indemnification provisions in its engagement letter with Good—drafted in the wake of In re Rural Metro Corp., 88 A.3d 54 (Del. Ch. 2014)—intended to protect against just such an eventuality.  Noting that neither plaintiffs nor the settling defendants were parties to the engagement letter, and concluding that the advisor could recover money damages were it subsequently determined that the provisions were breached, Vice Chancellor Laster granted the severance request, denied the continuance request, and ordered the claims against the financial advisor to proceed to trial as previously scheduled.  Shortly thereafter, according to a transcript of a June 1, 2017 settlement conference, the advisor settled the claims against it for $35 million, to be funded pursuant to the indemnification agreement. 

Read more

On May 31, 2017, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to dismiss purported derivative and direct stockholder claims for breaches of fiduciary duty against the directors of Charter Communications, Inc. (“Charter”) regarding share issuances to, and a voting proxy agreement with, its largest stockholder, Liberty Broadband Corporation (“Liberty”), in connection with Charter’s recent acquisition of Bright House Networks, LLC (“Bright House”) and merger with Time Warner Cable (“TWC”) (the “Acquisitions”).  Sciabacucchi v. Liberty Broadband Corp., C.A. No. 11418-VCG (Del. Ch. May 31, 2017).  The Court found that, while plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that Liberty controlled Charter, plaintiff did adequately plead that the stockholder vote approving the share issuances and voting proxy agreement suffered from “structural coercion,” and therefore failed to ratify the transactions under the doctrine established by Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015).  Because it found the briefing insufficient to efficiently analyze whether plaintiff’s claims were direct or derivative, however, the Court reserved decision on the motion to dismiss and requested supplemental briefing on the issue. 

Read more

On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the dismissal of a breach of fiduciary duty action against the directors of Books-A-Million, Inc. and other defendants following a “squeeze-out” merger by the company’s controlling stockholders.  In re Books-A-Million, Inc. Stockholders Litigation v. Anderson, Consol. C.A. No. 11343-VCL.  Without further elaboration, the Supreme Court’s brief order provides that the decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery “should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned” in its opinion (citing In re Books-A-Million, Inc., C.A. No. 11343 (Del. Ch. Oct. 10, 2016)).  As discussed in our post on the Chancery Court’s decision, the lower court found—based on the complaint and the proxy filed by the company in connection with the merger—that the transaction followed the framework established by the Delaware Supreme Court in Kahn v. M&F Worldwide Corp., 88 A.3d 635 (Del. 2014).  Under that framework, a controlling stockholder transaction that is approved by both an independent special committee of the board—with access to its own advisors and the ability to definitively reject the deal—and an informed, uncoerced vote of the majority of minority (i.e., non-controlling) stockholders will be reviewed under the deferential “business judgment rule,” as opposed to the entire fairness standard typically applied to controlling stockholder transactions.

Read more

On May 15, 2017, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Chancery Court dismissed a shareholder derivative action asserting that the directors of The Williams Companies, Inc. (“Williams”) breached their duty of loyalty in connection with its entry into, and subsequent cancellation of, an agreement to acquire the remaining interest in its affiliate, Williams Partners L.P. (“WPZ”).  Ryan v. Armstrong, C.A. No. 12717-VCG (Del. Ch. May 15, 2017).  Plaintiff, a Williams shareholder, alleged that Williams’ directors were “motivated . . . by a desire . . . to entrench themselves” when they approved the WPZ acquisition in the context of “acquisition overtures” made toward Williams by another company, Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (“ETE”).  The Court held that allegations of “defensive measures”—even if sufficient to trigger enhanced scrutiny under Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 493 A.2d 946 (Del. 1985)—do not result in “automatic demand excusal.”  Therefore, because demand futility was not otherwise adequately pleaded, the Court granted dismissal under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 for plaintiff’s failure to make a pre-suit demand on the Williams board to pursue the litigation.

Read more

On May 11, 2017, Chancellor Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed with prejudice a putative class action brought by stockholders of networking solutions company Cyan, Inc. (“Cyan”) against Cyan’s board, asserting a breach of fiduciary duty and “quasi-appraisal” claim in connection with Cyan’s merger with Ciena Corporation in a cash and stock transaction. In re Cyan, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 11714-CB (Del. Ch. May 11, 2017).  Plaintiffs claimed that the board failed to disclose material information in the proxy statement, which allegedly prevented Cyan’s shareholders from determining whether to pursue appraisal rights.  The Court dismissed the claims, finding that:  (i) the business judgment rule applied because the merger consideration primarily consisted of stock in a publicly traded company and plaintiffs failed to plead a breach of the duty of loyalty; and (ii) in any event the proxy disclosures were sufficient to infer that the 98% stockholder approval of the merger was a fully informed vote, thereby precluding post-closing litigation under Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304, 308-09 (Del. 2015).  The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ “quasi-appraisal” claim on the same grounds, observing that quasi-appraisal was merely a remedy for a disclosure claim and not a distinct cause of action.  

