A recent Delaware Supreme Court decision that provides independent directors with a new basis to be dismissed from lawsuits against them, was highlighted in my latest article published in Directorship, the magazine of the National Association of Corporate Directors. The case is styled: In re Cornerstone Therapeutics Inc. Stockholder Litigation, No. 564, 2014; Leal et al. v. Meeks et al., No. 706, 2014, opinion issued (Del. May 14, 2015). Highlights of the case previously appeared on these pages.
The Chancery opinion in Andrikopoulos v. Silicon Valley Innovation Company, LLC, C.A. No. 9899-VCP (Del. Ch. July 30, 2015), addressed the priority of an advancement claim in the context of a receivership under Delaware law. Bottom line: The court ruled, on this issue of first impression, that the claims for advancement in this case are not entitled to administrative priority, and should be treated as pre-petition, unsecured claims without administrative priority.
The odd procedural context of this case is not likely to be replicated often for the average practitioner of corporate or commercial litigation, but the court does refer to some of the well-known and frequently applied Delaware principles and Delaware policy regarding advancement for directors and officers. I suggest that this opinion may be most useful to those dealing with the priority of claims generally in receiverships under Delaware law, as well as bankruptcy lawyers to the extent the court refers to bankruptcy by analogy to a receivership, and cites to many decisions of bankruptcy courts that have dealt with advancement under Delaware law (though the decision refers to some courts that conflate the concepts of advancement and indemnification–which is not uncommon among some courts and lawyers alike.)
The ABA Journal is conducting its annual contest of the top legal blogs in the U.S. This hyperlink brings you to the ABA survey page. The full explanation from their website follows:
Blawg 100 Amici
We’re working on our annual list of the 100 best legal blogs, and we’d like your advice on which blogs you think we should include.
Use the form below to tell us about a blog—not your own—that you read regularly and think other lawyers should know about. (Please note that law blogs in the Blawg 100 Hall of Fame are not eligible for this year’s list.) If there is more than one blog you want to support, feel free to send us additional amici through the form. We may include some of the best comments in our Blawg 100 coverage. But keep your remarks pithy—you have a 500-character limit.
Friend-of-the-blawg briefs are due no later than 11:59 p.m. CT on Aug. 16, 2015.
About Blawg 100 Amici
Bloggers, by all means tell your readers about Blawg 100 Amici and invite them to send us messages on behalf of your blog.
But please know that we discourage amici from:
• Bloggers who nominate their own blogs or nominate blogs to which they have previously contributed posts.
• Employees of law firms who nominate blogs written by their co-workers.
• Public relations professionals in the employ of lawyers or law firms who nominate their clients’ blogs.
• Pairs of bloggers who have clearly entered into a quid pro quo agreement to nominate each other.
There is no specific criteria that a blogger can meet to be guaranteed a spot on the Blawg 100. And we think our list would suffer if there were. A blog’s whole can be greater than the sum of its parts, and a blog that never fails to post that daily update, has a beautiful design and an unwavering topical focus can very often have less of an impact than another blog that is less consistent on all fronts.
That said, please keep these criteria in mind when submitting Blawg 100 amici:
• We’re primarily interested in blogs in which the author is recognizable as someone working in a legal field or studying law in the vast majority of his or her posts.
• The blog should offer insights into the practice of law and be of interest to legal professionals or law students.
• The majority of the blog’s content should be unique to the blog and not cross-posted or cut and pasted from other publications.
• We are not interested in blogs that more or less exist to promote the author’s products and services.
The Delaware Court of Chancery’s opinion in Fox v. CDx Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 8031-VCL (Del. Ch. July 28, 2015), addresses a complex set of facts relating to the liability resulting from the intentionally inaccurate valuation of a spin-off in order to avoid tax consequences to the controlling stockholders, which wrongly minimized the value of stock options.
There are a number of eminently quotable insights and observations in this 82-page decision that could easily be the subject of a lengthy synopsis, but for busy readers who would prefer highlights until they can devote more time to reading the whole opinion, I offer a few selected bullet points that should be of interest to corporate and commercial litigators:
- In addition to reciting important concepts of Delaware law, the Court provides insight into what might motivate a person who sold a business, that he founded, for $7 billion dollars over a decade before the facts giving rise to this case, to risk the ignominy described in the opinion in order to avoid paying taxes in connection with the spinoff of a subsidiary of his new company.
- The Court found that: (i) the company breached the applicable agreement that required the board to determine the fair market value of a share of common stock–which impacted the value of options that the plaintiff owned; and (ii) the determination of FMV was not a good faith determination and “resulted from an arbitrary and capricious process.”
