For the most recent iteration of Delaware law on the topic of forum non conveniens, as it has evolved over the last few years, careful readers should be aware of the recent Chancery decision in Sweeny v. RPD Holdings Group, LLC, C.A. No. 2020-0813-SG (Del. Ch. May 27, 2021). This decision is consistent with the latest developments in Delaware law regarding forum non conveniens, to the extent that “overwhelming hardship” need not be established by the defendant where, as in this matter, the plaintiff did not file suit first, and the cases in competing states are deemed to have been simultaneously filed. The shift towards a reduced importance of that “hardship criteria” developed after the Delaware Supreme Court’s 2014 opinion in the Martinez case, which was highlighted on these pages.

The opinion also features a reference to an unusual form of financing not essential to its conclusion, called the tontine, named after a 15th century Italian financier Lorenzo de Tonti.

One of the more quotable parts of this decision is that the court decided that it should not retain jurisdiction to apply New Jersey law because that would be “lane-hogging”, and that the court wanted to “stay in [its] lane.”

The Delaware Court of Chancery recently provided a nearly book-length tutorial on the law of statutory appraisal in Delaware in a 132-page post-trial decision styled In re Appraisal of Regal Entertainment Group, Cons. C.A. No. 2018-0266-JTL (Del. Ch. May 13, 2021). The court held that the proper price was the deal price, adjusted to eliminate the value arising from the accomplishment or expectation of a merger. An adjustment also had to be made because of the increase in the value after signing, but before closing. The court reviewed the various valuation methods used by the parties’ experts and explained why one deserved the most weight in this case.

In the case of Snow Phipps Group LLC v. KCAKE Acquisition, Inc., C.A. No. 2020-0282-KSJM (Del. Ch. April 30, 2021, modified  June  2021), the court reviewed a topic of importance in deal litigation and one that has been the subject of many blog posts on these pages: an analysis of when reasonable best efforts or commercially reasonable efforts, which are deemed equivalent standards, have been satisfied.  This decision found that reasonable best efforts were satisfied in the context of obtaining financing–and found no MAE in the context of the pandemic. Also notable in this decision is the discussion of the “prevention doctrine.”

This 125-page decision, authored by newly-appointed Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick while she was still a Vice Chancellor, has already been the subject of much commentary by practitioners and others. See, e.g., the overview that appeared on Harvard Law School’s Corporate Governance Blog (on which yours truly has published multiple articles in the past.)  In part because I prefer not to duplicate extensive existing commentary, I simply want to highlight a few key issues addressed in the opinion that have widespread applicability to corporate and commercial litigators.

A prior Chancery decision in AB Stable VIII LLC v. Maps Hotels and Resorts One LLC (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2020), was another magnum opus of epic length that addressed similar issues, such as reasonable best efforts, and similarly did not find an MAE in the context of the pandemic.

A common type of business litigation case in Delaware involves post-closing purchase price adjustments, a variation of often-litigated earn-out disputes. Many agreements for the sale of a business include a provision that appoints an independent accounting firm to resolve disputes regarding a determination post-closing of working capital as of the closing date, for example, which impacts the final purchase price. A well-reasoned and pithy analysis of this type of issue was featured in a recent decision by the Complex Commercial Litigation Division of the Delaware Superior Court in the matter styled LDC Parent, LLC v. Essential Utilities, Inc., C.A. No. N20C-08-127-MMJ-CCLD (Del. Super. Apr. 28, 2021).

This decision determined that the particular post-closing dispute involved was subject to the binding decision of an independent accountant. More specifically, the parties disagreed about whether a Capital Expenditure, defined in the agreement as actually paid or payable, was properly capitalized according to U.S. GAAP. The Court rejected the argument that the issue was one of contract interpretation that should be subject to judicial review–and agreed with the argument that the dispute was covered by a clause that made it fall within the scope of the independent accountant’s decision-making authority.

The Court also held that it was not necessary to decide at this point whether the accounting issue involved would result in the independent accountant serving as an expert or an arbitrator–though the opinion features many citations to Delaware opinions that have addressed that specific issue in the context of similar post-closing dispute clauses that provide for certain post-closing issues to be decided by an independent accountant.