Read more

On May 2, 2017, Vice Chancellor Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a purportedly derivative and putative class action brought by a minority stockholder of software company VMware, Inc. (“VMware”), a subsidiary of controlling stockholder EMC Corporation (“EMC”), in connection with EMC’s acquisition by Denali Holding Inc. (“Denali”).  Ford v. VMware, Inc., C.A. No. 11714-VCL (Del. Ch. May 2, 2017).  Plaintiff asserted breach of fiduciary duty claims against EMC, the dual directors of both EMC and VMware, and Denali, and brought aiding and abetting claims against Denali its affiliates.  The alleged breaches included (i) failing to spin off VMware to activist EMC stockholder Elliot Associates, (ii) selling VMware to a “known looter,” (iii) restricting VMware’s operations under the merger agreement and (iv) Denali’s issuance of so-called “tracking stock.”  The Court found that none of these theories sustained a viable breach of fiduciary duty claim and dismissed the action in its entirety. 

Read more

On May 4, 2017, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed for lack of post-merger standing an action by former stockholders of Massey Energy Company (“Massey”) against its former officers and directors for their alleged failure to act in good faith to ensure that Massey complied with mine safety regulations.  In re Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation, C.A. No. 5430-CB (Del. Ch. May 4, 2017).  The plaintiffs, who were divested of their shares in connection with a merger of Massey while the litigation was pending, purported to assert two claims:  (i) a breach of fiduciary duty derivative claim and (ii) “inseparable fraud,” styled as a “direct” claim.  As to “inseparable fraud,” plaintiffs were relying on what Chancellor Bouchard described as “dictum” in the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Caiafa, 996 A.2d 321, 322-32 (Del. 2010), which stated that “Delaware law recognizes a single, inseparable fraud when directors cover massive wrongdoing with an otherwise permissible merger.”  But Chancellor Bouchard found that the misconduct alleged could only constitute a derivative claim, because the allegations “implicated” the directors’ “normal duty” to the corporation to manage its affairs and the allegations of harm—including the “prospect of . . . fines, penalties . . . and the like”—are “prototypical examples of corporate harm that can be pursued only derivatively.”  The Court also concluded that plaintiffs’ allegations that the merger was “necessitated” by the misconduct were unavailing, because “inseparable fraud” is not an exception to the “continuous ownership rule for maintaining derivative standing.”

Read more

​On April 26, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a shareholder of Star Bulk Carriers Corp. (“Star Bulk”) against its directors and entities affiliated with the director defendants.  F5 Capital v. Pappas, No. 16-530 (2d Cir. April 26, 2017).  Challenging various transactions in which Star Bulk had engaged, plaintiff asserted derivative claims for breaches of fiduciary duty and waste, as well as a purported direct class-action claim for wrongful equity dilution.  Affirming the dismissal of all claims, the Second Circuit held that (1) the equity dilution claim was not within the “limited circumstances involving controlling stockholders” to enable it to be considered a direct (rather than derivative) claim; (2) the district court nevertheless had and properly retained subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) plaintiff failed to plead demand futility, as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 to maintain shareholder derivative claims.  

Read more

On April 17, 2017, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled, in a post-trial decision, that defendant Cypress Semiconductor Corporation (“Cypress”) must allow plaintiff and former Cypress CEO, T.J. Rodgers, to inspect certain books and records of Cypress pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, 8 Del. C. § 220.  Rodgers v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., C.A. No. 0070-AGB (Del. Ch. Apr. 17, 2017).  Chancellor Bouchard found that Rodgers, who made the demand in his capacity as a stockholder, sufficiently established a valid primary purpose for seeking inspection of the materials:  to investigate potential wrongdoing by Ray Bingham, the Executive Chairman of the Board.

Read more

On April 13, 2017, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a shareholder derivative suit alleging a breach of fiduciary duty against the directors of Paramount Gold and Silver Corp. (“Paramount”) in connection with Paramount’s merger with Coeur Mining, Inc. (“Coeur”).  In re Paramount Gold and Silver Corp. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 10499-CB (Del. Ch. Apr. 13, 2017).  In doing so, the Court (i) rejected plaintiffs’ contention that certain consent rights in a royalty agreement entered into by the parties at the time of the merger agreement constituted an unreasonable deal protection device, and (ii) found that plaintiffs had failed to identify any material deficiencies in the company’s disclosures in advance of a shareholder vote on the merger.  Chancellor Bouchard, therefore, relied on the doctrine set forth in Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015), and applied the business judgment rule to the directors’ decision “because the [m]erger was approved by a fully informed and uncoerced vote of a majority of Paramount’s disinterested stockholders.”

