Chancery Finds Usurpation of Corporate Opportunity

By Francis Pileggi on Posted in Chancery Court Updates

Delaware case law is well-established regarding the aspect of the fiduciary duty of loyalty that prohibits a corporate director from usurping a corporate opportunity. A recent decision from the Delaware Court of Chancery applies that well-settled prohibition in a flexible manner to a set of facts that have apparently not been squarely addressed in prior precedent.  In Personal Touch Holding Corp. v. Glaubach, C.A. No. 11199-CB (Del. Ch. Feb. 25, 2019), the court awarded damages for the breach of this subset of fiduciary duty, as well as for other breaches of fiduciary duty.

Basic Background Facts:

This case involved a co-founder who also served as a president and director of a New York-based provider of healthcare services. He was removed when the company discovered various transgressions. The former director purchased an office building in his individual capacity–secretly–even though the court found that the former director had been aware that the company was interested for several years in purchasing a similar building for its own use.  The former director then offered to lease the building back to the company at what the court found to be above-market rental rates.

Key Principles of Law:

This short blog post assumes that readers are familiar with the basic principles involved with the usurpation of corporate opportunities, and will merely highlight some of the key statements of law and the court’s reasoning in this 84-page opinion.

The well-known elements of a claim based on the corporate opportunity doctrine have been stated frequently in prior Delaware cases. Those familiar with corporate litigation will recognize the following four elements of a claim for usurpation of corporate opportunity:

“(1)      The corporation is financially able to exploit the opportunity;

(2)      The opportunity is within the corporation’s line of business;

(3)      The corporation has an interest or expectancy in the opportunity;

(4)      By taking the opportunity for his own, the corporate fiduciary will thereby be placed in a position inimicable to his duties to the corporation.”

Slip op. at 36-38.

The court explained that Delaware Supreme Court decisions have referred to some of these elements in the disjunctive even though they are often quoted as being conjunctive. Specifically, proof of either the third element or the fourth element would sustain a corporate opportunity claim.

Moreover, the court decides the viability of a corporate opportunity claim by weighing the four factors in a holistic fashion and no one factor is dispositive. Id.

Key Reasoning of the Court:

  • The court rejected the argument that the purchase of the office building was not in the line of business of the healthcare company involved, which historically leased office space, because the “line of business factor” was in either inapplicable or was satisfied because the company had a clear “interest and expectancy” in the opportunity. In addition to that factor having a flexible meaning, the court explained that latitude should be allowed for development and expansion of a business, and the Delaware courts have broadly interpreted the nature of the corporation’s business when determining whether a corporation had an interest in a opportunity.
  • Regardless, the court found that the line of business test was not relevant where, as here, the company had a clear interest and expectancy in acquiring the building, and the opportunity presented related to an operational decision about how to expand the business as opposed to an opportunity to acquire a new business.
  • The court further reasoned that even if the opportunity was not within the existing line of business, it was sufficient that the company had a “clear interest and expectancy” at the time the opportunity arose. Id. at 44-47.
  • Regarding the fourth factor, the court instructed that a corporate officer or director was prohibited from taking an opportunity for his own “if the corporate fiduciary will thereby be placed in a position inimicable to his duties to the corporation.”
  • The court elaborated by observing that the corporate opportunity doctrine is implicated where the fiduciary’s seizure of an opportunity results in a conflict between the fiduciary’s duties to the corporation and the self-interest of the director as actualized by the exploitation of the opportunity.” Id. at 47-49.
  • The court also rejected an argument that the employment agreement of the former director allowed him to pursue other business interests outside of the company, and to devote a material portion of his time to other business interests. The court found that contractual defense to be unavailing in part because that provision did not allow the defendant to compete with the company for opportunities in which the company had an interest or expectancy. In addition, the employment agreement also prohibited the former director and president from engaging in activities which were “competitive with” the business of the company.
  • The court applied the entire fairness test because the former director was on both sides of the transaction involving a lease of the building to the company, and also because the director received a personal benefit from the transaction that was not received by the shareholders generally. Id. at 53.
  • The court also explained that charging the company an above-market rate for rent was unfair self-dealing and a breach of the duty of loyalty–regardless of whether the former director acted in subjective good faith.