This opinion should be kept handy in the toolbox of those who litigate post-closing price adjustment cases as well as those who draft such agreements.

This post was prepared by Frank Reynolds, who has been following Delaware corporate law, and writing about it for various legal publications, for over 30 years.

Delaware’s Court of Chancery recently threw out an attempt to undermine activist investor Carl Icahn’s claim of business judgment protection under the seminal MFW ruling for his buyout of Voltari Corp.’s minority, finding plaintiffs failed to prove a special director committee lacked independence or that a shareholder vote was uninformed or coerced in Franchi, et al. v. Firestone, et al., No. 2020-0503 KSJM, order issued (Del. Ch. May 10, 2021). 

Newly-appointed Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick’s May 10 order dismissing a combined shareholders’ breach-of-duty lawsuit provides an updated application of a key Delaware Supreme Court opinion on the requirements shareholder plaintiffs must meet to force an interested majority shareholder like Icahn to show that a deal’s price and negotiation were entirely fair to investors.   Kahn v. M & F Worldwide Corp. 88 A.3d 635 (Del. 2014)(“MFW“), overruled on other grounds by Flood v. Synutra Int’l, Inc., 195 A.3d 754 (Del. 2018).

The crux of that touchstone high court ruling was that in a challenged controller-backed deal the defendants could get benefit-of-the doubt deference – and a much-improved chance of winning — only if the controller insured that the minority’s interests were protected by:

(i) conditioning the transaction on the approval of both a special committee and a majority of the minority stockholders; 

(ii) making the special committee independent; 

(iii) empowering the special committee to freely select its own advisors and to say no definitively; 

(iv) allowing the special committee to meet its duty of care in negotiating a fair price; 

(v) ensuring that the vote of the minority is informed; and

(vi) barring any coercion of the minority vote.

Background

Plaintiffs’ suit claimed the $7.7 million Icahn and his allies paid in 2019 for the 48 percent of Voltari they did not yet own undervalued the commercial real estate investment company and resulted in a “windfall” to Icahn in the form of $78.7 million in tax savings from Voltari’s past losses called “net operating loss carryforwards”

The combined complaints of former shareholders Adam Franchi and David Pill charged that: Icahn was unjustly enriched by coercing a deep discount price for the NOL’s, the Voltari directors breached their duties by wrongly approving the merger and that along with Icahn and his companies, they comprised an improper control group.

They claimed that:

(i) the Special Committee lacked independence;

(ii) the Special Committee failed to exercise its duty of care; and

(iii) the vote of the minority was not informed

No unreasonable, reckless actions

The Chancellor ruled in favor of dismissal of the challenge to the special committee’s independence because, “To plead that a director is not independent “in a manner sufficient to challenge the MFW framework, a plaintiff must allege facts supporting a reasonable inference that a director is sufficiently loyal to, beholden to, or otherwise influenced by an interested party so as to undermine the director’s ability to judge the matter on its merits.”

She said, “If the complaint supports a reasonable inference that [any] member [of the special committee] was not disinterested and independent, then the plaintiffs have called into question this aspect of the MFW requirements.” 

But the complaint here fails to show “conduct that constitutes reckless indifference or actions that are without the bounds of reason.”  Disagreeing with a special committee’s strategy is not a duty of care violation, nor is a “windfall“ allegation that amounts to “questioning the sufficiency of the price,” the Chancellor noted.

No controlled mindset

The fact that the special committee “met seven times, engaged and consulted with independent advisors, came to a reasoned decision to negotiate a transaction with Icahn, and successfully bid the deal price up by 48% percent” does not support the allegation that it fell under a “controlled mindset,” the court held.

No material disclosure left behind

Under MFW, the board’s consideration and rejection of a special committee candidate who had been an employee of an Icahn company did not need to be disclosed in the buyout proxy because it would not have been material to the average investor, the Chancellor ruled, finding that, “This alleged omission does not render the vote of the minority stockholders uninformed.”

Only gross negligence claims survive

Finally, the chancellor dismissed the unjust enrichment charge because it only involves ordinary negligence and since it has been determined that the business judgment standard applies, under MFW, only claims of gross negligence could survive the motion to dismiss.