Read more

On March 31, 2017, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to dismiss a shareholder claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the board of directors (the “Board”) of Saba Software, Inc. (“Saba”) in connection with Saba’s shareholder-approved all-cash merger with affiliates of private equity group Vector Capital Management, L.P. (“Vector”).  In re Saba Software, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 10697-VCS (Del. Ch. Mar. 31, 2017).  The Court held that plaintiff’s allegations, if taken as true, “allow a reasonable inference that the stockholder vote approving the transaction was neither fully informed nor uncoerced.”   Therefore, notwithstanding the stockholder approval, the Court declined to apply the business judgment rule (as would ordinarily apply under Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015)) and declined to dismiss the claims against the Board.  The Court did dismiss the aiding and abetting claims against Vector, finding that plaintiffs failed to allege that Vector knowingly participated in the Board’s alleged breach.

Read more

On April 5, 2017, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted defendants’ motion to dismiss a stockholder derivative suit against the directors of Investors Bancorp, Inc., which had asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the directors’ decision to grant themselves restricted stock and stock options under an equity compensation plan previously approved by a stockholder vote.  In re Investors Bancorp, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 12327-VCS (Del. Ch. Apr. 5, 2017).  Plaintiffs, Investors Bancorp stockholders, had challenged the awards as “grossly excessive compensation” and also alleged that stockholder approval of the equity compensation plan was ineffective because the plan did not contain “meaningful limits” and, in any event, the disclosures in connection with the vote were materially misleading.  But the Court found that the plan—even as alleged—did contain “director-specific limits” on equity compensation, the awards were within those limits, and the stockholder vote was fully informed.  Therefore, the Court held that the stockholder approval constituted “ratification of the awards,” rendering them subject to the “business judgment rule’s presumptive protection” and reviewable only as “waste,” which plaintiffs did not plead.

Read more

On March 20, 2017, the Supreme Court of Delaware reversed the Court of Chancery’s dismissal of a lawsuit challenging a transaction between affiliated entities.  Brinckerhoff v. Enbridge Energy Co., No. 273, 2016 (Del. Mar. 20, 2017).  Plaintiff, a common unitholder of a Delaware master limited partnership, Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (the “MLP”), brought suit against several defendants, including the general partner Enbridge Energy Co. (“EEP GP”); its controlling parent, Enbridge, Inc. (“Enbridge”); another affiliate of each; and certain directors and officers of these entities.  Plaintiff alleged that defendants approved a transaction involving conflicts of interest in bad faith and in violation of certain provisions of the MLP’s Limited Partnership Agreement (“LPA”).  In reversing the dismissal, the Court held that (1) “good faith” and other provisions in the LPA exculpating the general partner from monetary damages can replace default fiduciary duties with a contractual good faith standard, but do not preclude equitable relief or alter the affirmative obligations under the LPA; and (2) bad faith was sufficiently alleged under the LPA “if the plaintiff pleads facts supporting an inference that [the general partner] did not reasonably believe it was acting in the best interest of the [MLP].”

Read more

On March 3, 2017, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the dismissal of “Caremark” claims for alleged bad-faith failure of oversight brought derivatively by a stockholder against the directors of Qualcomm, Inc. in the context of international antitrust enforcement and other actions against the company.  Melbourne Mun. Firefighters’ Pension Trust Fund v. Paul E. Jacobs et al. C.A. No. 10872-VCM (Del. Mar. 3, 2017).  Without further elaboration, the Court’s brief order provides:  “it appears to the Court that the judgment of the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned in its memorandum opinion dated August 1, 2016.”  Id. at *1 (citing Melbourne Mun. Firefighters’ Pension Trust v. Paul E. Jacobs, et al. and Qualcomm, Inc., C.A. No. 10872, 2016 WL 4076369 (Del. Ch. Aug 1, 2016)).  As discussed in our post regarding that decision, the Chancery Court dismissed the complaint for failure to plead that demand on the board was futile, because the complaint failed to set forth particularized allegations showing that the directors acted in bad faith by consciously disregarding their oversight duties and thus did not demonstrate that the directors faced a substantial likelihood of liability.  

Read more

On March 6, 2017, in a decision authored by Justice Margot Botsford, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the dismissal of an action for breach of fiduciary duty brought by former shareholders of EMC Corporation against its directors in connection with its merger with Dell Inc., finding that the claims could only have been brought derivatively.  Int’l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Loc. No. 129 Benefit Fund v. Tucci, SJC-12137 (Mass. Mar. 6, 2017).  In its decision, the Court clarified that “the general rule of Massachusetts corporate law is that a director of a Massachusetts corporation owes a fiduciary duty to the corporation itself, and not its shareholders.”  Further, the Court found that the injury alleged—the undervaluation of EMC in the transaction—“qualifies as a direct injury to the corporation” and “fit[s] squarely within the framework of a derivative action,” which plaintiffs as former shareholders did not—and could not—bring.   

Read more

On February 15, 2017, Vice Chancellor Laster approved a modification to a plan of allocation of settlement consideration in In re Dole Food Co., Inc., S’holder Lit., C.A. No. 8703-VCL (Del. Ch. Feb. 15, 2017).  The Court found the original plan was too administratively difficult and costly to implement due to a discrepancy between the number of class shares stipulated to in the prior settlement and the number of facially valid shares claimants submitted after the settlement.