As a side note, the court also found a separate breach of fiduciary duty as a result of the former director engaging in a “letter-writing campaign” over a several month period in which the former director sent harassing and disturbing anonymous letters to board members, employees and the lender of the company which caused harm to the company by hurting morale and causing distraction–in addition to attempting to sabotage the company’s relationship with its primary lender. Slip op. at 76-83.

Delaware Courts and Legal Ethics

By Francis Pileggi on Posted in Chancery Court Updates

A recent decision by the Delaware Court of Chancery provides an example of those rare instances where the court refers a violation of legal ethics to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for investigation, as compared to the court itself determining the appropriate penalty. See Charter Communications Operating LLC v. Optymyze, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0865-JTL, letter (Del. Ch. Mar. 5, 2019)

Some readers are surprised to read about Delaware court opinions which explain that the Delaware courts do not view their primary role as enforcers of the Rules of Professional Conduct unless violations of those rules “prejudicially disrupt judicial proceedings” or “threaten the legitimacy of judicial proceedings.” See, e.g., Crumplar v. Superior Court, 56 A.3d 1000, 1009 (Del. 2012), highlighted on these pages. Other cases have used the phrase “interfering with the administration of justice.” See, e.g., Lendus LLC v. Goede, highlighted on these pages.

Rather, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), a branch of the Delaware Supreme Court, is the proper venue for investigating and enforcing violations of legal ethics. In the Charter case linked above, the court was considering violations of Rule 11 when the counsel involved withdrew. The court explained that there might be some cases where it would continue to address a Rule 11 issue even after counsel withdrew, but the ODC is well equipped to investigate attorneys and recommend appropriate action.

Legal ethics is a topic covered by these pages because it not only applies to Delaware corporate and commercial litigation, but it also permeates virtually every aspect of legal practice. See, e.g., my recently published book on legal ethics highlighted on these pages.

Indemnification Claim Not Ripe Until Final Adjudication

By Francis Pileggi on Posted in Chancery Court Updates

A recent decision by the Complex Commercial Litigation Division of the Delaware Superior Court in Winshall, et al. v. Viacom International, Inc., C.A. No. N15C-06-137 EMD CCLD (Del. Super., Feb. 25, 2019), ruled that a claim for indemnification was not ripe until a final adjudication, after appeal, was decided.  In a matter involving a claim for indemnification for attorneys’ fees based on a finding of a breach of a merger agreement by the Court of Chancery, which was affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court, the Superior Court held that a subsequently filed indemnification claim was not barred by the statute of limitations because the claim did not become ripe until the affirmance by the Delaware Supreme Court. See Slip op. at 17-19.

The indemnification claim for “losses” which was defined in the agreement to include attorneys’ fees, was based on the Court of Chancery’s prior finding of a breach of agreement. The court also discussed several rebuttals to a statute of limitations argument and how they applied to the facts of this case. Id. at 22.

Compare a recent decision highlighted on these pages which held that the statute of limitations of three-years for a breach of contract claim for indemnification did not begin to accrue until the claim for indemnification was rejected.

Supreme Court Denies Motion to File Amicus Brief

By Francis Pileggi on Posted in Delaware Supreme Court Updates

Ameliorating the relative paucity of case law on the prerequisites for successfully motioning the Delaware Supreme Court for approval to file an amicus curiae brief, is a recent Order in the matter styled In re Verizon Insurance Coverage Appeals, Nos. 558, 560,  561, 2018, Order (Del. Feb. 21, 2019). The Delaware Supreme Court via this Order denied a motion to file an amicus brief by a trade association because the proposed amicus brief: (i) addressed an issue not raised in the Opening Brief; (ii) was duplicative of the Opening Brief; and (iii) did not offer unique supplemental assistance to the court.

A specific Delaware Supreme Court rule addresses motions to file an amicus brief, but does not provide much amplification. In this Order, Delaware’s high court cited Turnbull v. Turnbull, 644 A.2d 1322, 1324 (Del. 1994), regarding prerequisites for filing an amicus brief beyond what is stated in the court rule.

Rare Instance of Fee Shifting in Section 220 Case

By Francis Pileggi on Posted in Chancery Court Updates

Among the multitude of court decisions on DGCL Section 220 highlighted on these pages, a rare bird is the shifting of fees by the court based on the bad-faith exception to the American Rule. In a rare instance that should not be considered anything other than unusual, the Court of Chancery recently granted, in a transcript ruling, fee shifting in a books and records action in which the court found that there was no justification for the refusal to provide LLC managers with requested books and records, and that the defendant LLC acted in bad faith by withholding those company records. See Crestview-Oxbow Acquisition, LLC, et al. v. Oxbow Carbon, LLC, C.A. No. 2018-0654-JTL, transcript (Del. Ch. Jan. 15, 2019; filed Jan. 31, 2019).