                                                                                                                                                 

In the matter of Patel v. Duncan, C.A. No. 2020-0418-MTZ (Del. Ch. May 17, 2020), the Court of Chancery addressed whether a party was indispensable for purposes of Court of Chancery Rule 19(a), and held that the case would not proceed until those parties were added. Anyone needing to know the latest iteration of Delaware law on Rule 19 should be familiar with this decision.

 

One of the country’s foremost corporate law scholars, Prof. Stephen Bainbridge, who readers of Delaware corporate law decisions and readers of these pages will recognize as having earned a place in the pantheon of corporate law luminaries, has commented on the titular topic, based on a recent Wall Street Journal article that discusses a backlash by conservatives against CEOs who also have a “side hustle” as “social justice warriors”. The good professor cites to a related law review article he wrote (among the voluminous scholarship he has published), and also muses about:

… why so few conservative activists have seized upon the SEC shareholder proposal rule (Rule 14a-8) to put proposals on company proxy statements supporting conservative causes or opposing woke policies by corporations. Especially when there’s a slightly bored corporate law professor just waiting to advise them.

Courtesy of the Delaware Business Court Insider, we provide our article that appeared in the April 21, 2021 edition on an important topic for Delaware litigators.

No Such Thing as Local Counsel in Delaware Court of Chancery

By: Francis G.X. Pileggi* and  Chauna A. Abner**

This is a compilation of selected key Delaware court decisions, rules, and customs to guide out-of-state attorneys admitted to practice in Delaware pro hac vice, or non-Delaware lawyers who collaborate on Delaware litigation with Delaware counsel. (This is an updated version of an article I co-authored with Kevin F. Brady many years ago.)

The Role of Delaware Counsel

The Delaware Court of Chancery does not recognize the limited role of “local counsel” to the extent that it implies a less than plenary role of Delaware counsel—even if non-Delaware counsel are overseeing the litigation or taking the “laboring oar.” See, e.g., Wood v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 2021 Del. Ch. LEXIS 21, at *19 (Del. Ch. Feb. 4, 2021) (“‘Even when forwarding counsel has been admitted pro hac vice and is taking a lead role in the case, the Court of Chancery does not recognize the role of purely local counsel.’”) (quoting James v. National Finance, LLC, 2014 Del. Ch. LEXIS 254, at *12 (Del. Ch. Dec. 5, 2014)); State Line Ventures, LLC v. RBS Citizens, N.A., 2009 Del. Ch. LEXIS 233, at * 1 (Del. Ch. Dec. 2, 2009).

The Court of Chancery emphasizes that a Delaware attorney of record is responsible for every action taken by his or her client—from the content of the pleadings to the fulfillment of discovery obligations. “[T]he Delaware lawyer who appears in an action always remains responsible to the Court for the case and its presentation,” without reference to who drafted the document at issue or was responsible for certain actions. James, 2014 Del. Ch. LEXIS 254, at *38. See generally, Principles of Professionalism for Delaware Lawyers.

The Court of Chancery has　published　Guidelines to Help Lawyers Practicing in the Court of Chancery, which　make clear that　the concept　of “local counsel” does not exist in Delaware as a role with less than full responsibility. Delaware Court of Chancery, Guidelines to Help Lawyers Practicing in the Court of Chancery (2012), http://courts.state.de.us/Chancery/docs/CompleteGuidelines.pdf

Those Guidelines provide in part as follows:

Role of Delaware Counsel

  • The concept of “local counsel” whose role is limited to administrative or ministerial matters has no place in the Court of Chancery. The Delaware lawyers who appear in a case are responsible to the Court for the case and its presentation.
  • If a Delaware lawyer signs a pleading, submits a brief, or signs a discovery request or response, it is the Delaware lawyer who is taking the positions set forth therein and making the representations to the Court. It does not matter whether the paper was initially or substantially drafted by a firm serving as “Of Counsel.”
  • The members of the Court recognize that Delaware counsel and forwarding counsel frequently allocate responsibility for work and that, in some cases, the allocation will be heavily weighted to forwarding counsel. The members of the Court recognize that forwarding counsel may have primary responsibility for a matter from the client’s perspective. This does not alter the Delaware lawyer’s responsibility for the positions taken and the presentation of the case.
  • Non-Delaware counsel shall not directly make filings or initiate contact with the Court, absent extraordinary circumstances. Such contact must be conducted by Delaware counsel.
  • It is not acceptable for a Delaware lawyer to submit a letter from forwarding counsel under a cover letter saying, in substance, “Here is a letter from my forwarding counsel.”