- The Court reasoned that Grant Thornton, in essence, copied the valuation report of another major accounting firm, and provided a valuation report in an intentionally low amount that the controlling stockholder requested in order to avoid his tax burden. The Court explained in detail why it reached the conclusion, somewhat startling, that the valuation by one of the country’s leading accounting firms, was done “not in good faith” and was the result of an “arbitrary and capricious” process. Footnote 21 cites to other Delaware opinions that have critiqued misleading and incorrect reports of other iconic firms.
- The board was required to make the determination of FMV but instead the majority stockholder did so. The Court emphasized that “director primacy” is the foundation of the DGCL even if there is a controlling stockholder, and that the board cannot shirk its duties in the face of a controlling stockholder. That is:
Although some controllers and boards may act this way [i.e., letting the controlling stockholder displace the board], Section 141(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”) establishes ―the bedrock statutory principle of director primacy.” Klaassen v. Allegro Dev. Corp., 2013 WL 5967028, at *9 (Del. Ch. Nov. 7, 2013). “[D]irector primacy remains the centerpiece of Delaware law, even when a controlling stockholder is present.” In re CNX Gas Corp. S’holders Litig., 2010 WL 2291842, at *15 (Del. Ch. May 25, 2010).
- The Court explained that an option is not a stock, and holders of an option are not stockholders. The rights of an option holder are based on the document that created the option.
- The following quote is an example of insights the Court provides, with citations to scholarly journals, regarding what motivates people, other than greed, to breach their duties:
I reach these conclusions about Martino and Halbert reluctantly. Other aspects of their testimony were credible, and I am not suggesting that either is inherently bad or malicious. Like all of us, they are multidimensional. Martino appears to have had a respectable career, and he testified to other instances when he has done the right thing. Halbert has achieved great things and, at least through Caris, devoted much of his time and treasure to improving the lives of others. But humans respond to incentives, and powerful incentives can lead humans to cross lines they otherwise would respect. This is particularly true when the transgression can be rationalized, the benefits are immediate and concrete, and the potential costs are distant, conditional, and readily discounted by the chance of detection and the possibility of a successful defense or settlement. (citations omitted)
- For example, the Court quotes from articles that define the psychological explanation of “hindsight bias”, to explain why the wrongdoers in this case may have tried to justify their actions in forcing an artificially low valuation:
“Hindsight bias has been defined in the psychological literature as the tendency for people with outcome knowledge to believe falsely that they would have predicted the reported outcome of an event.” Hal R. Arkes & Cindy A. Schipani, Medical Malpractice v. the Business Judgment Rule: Differences in Hindsight Bias, 73 Or. L. Rev. 587, 591 (1994). “[S]tudies have demonstrated not only that people claim that they would have known it all along, but also that they maintain that they did, in fact, know it all along.” (citations omitted)
In Re AbbVie Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 9983-VCG (Del. Ch. July 21, 2015). This Court of Chancery decision addresses the rare situation where equitable circumstances will allow an exception to the standing requirement for filing a derivative suit, which otherwise necessitates stock ownership at the time of the challenged transaction, based on Chancery Court Rule 23.1 and DGCL section 327.
The Court reasoned based on the circumstances of this case that the facts did not support an application of that equitable exception to the standing requirement, which was first articulated in the Delaware Chancery opinion of Shaev v. Wyly, 1998 WL 13858 (Del Ch Jan. 6, 1998) aff’d, 719 A.2d 490 (Del. 1998). This might be a somewhat esoteric aspect of corporate litigation but is still an important one for the right set of facts.
Capella Holding, Inc. v. Anderson, C.A. No. 9809-VCN (Del. Ch. July 8, 2015), is a Delaware Court of Chancery decision that addresses recurring corporate litigation issues that make it a useful addition to the litigator’s toolbox (even as a duplicate), for the businesslike manner in which it treats the perennial fact pattern of a co-founder and former officer/director who was both unceremoniously ousted from the company he brought into the world, and as a parting insult, they diluted his ownership interest. His claims were presented as counterclaims.
- The only counterclaim that survived the motion to dismiss was whether an executive compensation agreement was breached, to the extent he was not given severance payments based on the company’s argument that he was fired for cause. His agreement (and his fiduciary duties while he was a director) prevented him from disclosing confidential information which he did in a lawsuit filed in Tennessee. The court doubted the strength of the claim but allowed it to survive a motion to dismiss in order to provide an opportunity for discovery on the factual issues.
- The court treated the dilution claims as direct, instead of derivative, by reading the claims to allege the dilution of voting rights by a controller.
- The court reasoned that there were insufficient well-pleaded allegations that the price at which the challenged recapitalization took place was unfair, and the court concluded that even if the entire fairness standard applied to the challenge, the allegations of unfairness did not suffice to survive a motion to dismiss.