Read more

On February 9, 2017, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the dismissal of a breach of fiduciary duty action brought by former shareholders of Volcano Corporation in connection with the acquisition of Volcano in a two-step all-cash tender offer and merger pursuant to Delaware General Corporation Law Section 251(h).  In re Volcano Corp. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 10485-VCM (Del. Feb. 9, 2017).  Without further elaboration, the Court’s brief order provides:  “it appears to the Court that the judgment of the Court of Chancery should be affirmed for the reasons stated in its decision.”  Id. at *1 (citing In re Volcano Corp. Stockholder Litig., 143 A.3d 727 (Del. Ch. 2016)).  As discussed in our post regarding that decision, the Chancery Court had held that because a fully informed, uncoerced majority of stockholders had tendered their shares during the first step of the two-step merger, the business judgment rule irrebuttably applied to the board’s decision to approve the merger.

Read more

On January 30, 2017, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a shareholder suit for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of Merge Healthcare, Inc. (“Merge”) in connection with its acquisition by IBM.  In re Merge Healthcare Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 11388-VCG (Del. Ch. Jan. 30, 2017).  Specifically, the Court found that “a fully informed, uncoerced vote of the [c]ompany’s disinterested stockholders cleansed the [m]erger here, resulting in the application of the business judgment rule.”  The Court applied this analysis even though it assumed (without finding) that the chairman of the board was a controlling stockholder because the Court found that the chairman “did not extract any personal benefits because his interests were fully aligned with the other common stockholders.”            

Read more

On January 19, 2017, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a shareholder derivative suit claiming a breach of fiduciary duty by the directors of United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”) for an alleged failure of oversight in connection with UPS’s compliance with laws governing the transportation and delivery of cigarettes.  Horman v. Abney, C.A. No. 12290-VCS (Del. Ch. Jan. 19, 2017).  Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to plead adequately that making a demand on UPS’s board to pursue the claims would have been futile because the complaint did not contain factual allegations sufficient to support a reasonable inference that the director defendants faced a substantial likelihood of personal liability.  

Read more

On January 19, 2017, Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a derivative suit brought by a shareholder of Mattel, Inc. (“Mattel”), after its board of directors declined to sue management to recover payments made to its former CEO under severance and consulting agreements.  Andersen v. Mattel, Inc., C.A. No. 11816-VCMR (Del. Ch. Jan. 19, 2017).  Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves found that plaintiff failed to plead sufficiently particularized facts alleging gross negligence or bad faith, where the board made its decision after an investigation of the underlying events and also considered the potential consequences of the contemplated litigation.

Read more

On January 5, 2017, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a breach of fiduciary duty suit brought by a former shareholder against the eight members of the board of directors of Solera Holdings, Inc. (“Solera”) that approved a go-private merger with an affiliate of Vista Equity Partners (“Vista”).  In re Solera Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 11524-CB (Del. Ch. Jan. 5, 2017).  In doing so, Chancellor Bouchard relied on the doctrine set forth in Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015), and applied the business judgment rule to the directors’ decision because the merger—which at the time of suit had already closed—had been approved by a disinterested majority of Solera’s stockholders in “a fully-informed and uncoerced vote.”

Read More

On January 4, 2017, Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware dismissed a putative class action complaint against United Capital Corporation (“United Capital”), its board of directors, and A.F. Petrocelli, who is board chairman and CEO, and the owner of 94% of United Capital’s stock, in connection with a short-form merger through which Petrocelli acquired all outstanding stock of the company.  In re United Capital Corp., Stockholders Lit., C.A. No. 11619-VCMR (Del. Ch. Jan. 4, 2017).  Plaintiffs sought a quasi-appraisal remedy for allegedly inadequate disclosures in the notice of merger.  The court found the disclosures provided sufficient material information to the minority shareholders to enable them to determine whether to pursue an appraisal and dismissed the claims.  

Read more

On December 16, 2016, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery relied on the final deal price to determine the fair value of stock in Lender Processing Services, Inc. (“LPS”), in an appraisal action brought by shareholder petitioners after Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (“Fidelity”) acquired LPS.  Merion Capital L.P., et al. v. Lender Processing Services, Inc., C.A. No. 9320-VCL.  While the court conducted its own DCF (discounted cash flow) analysis drawing from expert submissions, Vice Chancellor Laster ultimately deferred entirely to the deal price, finding that the sale process was fair and based on meaningful competition in a well-functioning market, and thus generated reliable evidence of fair value.

Read more

On December 8, 2016, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a motion to appoint lead counsel in an appraisal action—over the objection of one group of petitioning shareholders—invoking the inherent power of the Court to manage its operations.  In re Appraisal of Rouse Properties, Inc., C.A. No. 12609 (Del. Dec. 8, 2016).  In so deciding, Vice Chancellor Slights analogized appraisal proceedings to class actions and found that the appointment of lead counsel in an appraisal proceeding did not infringe on petitioning shareholders’ statutory right to “participate fully” in the action. 

Read more

On December 5, 2016, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reversed a dismissal of a shareholder derivative action after finding that the complaint adequately pled that a majority of the directors of Zynga Inc. (“Zynga”) lacked the independence to impartially consider a lawsuit asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims against Zynga’s controlling stockholder and former CEO and another director.  Sandys v. Pincus, C.A. No. 9512-CB (Del. Dec. 5, 2016). 

Read more

On November 30, 2016, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a pair of shareholder derivative suits against nominal defendant The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (“BNYM”) that sought to hold certain of its current and former directors and officers liable for allegedly causing or permitting certain misconduct to occur in the bank’s foreign exchange business.  Zucker v. Hassell, et al., C.A. No. 11625-VCG (Del. Ch. Ct. Nov. 30, 2016); Kops v. Hassell, et al., C.A. No. 11982-VCG (Del. Ch. Ct. Nov. 30, 2016).  The Court dismissed both complaints for failure to adequately plead that BNYM’s board of directors wrongfully refused the shareholders’ respective litigation demands, further reinforcing the difficulties that would-be plaintiffs face in satisfying the pleading standards required to obtain derivative standing to sue on behalf of a Delaware corporation.   

Read more

On November 23, 2016, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed derivative claims asserted by GAMCO Asset Management (“GAMCO”), stockholder of Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings Inc. (“CCOH”), against CCOH and its board, CCOH’s controlling stockholder, iHeartCommunications Inc. (“iHC”) and iHC’s parent company, iHeartMedia Inc. (“iHM”), and two private equity funds with a combined controlling interest in iHM and iHC.  GAMCO Asset Management Inc. v. iHeartMedia Inc., C.A. No. 12312-VCS (Del. Ch. Nov. 23, 2016).  The Court found that plaintiff’s claims were released by an earlier settlement of related issues, barred by res judicata, and that the business judgment rule protected the CCOH board and controlling stockholders from GAMCO’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty. 

Read more

On November 10, 2016, Chancellor Andre Bouchard of the Delaware Chancery Court granted the appraisal petition of former stockholders in Farmers & Merchants Bancorp of Western Pennsylvania, Inc. (“F&M”), awarding a “fair value” of $91.90 per share, rather than the merger price ($83 per share) at which the bank was actually acquired in October of 2014 by NexTier, Inc., another community bank in western Pennsylvania.  Dunmire et al. v. Farmers & Merchants Bancorp of Western Pennsylvania, Inc., C.A. No. 10589-CB (Del. Ch. Nov. 10, 2016).  The judicially determined appraisal amount reflects the Court’s decision to reject the valuations and certain methodologies advanced by both parties’ experts and instead to rely exclusively on a “discounted net income” valuation—a method that both parties agreed was conceptually appropriate—as applied by the Court.   

Read more

On October 18, 2016, Chancellor Andre Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a shareholder derivative action against the directors of Capital One Financial Corporation (“Capital One”), finding that plaintiff failed to plead demand futility in connection with his breach of fiduciary duty claims.  Reiter v. Fairbank, C.A. No. 11693-CB, 2016 WL 6081823 (Del. Ch. Oct. 18, 2016).  The Court held that the allegations—relying in large part on records obtained from Capital One under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which the Court found were incorporated by reference into the complaint—did not “reasonably permit . . . an inference that the defendants consciously allowed Capital One to violate the law” so as to demonstrate bad faith and excuse the demand requirement.

Read more

On October 12, 2016, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a putative shareholder class action alleging fiduciary breaches by the board of directors of OM Group, Inc. (“OM”) arising from OM’s cash-out merger with Apollo Global Management, LLC (“Apollo”).  In re OM Group, Inc. S’holders Litig., Consol. C.A. No. 11216-VCS (Del. Ch. Oct. 12, 2016).  The conduct of directors in cash-out mergers is typically subject to enhanced scrutiny under Revlon.  Because OM’s shareholders had voted overwhelmingly to approve the merger in an uncoerced vote that the Court found to be fully informed, the Court found the board’s conduct was protected by the “irrebutable business judgment rule” under Corwin v. KKR Fin. Holdings, LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015), and dismissed the case.  The Court reached this conclusion despite allegations of an egregiously flawed sales process that the Court described as “disquieting.”

Read more

On October 10, 2016, Vice Chancellor Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a motion to dismiss in an action against the directors of bookseller Books-A-Million, Inc. and other defendants following a “squeeze-out” merger by the company’s controlling shareholders.  In re Books-A-Million, Inc., C.A. No. 11343, (Del. Ch. Oct. 10, 2016).  Vice Chancellor Laster found that the complaint did not sufficiently allege deviations from the framework established by the Delaware Supreme Court in Kahn, et al. v. M&F Worldwide Corp. 88 A.3d 635 (Del. 2014) (“M&F Worldwide”).  Therefore, the Court reviewed the transaction under the “business judgment rule” and dismissed the complaint.  

Read more

​On September 29, 2016, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a shareholder action against the directors and officers of Longview Energy Company (“Longview”) in connection with a board decision to dissolve the company following the sale of a significant portion of its assets.  The Huff Energy Fund, L.P., v. Robert D. Gershen, et al., C.A. No. 11116-VCS (Del. Ch. Sept. 29, 2016).  The Court held that defendants had not breached their fiduciary duties after rejecting plaintiff’s request to apply Revlon or Unocal scrutiny to the dissolution and finding in any event that the approval by stockholder vote “irrebutably reinstat[es] the business judgment rule.”      

Read more

On September 28, 2016, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a shareholder challenge to the acquisition of Millennial Media, Inc. (“Millennial”) by AOL Inc. (“AOL”).  Nguyen v. Barrett, C.A. No. 11511-VCG (Del. Ch. Sept. 28, 2016). Plaintiff had sought post-closing damages for the Millennial board’s alleged failure to disclose (1) certain unlevered free cash flows and (2) details of compensation for Millennial’s financial advisor.  The Court rejected both claims.    
    
Read more

On August 31, 2016, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss derivative claims against eleven directors of Duke Energy Corp. (“Duke”).  In re Duke Energy Corp. Derivative Litig., No. 7705-VCG, 2016 WL 4543788 (Del. Ch. Aug. 31, 2016).  The Court made two key rulings: 1) some, but not all, of plaintiffs’ claims were precluded by a prior ruling by a North Carolina court; and 2) for the non-precluded claims, plaintiffs adequately alleged demand futility.  

Read more

On August 31, 2016, Judge Abigail LeGrow, sitting by designation on the Delaware Court of Chancery, held that Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”) did not need to make its books and records available for inspection to a shareholder purportedly investigating whether the board breached its fiduciary duties by failing to comply with applicable accounting standards.  Beatrice Corwin Living Irrevocable Trust v. Pfizer, Inc., C.A. No. 10425-JL (Del. Ch. Aug. 31, 2016).  In rejecting this shareholder demand pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”), the Court found that the shareholder had not shown any “credible basis to infer mismanagement or wrongdoing by the board.”

Read more

On August 24, 2016, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a shareholder action seeking post-merger damages for breach of fiduciary duty against the directors and officers of C&J Energy Services, Inc..  City of Miami General Employees and Sanitation Employees Retirement Trust v. Jerry M. Comstock Jr., et al., C.A. No. 9980-CB (Del. Ch. August 24, 2016) (“C&J”).  The Court held that allegations that the majority of the board was interested in the transaction during its consideration were insufficient to rebut the business judgment presumption that applied once a majority of shareholders voted to approve the transaction.  The following day, on August 25, 2016, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed an action brought by former shareholders of Auspex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for breach of fiduciary duty against the company’s directors and officers, which was also based on a sale of the company that had been overwhelmingly approved by the company’s shareholders.  Larkin v. Shah, C.A. No. 10918-VCS (Del. Ch. Aug. 25, 2016) (“Auspex”).  Both decisions turned on the  application of the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015), which held that the business judgment rule applies to a court’s review of a transaction that is approved by a majority of a company’s disinterested and uncoerced stockholders upon a fully informed vote.  

Read more

On August 11, 2016, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery relied on his own discounted cash flow (“DCF”) analysis to determine the fair value of ISN Software Corp. (“ISN”) in an appraisal action brought by two minority shareholders following the merger of ISN with its wholly-owned subsidiary.  In re ISN Software Corp. Appraisal Litig., C.A. No. 8388-VCG (Del. Ch. Aug. 11, 2016).  In so ruling, the Court rejected not only the valuation advocated by ISN’s expert but also the valuations espoused by the minority shareholders’ experts, noting that “[i]n a competition of experts to see which can generate the greatest judicial skepticism regarding valuation . . . this case, so far, takes the prize.”  

Read more

On August 10, 2016, a divided panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court judge’s approval of a disclosure-only settlement in a putative stockholder class action challenging the acquisition by Walgreen Co. (“Walgreens”) of Alliance Boots Gmbh (“Boots”).  In re Walgreen Co. Stockholder Litig., No. 15-3799 (7th Cir. Aug. 10, 2016).  Writing for the majority, Judge Richard Posner rejected the proposed settlement, which contemplated $370,000 in plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees in exchange for six additional disclosures to the stockholder class, finding it “inconceivable” that the new disclosures actually benefited the class.

Read more

On July 28, 2016, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Chancery Court largely denied motions to dismiss a breach of fiduciary suit brought by former minority stockholders of Riverstone National, Inc. (“Riverstone”) against CAS Capital Ltd. (“CAS”), the majority stockholder of Riverstone, the Riverstone board (“Director Defendants”), and, nominally, Riverstone.  In re Riverstone Nat’l, Inc. Stockholder Litig., Consol. C.A. No. 9796-VCG (Del. Ch. July 28, 2016).  The Court applied the entire fairness standard to the merger because plaintiffs alleged that the Director Defendants usurped corporate opportunities and then caused Riverstone to enter into a merger with Greystar Real Estate Partners (“Greystar”) to extinguish said claims (the “Usurpation Claims”).  Applying Delaware’s “reasonably conceivable” pleading standard, the Court held that plaintiffs adequately pleaded a claim for breach of loyalty in connection with the approval of the merger.

Read more

On August 1, 2016, Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves of the Delaware Chancery Court granted a motion to dismiss “Caremark” claims against directors of Qualcomm, Inc. for failure to plead that demand on the board of directors was futile, finding that the complaint failed to set forth particularized allegations of fact supporting an inference that a majority of the board faced a substantial likelihood of personal liability.  Melbourne Mun. Firefighter’s Pension Trust v. Paul E. Jacobs, et al. and Qualcomm, Inc., C.A. No. 10872, memo. op. (Del. Ch. Aug 1, 2016).  The complaint alleged that directors and officers of Qualcomm consciously disregarded antitrust enforcement actions in several international jurisdictions, ignored red flags regarding the firm’s compliance with international antitrust laws, and failed to remedy its business practices to comply with international antitrust laws, resulting in the imposition of fines and judgments against the company from multiple regulators in a number of jurisdictions, including a $975 million fine issued by the National Development and Reform Commission of the People’s Republic of China. 

Read more

On July 18, 2016, a unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a shareholder derivative action against Wynn Resorts, Limited (“Wynn Resorts”) and eleven individuals—including Steve Wynn—who sit or sat on its board of directors.  La. Mun. Police Employees’ Retirement Sys. v. Wynn, __ F. 3d __, No. 14-15695, 2016 WL 3878228, (9th Cir. July 18, 2016).  Its ruling confirmed that the federal courts may dismiss, sua sponte, a “stateless” defendant if necessary to perfect their diversity jurisdiction; that trial court determinations regarding demand futility are reviewed for abuse of discretion in the Ninth Circuit; and that plaintiffs alleging demand futility must plead their case with particularity.   

Read more

On July 19, 2016, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed most (but not all) breach of fiduciary duty counterclaims asserted by a sports apparel startup against its former director, Yankees baseball great Derek Jeter.  Jeter v. RevolutionWear, Inc., C.A. No. 11706-VCG (Del. Ch. Ct. Jul. 19, 2016).  The decision highlights that directorial fiduciary duties cannot be expanded by contract.  Specifically, the Court held that Jeter’s alleged contravention of certain marketing-related obligations that were part of his director agreement with the company, RevolutionWear, Inc. (“RWI”), did state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty because such contractual obligations “do not alter the fiduciary obligations of the director” even though they “may give rise to breach-of-contract claims.”  

Read more

On July 8, 2016, Chancellor Andre Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a petition for appraisal of former stockholders of DFC Global Corporation (“DFC”) at a “fair value” of $10.21 per share, rather than the price ($9.50 per share) at which DFC was acquired by a private equity fund in June 2014.  In re Appraisal of DFC Global Corp., C.A. No. 10107-CB (Del. Ch. July 8, 2016).  The judicially-determined appraisal value reflects an equally weighted blend of (1) a discounted cash-flow analysis, (2) a comparable company analysis, and (3) the actual transaction price of the deal. 

Read more

On June 30, 2016, Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a breach of fiduciary duty action brought by former shareholders of Volcano Corporation against the company’s board of directors and financial advisor. In re Volcano Corp. Stockholder Litig., No. CV 10485-VCMR, 2016 WL 3583704 (Del. Ch. June 30, 2016). The Court held that because a fully informed majority of stockholders had tendered their shares during the first step of a two-step merger, the business judgment rule applied to the board’s decision to approve the merger. 

Read more

On June 15, 2016, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a derivative action against current and former directors of Lululemon Athletica, Inc., finding that plaintiffs’ claims were precluded by a previous dismissal of similar allegations in a New York based action.  Laborers District Council Constr. Indus. Pension Fund v. Bensoussan et al., C.A. No. 11293-CB (Del. Ch. June 14, 2016).

Read More

Vice Chancellor Laster of the Delaware Chancery Court recently issued an important opinion in In Re: Appraisal of Dell Inc. C.A. No. 9322-VCL (May 31, 2016), holding that merger consideration offered to Dell, Inc’s common stockholders did not reflect the “fair value” of Dell’s shares. The decision will require the company to pay dissenting stockholders a 28% premium as compared to the consideration that was received by stockholders who did not exercise their appraisal rights. The opinion is notable for several reasons, including because the Court declined to accept that the negotiated market price for the deal was the best available indication of the fair value of the company. Instead, the Court challenged the accuracy of prevailing stock market valuations of Dell, and after criticizing several aspects of the sale process, ultimately concluded that neither the stock price nor the price negotiated during the sale process fairly reflected the fair value of the company. 

Read more

Vice Chancellor Laster of the Delaware Chancery Court enjoined certain directors of Cogentix Medical, Inc. from implementing a plan to reduce the size of the Company’s board to defeat a proxy fight.  Pell v. Kill, C.A. No. 12251-VCL (Del. Ch. May 19, 2016).  The opinion’s application of Delaware’s standard for reviewing director action that affects shareholder voting strongly favors protecting stockholder voting rights.

Read More

In a recent Delaware Chancery Court decision, In re Chelsea Therapeutics International Ltd. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 9640-VCG (Del. Ch. May 20, 2016), Vice Chancellor Glasscock explained that the good faith requirement of the duty of loyalty offers an equity judge a “fiduciary out” to the application of the business judgment rule.  According to the Vice Chancellor, the court can consider the presence of “bad faith” in connection with a board decision, even if the directors were disinterested and independent.  But consideration of “bad faith” in this context is relevant only in the rare instance where the nature of the board action cannot be understood to be in the corporate interest.  In this case, the court rejected plaintiffs’ “pursuit of that rare bird,” dismissing the claims brought by representative stockholders.

Read More

On May 24, 2015, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that former stockholders’ claims against a corporation, under New York or Florida law, for damages allegedly caused by holding already-purchased stock in reliance on purported misrepresentations constitute direct claims.  Citigroup Inc. v. AHW Invest. P’ship, MFS, Inc., No. 614 2015 (“AHW”).  This ruling addressed a certified question from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which sought guidance on whether so-called “holder claims” were direct or derivative in nature.  The ruling is most notable because the court expressed reservations about the validity of holder claims under Delaware law, although it did not decide the issue.

Read More

The federal government has enjoyed a recent string of successful challenges to proposed mergers on antitrust grounds.  These have ranged from the blocking of the combination of Staples and Office Depot by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia earlier this month to the abandonment of merger plans by Time Warner Cable and Comcast, as well as Halliburton and Baker Hughes, in the wake of government scrutiny.  But this trend was interrupted when Judge John E. Jones III of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied a motion for a preliminary injunction brought by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the Pennsylvania Attorney General against the proposed merger of two Harrisburg-area hospital groups.

Read More

The Delaware Chancery in In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Del. Deriv. Litig., C.A. No. 7455-CB (Del. Ch. May 13, 2016) dismissed derivative litigation on issue preclusion grounds after another court dismissed a competing derivative action. 

Read More

The Delaware Chancery in In re Appraisal of Dell Inc., C.A. No. 9322-VCL (Del. Ch. May 11, 2016) considered whether mutual funds who were beneficial owners of Dell shares could pursue an appraisal action in the face of evidence showing that the shares were mistakenly voted in favor of a merger by an intermediary custodial bank.  The court ruled that the petitioners were barred from seeking an appraisal and, in so holding, provided a helpful framework for the burden-shifting analysis for proof of compliance with appraisal statute requirements.

Read More

On Friday, May 6, an en banc Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Delaware Court of Chancery’s dismissal with prejudice of a claim against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (“Merrill Lynch”) for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty while serving as financial advisor to Zale Corp. (“Zale”) in its sale to Signet Jewelers (“Signet”).  Singh v. Attencorough, No. 645, 2015 (Del. May 6, 2016) (en banc).  The decision has significant implications for (i) the effect of stockholder approval of a merger on the standard of review and (ii) investment banker conflicts. 

Read More

In Peter Brinckerhoff v. Enbridge Energy Company, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11314-VCS, memo. op. (Del. Ch. Apr. 29, 2016), newly appointed Vice Chancellor Slights of the Delaware Chancery Court dismissed class and derivative claims brought by an investor in a master limited partnership, Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (the “MLP”), against the general partner, Enbridge Energy Company, Inc., and its controlling parent (together, “Enbridge”), and Enbridge’s affiliates and directors.  This opinion is the latest in a series of Delaware court decisions reinforcing that, under Delaware law, “a limited partnership agreement may eliminate the fiduciary duties owed by the general partner to the partnership and its limited partners in favor of” specifically delineated contractual obligations. 

Read More

On May 5, 2016, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that courts should apply the business judgment rule in shareholder lawsuits challenging going-private mergers, as long as shareholders were adequately protected—a decision that expressly follows the approach of the Delaware Supreme Court in its seminal case, Kahn et al. v. M&F Worldwide, 88 A.3d 635 (Del. 2014) (“MFW”). In the Matter of Kenneth Cole Productions Inc. S’holder Litig., No. 54, 2016 WL 2350133 (N.Y. May 5, 2016) (“KCP”). KCP marks the first time that New York’s highest court determined that the business judgment rule should apply in such situations. 

Read more

The Delaware Supreme Court is the latest court to weigh in on the increasingly contentious question of whether a foreign corporation’s compliance with a state’s statutory registration requirements amounts to a broad consent to general personal jurisdiction within that state.  Writing for the majority in a rare 4-1 split decision, Chief Justice Strine held that it would be “unacceptably grasping” in today’s economy to require foreign corporations to acquiesce to Delaware’s exercise of general jurisdiction as a price of doing business in the state.  In so ruling, the Court partially overruled its own decision in Sternberg v. O’Neil, 550 A.2d 1105 (Del. 1988), which held that registering to do business in the state pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 371 and designating an agent for service of process pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 376 amounted to “actual consent” to Delaware’s exercise of general jurisdiction.

Read More