Attorneys Admitted Pro Hac Vice

The Delaware courts also strictly regulate the pro hac vice admission of out-of-state attorneys, and the rules require a Delaware attorney moving the admission of an out-of-state attorney to determine and certify to the admitting court that the lawyer to be admitted is reputable and competent. See Delaware Supreme Court and Delaware State Bar Association, Principles of Professionalism for Delaware Lawyers, at ¶ C (Nov. 1, 2003), http://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=39428.

Out-of-state counsel also must certify that they have reviewed Delaware’s Principles of Professionalism for Delaware Lawyers. Even after being admitted to practice in Delaware pro hac vice, an out-of-state attorney may not: (i) sign pleadings; (ii) file documents with the Court; (iii) communicate directly with the Court; or (iv) attend proceedings without Delaware counsel (including calls with the court, mediation and arbitration proceedings), without express permission by the Court. See Forte Capital Partners, LLC v. Bennett, Del. Ch., C.A. No. 1495-N (2005) (rejecting pleadings, motions, and letters to the Court signed by out-of-state counsel; also rejecting the appearance before Court in a teleconference by an attorney admitted pro hac vice when Delaware counsel was not present for the conference).

In 2013, a non-Delaware lawyer was subject to a Private Admonition for participating in a conference call with the Court–without his Delaware attorney. However, out-of-state counsel who are admitted pro hac vice may take or defend depositions in the pending action without the presence of their Delaware counsel. See Griffin v. Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity, 2012 Del. Super. LEXIS 119 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 15, 2012) (holding that out-of-state counsel is not permitted to question a deposition witness in a Delaware action—even if “supervised” by Delaware counsel—”unless, and until, counsel is admitted pro hac vice.”)

The Court of Chancery issued an Order to clarify that only members of the Delaware Bar can be registered with the eFiling system as eFilers and to receive eFiling notifications by email. See Delaware Court of Chancery, Standing Order (Aug. 5, 2008) http://courts.delaware.gov/chancery/docs/ ChanceryStandingOrder_Out-Of-StateAttorneys_080408.pdf

The Court of Chancery also issued a notice informing Delaware lawyers that it is a violation of Rule 79.1 to share their eFiling passwords or add non-Delaware lawyers to the electronic service list.

An out-of-state attorney’s pro hac vice status may be revoked upon a motion to the Court. See State ex rel. Secretary of the DOT v. Mumford, 731 A.2d 831, 835 (Del. Super. Ct. 1999) (revoking the pro hac vice admission of out-of-state attorney who “demonstrated a lack of civility and professionalism by ‘coaching the witnesses’ during the depositions, by failing to control or attempt to control the objectionable conduct of his client, and by encouraging the [inappropriate] conduct of his client.”). Inappropriate conduct by out-of-state attorneys will not be tolerated by the courts, and can lead to revocation of an attorney’s pro hac status and submission of specific matters to the bar of the attorney’s home state as well as Delaware’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Manning v. Vellardita, 2012 Del. Ch. LEXIS 59 (Del. Ch. Mar. 28, 2012) (holding that while out-of-state attorney’s failure to fully disclose law firm affiliation “fell short of the level of candor this Court expects of attorneys practicing in Delaware,” there was no basis to revoke attorney’s pro hac vice status; however, Court referred the matter to the bar association of attorney’s home state and the Delaware Office of Disciplinary Counsel).

Delaware’s pro hac vice rules apply with equal force to Delaware-barred attorneys who do not maintain an office in Delaware. Maintaining an office in Delaware is a prerequisite to serving as an attorney of record in Delaware pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. 12(a)(i); if a Delaware attorney retires, or practices in another state, and his firm does not maintain a bona fide Delaware office, then that attorney will need to be admitted pro hac vice before filing documents with or arguing before any Delaware court.