 

Director Not Entitled to Privileged Communications with Board Special Committee

By Francis Pileggi on Posted in Chancery Court Updates

A recent short Order of the Court of Chancery reiterated one of the limitations on the right of a director to receive corporate information. In the latest installment of the internecine imbroglio in the litigation captioned Schnatter v. Papa John’s International, Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0542-AGB, Order, (Del. Ch. Feb. 25, 2019), the Court explained that DGCL Section 141(c) allows a board to act “openly with the knowledge of the excluded director to appoint a special committee, in which case communications with the counsel would be properly protected, at least to the extent necessary for the committee’s ongoing work”. (internal quotes modified)(citing Kalisman v. Friedman, 2013 WL 1668205, at *4 (Del. Ch. Apr. 17, 2013)). The Kalisman case was highlighted on these pages.

A prior Chancery decision in the Papa John’s case, that also addressed the right of directors to corporate documents, was highlighted on these pages.

The Court in its Order reasoned that there was no evidence presented in the context of the motion to compel that Schnatter ever regarded the law firm for the Special Committee as the Company’s counsel or the Board’s counsel. Nor was there a reasonable basis for Schnatter to regard that law firm as representing his interests, including his interests as a director.

Schnatter was barred from obtaining privileged communications for a very narrow period of time in anticipation of the contemplated formation of a Special Committee pursuant to DGCL Section 141(c). Schnatter was excluded in order for the Special Committee to investigate certain matters concerning him.

 

Chancery Denies Section 220 Demand for Corporate Books and Records

By Francis Pileggi on Posted in Chancery Court Updates

A recent post-trial decision from the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a claim for corporate books and records based on DGCL § 220 after finding that there was no credible basis for wrongdoing to support the stated investigative purpose for the demand. Hoeller v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0336-JRS (Del. Ch. Feb. 12, 2019).  Section 220 cases are among the most common forms of Delaware corporate litigation. (In terms of the number of recent Delaware cases highlighted on this blog, it might only be outnumbered by forum selection clause cases.)

Commentary:

About 100 or more Delaware court decisions on Section 220 have been highlighted on these pages over the last 14 years. Regular readers will recall many commentaries about Section 220 that include this lawyer’s respectful skepticism, or lack of enthusiasm, for Section 220 as a tool to obtain information as part of one’s preparation for a plenary complaint.  To the extent that Section 220 is a tool, the decision highlighted in this post supports the view that in some cases Section 220 may be more akin to a sledgehammer than a scalpel, to the extent that Section 220 can often be expensive and time consuming and unsatisfying as a means of obtaining information from a corporation by a stockholder.

For busy readers, the most noteworthy aspects of this 39-page decision can be explained through the use of bullet points to highlight the court’s comprehensive and well-reasoned review of the facts and law involved in an unsuccessful Section 220 claim.

Brief Background:

This case involved a demand for corporate books and records in connection with the termination of a long-term corporate customer relationship which accounted for over 20% of the sales of the defendant company. This important relationship was the subject of alleged misrepresentations that were allegedly more optimistic about the future of the relationship than was warranted.  Although some documents were produced in response to a pre-suit Section 220 demand, the complaint in this case was filed when additional documents demanded were not provided.

Procedural History:

Although internal Chancery guidelines suggest a trial within about 90 days of a complaint, the trial in this case was held within a still comparatively prompt 6-months after the complaint was filed, in November 2018. This February 2019 post-trial decision provides for a relatively quick determination, however unsatisfying to the plaintiff, although prior Section 220 cases highlighted on these pages indicate that when Section 220 cases are appealed, and in some cases remanded, litigation involving Section 220 conceivably could last for several years.

Key Takeaways:

Some of the key legal principles that can be found in this post-trial opinion include the following well-known prerequisites for a Section 220 claim, and important nuances of those requirements, many of which are not expressly stated in the statute:

  • The prerequisite of a “proper purpose” for inspection is defined as one that is reasonably related to the interest to the plaintiff as a stockholder.
  • Although the desire to investigate mismanagement or wrongdoing is a recognized proper purpose, a stockholder must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it has presented a “credible basis” from which the court can infer that the alleged wrongdoing occurred. Credible basis requires merely “some evidence” of wrongdoing–and not that wrongdoing actually occurred.
  • A stockholder must also state the reasons why he seeks to inspect books and records. That is, what the plaintiff will do with the information or the goal of the investigation. The court applies this requirement to avoid fishing expeditions. In the absence of evidence of a fiduciary duty breach, where a decision falls within the business judgment rule’s protection, the proper purpose requirement fails as there is no claim for a stockholder to pursue in that situation. (Also, for example, though valuation is a well-established Section 220 proper purpose, some cases have required an explanation about the reason a valuation is sought.)
  • Where the purpose of a stockholder is based on the possible breach of the duty of oversight, such as in a Caremark claim, a stockholder must provide “some evidence” from which the court may infer that the board “utterly failed to implement a recording system or ignored red flags.” Moreover, in that context, there must be evidence of non-exculpated corporate wrongdoing in order to survive a defense (in the event that a corporation has a Section 102(b)(7) provision).
  • In this case, there was an allegation that there were misrepresentations about the future of important customer relationships, but the court found that there was insufficient evidence to satisfy the “credible basis” requirement.
  • In addition, the court referred to prior cases in which the plaintiff could not explain the basis for the wrongdoing that was being investigated or the need for the documents that were requested. In those prior cases, the court found that it was the attorneys who were the driving force behind the litigation and not the plaintiff that was requesting the documents. Although the court suspected that to be applicable in this matter, the court did not deny the claim on that basis, but rather reasoned that: “the plaintiff has failed to proffer even a scintilla of evidence to support a credible basis that a claim may exist” under Caremark.
  • The court also reasoned that the fact that active negotiations failed to lead to a deal with a key customer does not support a Caremark claim, especially based on evidence that the board was apprised of, and at times involved in, the negotiations.
  • An important aspect of the court’s decision is the following rationale: “Disagreement with a business decision, in the absence of evidence from which the court may infer a possible breach of fiduciary duty, does not create a credible basis from which the court can infer mismanagement.” See Slip op. 26-27, n. 90.

Second Amendment Legal Advocacy Award

By Francis Pileggi on Posted in Commentary, Other Court Decisions

News from the Department of Self-Promotion: Recently I was awarded the 2019 Chief Justice William Killen Award for Second Amendment Legal Advocacy in connection with my most recent successful legal challenge of certain state regulations. The award was presented on behalf of the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, which is an affiliate of the National Rifle Association, before a group of about 600 people in Dover. In a recent Delaware court opinion highlighted on these pages, my colleague Jamie Inferrera and I prevailed in our arguments that certain regulations at state parks were in violation of a Delaware Supreme Court decision that found prior regulations invalid based on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the counterpart in the Delaware State Constitution at Article I, Section 20. The award is named after the first Chief Justice and first Chancellor of the State of Delaware. Although this is not an annual award, several years ago I received this award for other appellate victories.

There are many people–lawyers and non-lawyers alike–as well as several organizations too numerous to mention in this short post who made it possible to prevail in three major court decisions, available at the above hyperlinks, that now form a foundation for a body of law in Delaware that is based on the natural right to self defense, which every human is born with, and that the United States Supreme Court has ruled to be at the core of the right to bear arms.

Company Required to Produce Emails Among Management to Stockholders

By Francis Pileggi on Posted in Delaware Supreme Court Updates

The Delaware Supreme Court recently issued an opinion that clarifies the duty of a company to produce emails among its management in a Section 220 case. In KT4 Partners LLC v. Palantir Technologies, Inc., Del. Supr., No. 281, 2018 (Jan. 29, 2019), Delaware’s High Court addressed a demand under Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) Section 220 by a stockholder for corporate books and records, including emails among management, to allow the stockholder to investigate possible wrongdoing, such as the reasons behind amendments to an Investors’ Rights Agreement that severely reduced the original rights granted under that agreement.

Notably, the court in its opinion quoted from a law review article that yours truly co-authored on the topic, which explained why demands under DGCL Section 220 should often include electronically-stored information (ESI) such as emails. See footnote 76.

This opinion is noteworthy because it clarifies Delaware law and authoritatively describes those circumstances when a demand for books and records under DGCL Section 220 will require the company to produce ESI, such as emails among management, to the extent necessary for the proper purpose established in a Section 220 case.

Brief Overview:

The stockholder demand in this case stated as its purpose the investigation of mismanagement, including depriving investors of their right of first refusal under an investors’ agreement that was amended without the consent of all investors, as well as interfering with the sale of stock by a large stockholder. The Court of Chancery, in a decision highlighted on these pages, determined that although some books and records had to be produced, emails need not be. The Supreme Court disagreed with that ruling and affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Importantly, the facts of this case include an acknowledgment by the company that it often did not follow corporate formalities such as preparing board resolutions and keeping minutes of board meetings, but rather often communicated by email and took action by email–including on matters that were the subject of the investigative purpose of the Section 220 demand.

Highlights of Key Aspects of the Court’s Ruling:

For busy readers, I provide bullet points of key aspects of this crucial decision, but those who need to be familiar with the nuances of this aspect of Delaware corporate litigation should read the entire 49-page opinion linked above.

Procedural Background:

  • The court discussed what appeared to be an issue of first impression about the standard of review regarding a dispute over the interpretation of the stated purpose in a Section 220 demand. The court explained that the standard of review for the scope of relief is abuse of discretion, but de novo review applies to questions of law such as whether the stated purpose under Section 220 is proper. Although contract interpretation is also subject to de novo review as a question of law, fact-intensive and judgment-based determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and factual determinations that underlie the trial court’s interpretation of an ambiguous written document deserve the deference given to factual findings.
  • The Delaware Supreme Court found that the demand in this case did include an explicit reference to a request for electronic documents.
  • The core issue identified by the High Court was whether the Court of Chancery abused its discretion in ruling that emails and other ESI were not necessary to satisfy the purpose of investigating the wrongdoing alleged in this Section 220 case.

Basic Principles:

  • The court reviewed the basic principles and policy undergirding the qualified common law and statutory right to inspect corporate books and records. See Slip op. at 22 to 24.
  • The court observed that the scope of documents to which a stockholder is entitled under Section 220 is limited to those that are necessary to accomplish the proper purpose as stated in the demand. See Slip op. at 24 to 25.

Emails/ESI Production:

  • In explaining why ESI should be included in appropriate Section 220 cases, the Delaware Supreme Court quoted from a law review article on this topic co-authored by your truly. See footnote 76 (quoting Francis G.X. Pileggi, et al., Inspecting Corporate “Books and Records” in a Digital World: The Role of Electronically Stored Information, 37 Del. J. Corp. L. 163, 165 (2012)).
  • The court reviewed Delaware cases that previously addressed whether ESI such as emails should be included in a Section 220 request. See footnotes 71 to 74. See also Amalgamated Bank v. Yahoo!, Inc., a Chancery opinion highlighted on these pages that also cited the same law review article on this topic co-authored by yours truly that was quoted by the Supreme Court in the instant case. See, e.g., footnote 72 (citing a Court of Chancery Order allowing for imaging of a Blackberry in a Section 220 case.)
  • The court also explained, based on the facts and circumstances of this case, why emails and ESI had to be produced and were needed to accomplish the stated purpose. See Slip op. at 31. For example, the court explained that the company involved did not comply with required corporate formalities such as minutes of board meetings and that it often conducted corporate business informally, including over email, regarding the issues subject to the Section 220 demand. See footnote 77 and accompanying text. The ESI at issue included, for example,  an allegedly incriminating message sent via LinkedIn.
  • The court also emphasized that there may be some Section 220 cases where ESI may not be required to be produced by the company, such as those situations where the corporation has traditional, non-electronic documents that are sufficient to satisfy the needs of the Section 220 petitioner.
  • In this case, the company admitted that there were no hardcopy documents that addressed all of the requests, and that there were emails and other ESI that were responsive to the requests.
  • The court also provided practice tips for future litigants: there should be a cooperative effort to focus on the substantive data that should be produced–or in other words, focus on the information that is needed and that is available whether it be in hardcopy or in ESI format.

The court also addressed an unrelated issue. It rejected the argument that the company made that as a condition of production it could require the stockholder to file any suits based on the data received in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Although there have been cases that have imposed similar jurisdictional conditions, the court explained why such a condition should be the exception and not the norm.

SUPPLEMENT: Law360 published an article about this case in which they quoted my comments about the importance of the High Court’s opinion. (Subscription required)

LexBlog