- The court’s summary of the claims against the directors and the applicable pleading standard are worth quoting:
A classic duty of loyalty claim involves self-interested conduct, and a good faith claim (also under the loyalty umbrella) arises “where corporate directors have no conflicting self-interest in a decision, yet engage in misconduct that is more culpable than simple inattention or failure to be informed.” As a general matter, directors are presumed to make business decisions “on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the action taken [i]s in the best interests of the company.” Even when entire fairness scrutiny would otherwise seem to apply, a plaintiff must first “make factual allegations in its complaint that, if proved, would establish that the challenged transactions are not entirely fair” to state a claim. (footnotes omitted.)
Regarding whether the consideration of documents outside the pleadings converted the motion to dismiss counterclaims into a motion for summary judgment, the issue was avoided because: Delaware Rule of Evidence Rule 201(b) allows the Court to take judicial notice of facts that are “‘capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.’”
In Cyber Holding LLC v. CyberCore Holding, Inc., C.A. No. 7369-VCN (Del. Ch. July 8, 2015), the Delaware Court of Chancery provides a useful exercise in contract interpretation regarding whether the buyer or the seller of a business would be responsible for certain post-closing tax liability. After applying the usual standards, the Court of Chancery concludes that there are two reasonable interpretations of the contract at issue, and even though the court is skeptical that a trial will illuminate the lack of clarity, the ambiguity requires a denial of the summary judgment motion.
The recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision in Doe v. Coupe, C.A. No. 10983-VCP (Del. Ch. July 14, 2015), clarifies the basis for equitable jurisdiction needed in order for the Court of Chancery to hear a claim that the state should be enjoined from enforcing an unconstitutional statute, in connection with a declaratory judgment action. Thus, the court denied a motion to dismiss, even if arguably the Delaware Superior Court might have jurisdiction over some part of the claim.
This ruling is useful for two reasons: (i) it delineates those types of declaratory judgment actions that seek an equitable remedy such that they do not need to be filed in Delaware’s separate court of law, the Superior Court, which is the state’s trial court of general jurisdiction; and (ii) it recognizes that the Court of Chancery can be a forum to address the constitutionality, based on the state constitution, of state statutes, which the state can be enjoined from enforcing if such statutes are found unconstitutional. This decision did not, however, address the merits of the constitutionality issue.
Nonetheless, I view this decision as an invitation for litigants to consider the Court of Chancery, more frequently known for corporate litigation, as an option for certain types of civil rights litigation. See, e.g., Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority, a recent Delaware Supreme Court decision interpreting Section 20 of Article I of the Delaware Constitution.
See generally, recent Chancery opinion highlighted on these pages that also addressed the types of declaratory judgment actions that may be heard in Chancery, instead of Superior Court, but which reached a different conclusion than the instant case. See 10 Del. C. Section 6501, et seq. (The Declaratory Judgment Act)
Two rejections by the Delaware Court of Chancery last week, on the same day, of two separate proposed settlements of two unrelated class actions challenging a merger, were reported by The Chancery Daily, Professor Bainbridge and Alison Frankel of Thomson Reuters. The two cases are Acevedo v. Aeroflex Holding Corp., et al., C. A. No. 9730-VCL transcript (Del. Ch. July 8, 2015), and In Re InterMune Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 10086-VCN (consol.) hearing (Del. Ch. July 8, 2015). In the InterMune case, the court reserved judgment and asked for additional submissions instead of an outright rejection.
The concern expressed by both vice chancellors was that the wide-ranging “intergalactic releases” agreed to by the corporations were given in exchange for what the court viewed as questionable value to the extent the “benefit for the class” was not quite an even quid pro quo, even though the corporations were happy to grant the releases so that the lawsuit could be settled and the deal consummated. The court, however, when asked to approve a settlement, must independently decide that the class is not waiving more claims than it should be waiving in exchange for the benefit that it supposedly is receiving from the settlement.
These two judicial events may signal a sea change to the extent they may be a sign that proposed class action settlements (and the attorneys’ fees that come with them), may not be approved in the same manner as they have been in the past–perhaps as part of a judicial effort to discourage the filing of lawsuits in over 90% of major deals (and the implication that over 90% of major deals don’t suffer from legal infirmity, so many of those suits are likely not the strongest on the merits.)
Much more can be written about the potential significance and ramifications of these rulings in connection with commentary and cases appearing on these pages about the high number of suits filed in connection with mergers, and what the judiciary can do about it. This may be an indication of what the Delaware Court of Chancery can do to regulate this type of corporate litigation. Of course, Delaware wants to discourage so-called junk cases, but as the Aeroflex transcript reveals, it cannot always be determined at the outset of a suit whether the claims will be supported by later discovery. The challenge is not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”, and discourage meritorious suits as well.
In an article for the current issue of the Delaware Business Court Insider, I discussed a recent opinion by the Delaware Court of Chancery that denied a motion to dismiss claims against the seller of a business. Those claims included allegations of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The article appears below.
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently allowed claims involving breach of fiduciary duty and fraud against the sellers of a business to survive a motion to dismiss. The business provided non-legal administrative services to law firms and their mortgage lender clients in connection with mortgage foreclosures in a number of Western and Midwestern states. The organizational structure of the businesses was relatively complex and involved overlapping entities. The causes of action were seven in number and the court described the multiple motions to dismiss by the defendants as including a “somewhat dizzying array of arguments and counter-arguments.”
The 61-page opinion in CMS Investment Holdings LLC v. Castle, C.A. No. 9468-VCP (Del. Ch. June 23, 2015), provides an extensive description of the facts. In essence, the claims for breach of the LLC agreement, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent transfer and related claims were based on an alleged scheme to deprive the purchaser of receiving the benefit of its bargain. In particular, the LLC that was created to receive the fees generated for administrative services was not being utilized in the manner intended by the parties. For example, instead of the fees being paid to the LLC, the defendants retained the fees for themselves, leading to the LLC’s default on its debt obligations. Moreover, instead of helping the LLC to restructure, the defendants allegedly ushered it into insolvency and then bought the most valuable assets of the company from the LLC’s receivership, the opinion said.
Several important legal principles and analyses with wide practical application are discussed in this opinion. For example, the court discusses the criteria to determine when a claim should be considered direct or derivative. The court explained that the following questions inform the determination: (1) who suffered the alleged harm (the corporation or the suing stockholders individually); and (2) who would receive the benefit of any recovery or other remedy (the corporation or the stockholders individually). However, courts have long recognized that the same set of facts can give rise to both a direct claim and a derivative claim. In this case, the court found that the claims were at least dual claims that have both direct and derivative aspects, and thus were allowed to proceed on that basis.
The court described the types of fiduciary duty claims that could be derivative in nature and also noted several types of direct claims for infringement of a stockholder’s right that are direct in nature, such as an infringement of the right to vote and the right to enforce contractual restraints on the authority of a board pursuant to the charter, bylaws or provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Compare NAF Holdings LLC v. Li & Fung (Trading) Ltd., 2015 Del. LEXIS 310 (June 24, 2015), a recent Delaware Supreme Court decision that held individual contractual rights are direct and not derivative even if a corporation might be a beneficiary of that contract.
The Chancery opinion in CMS includes a helpful articulation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and an explanation of why and how, based on the facts of this case, that claim survived a motion to dismiss. The court emphasized the temporal focus as being critical in the analysis of such a claim. Thus, the court addressed what the parties would have agreed to themselves had they considered the issue in their original bargaining positions at the time of contracting.
The court provided a useful description of an unjust enrichment or quasi-contract claim juxtaposed with a breach of contract claim, and explained how those two claims can be pleaded in the alternative in the same complaint. Based on the facts of this case, the court reasoned that the unjust enrichment claim would proceed in the alternative.
Likewise, the court explained how a breach of a contractually-defined fiduciary duty claim can be pleaded compared to a conventional breach of contract claim. The court emphasized that a cause of action for aiding and abetting can only survive in connection with the former claim.
The court explained that the terms of the LLC agreement in this case did not eliminate all the fiduciary duties that could be eliminated under the LLC Act. The court observed that for those fiduciary duties that were not waived by the LLC agreement, there was a factual issue regarding whether the managerial responsibilities of certain of the individual defendants rose to the level that would impose upon them the default fiduciary duties provided for in the LLC Act.
In allowing a breach of fiduciary duty claim to proceed, and to survive a motion to dismiss, the court noted that there may be some situations where simply resigning from the board, without taking other action, may in some circumstances support a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.
In the concluding section, the court addressed a claim pursuant to the Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act and allowed the claim for actual and constructive fraud to proceed pursuant to Sections 1304 and 1305 of the act. The court explained that the underpayment or diversion of fees that were properly payable to the LLC supported a claim that those actions were actually, or reasonably appeared to have been, made intentionally to hinder the interests of the plaintiff as a holder of equity and debt in that LLC, for less than reasonably equivalent value, while the LLC was in financial distress.
The court also emphasized that the DUFTA also allows principles of law and equity to supplement its statutory provisions, which formed an additional basis for the court’s refusal to dismiss those claims.
In sum, this opinion efficiently distills complicated facts and a plethora of claims and defenses involving important principles and statements of Delaware law that have widespread applications.