The Delaware Supreme Court’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel has compiled materials and case excerpts relevant to attorneys admitted pro hac vice. These materials provide guidance on issues frequently encountered by Delaware counsel when assisting out-of-state counsel, as well as guidance for counsel admitted pro hac vice, including:

  • Out-of-state counsel’s desire to impermissibly limit the scope of retention of Delaware Counsel;
  • Identifying the client: distinguishing the underlying client in the litigation from out-of-state counsel who directs Delaware counsel and pays the bills;
  • Special consideration required when both Delaware counsel and out-of-state counsel are associated with the same firm, including the proper form of signature blocks; and
  • Procedures for Delaware-barred attorneys who practice out of state and do not maintain a bona fide Delaware office.

As a supplement to the extensive materials provided by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the following cases provide distinct examples of attorney conduct that will not be tolerated by the Delaware courts, and how the courts address such conduct:

    • Sample v. Morgan, 935 A.2d 1046 (Del. Ch. 2007) (holding that a non-Delaware lawyer and her law firm could be sued in Delaware for providing advice and services to a Delaware corporation, its directors, and its managers on matters of Delaware corporate law, including the preparation of a certificate of incorporation, which they provided to a service agent to be filed in Delaware).
    • Beck v. Atl. Coast PLC, 868 A.2d 840 (Del. Ch. 2005) (sanctioning and fining out-of-state counsel under Rule 11 and Rule 37 for filing a deceptive complaint, improperly certifying that the plaintiff was fit to serve as class representative, and intentionally withholding relevant non-privileged documents responsive to discovery requests).
    • Auriga Capital Corp. v. Gatz Props., LLC, 2012 Del. Ch. LEXIS 19 (Del. Ch. Jan. 27, 2012) (shifting fees where plaintiff and his counsel acted in bad faith by “splatter[ing] the record with a series of legally and factually implausible assertions,” allowing defendant to collect responsive documents without legal supervision, and failing to preserve relevant documents and information).
    • Griffin v. The Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity, C.A. No. 09C-04-067 JAP (Del. Super. Mar. 15, 2012) (imposing a $500　fine against plaintiffs for allowing out-of-state counsel, who was not admitted pro hac vice in Delaware, to conduct a deposition in a Delaware case).
    • In re Asbestos Litig. Limited to Ronald Carlton, C.A. No. 10C-08-216 ABS (Del. Super. Ct. May 14, 2012) (warning Delaware counsel of possible sanctions and/or rejection of documents filed for failure to adhere to the requirement that all correspondence to the Court be submitted on Delaware counsel’s letterhead and signed by Delaware counsel).

Electronic Discovery Duties

Electronic data preservation, collection, and production are also governed by the Delaware courts. Both the District of Delaware and the Court of Chancery provide guidelines on preserving electronically stored information (ESI) on their websites.

The District of Delaware implemented a Default Standard for Discovery, Including Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (Dec. 8, 2011), http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Chambers/ SLR/Misc/EDiscov.pdf, and a Default Standard for Access to Source Code (Dec. 8, 2011), http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Chambers/SLR/Misc/DefStdAccess.pdf. These standards require counsel for all parties to confer on several topics concerning the production of ESI to avoid costly litigation of discovery disputes.

The Court of Chancery has adopted Guidelines for Preservation of Electronically Stored Information that require counsel to develop and oversee a process to preserve all relevant ESI. See Delaware Court of Chancery, Guidelines for Preservation of Electronically Stored Information (Jan. 18, 2011), http://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=50988. This process should include, at a minimum, identifying all custodians of potentially relevant information, disseminating litigation hold notices to those custodians, and conferring with opposing counsel to discuss whether they will limit or forgo discovery of ESI.

—　　　　　　　　　 —　　　　　　　　　 —

These guiding Delaware principles are further refined by the individual courts, each having its own rules for the admission of out-of-state attorneys, and the requirements of Delaware counsel. In addition, Delaware charges fees on an annual basis to renew a pro hac vice motion to enable out-of-state counsel to maintain his or her pro hac vice status in a particular case.

______________________________________________________________________________

*Francis G.X. Pileggi is the managing partner of the Delaware office of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, and the primary author of the Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog at www.delawarelitigation.com.

**Chauna A. Abner is a corporate and commercial litigation associate in the Delaware office of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP