admin – Page 8 – Delaware Docket

Chancery Court Rejects Disclosure-Only Settlement and Signals Move Towards Greater Scrutiny of Disclosure-Based Settlements

Feb 02 2016

In In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 10020-CB (Del. Ch. Jan. 22, 2016), the Delaware Court of Chancery rejected a proposed disclosure-only settlement because the proposed disclosures were not “plainly” material and the settlement lacked sufficient consideration to warrant the broad release sought by defendants. The court stated that litigants who pursue disclosure-only settlements can expect “increasingly vigilant scrutiny” of the fairness of the “give” and “get” of such settlements. The court also used the opinion to discuss, more broadly, the dynamics that have led to the proliferation of disclosure settlements; focusing mainly on the concern that these settlements rarely yield genuine benefits for stockholders.

This action arose from the acquisition of Trulia, Inc. (“Trulia”) by Zillow, Inc. (“Zillow”) pursuant to a stock-for-stock merger. Following the announcement of the merger, certain Trulia stockholders brought actions in the Court of Chancery, alleging that the Trulia directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the proposed merger at an unfair exchange rate and by disseminating inadequate disclosures in connection with the solicitation of the stockholder vote on the merger.

Delaware Chancery Court Dismisses Claims Involving a Related Party Transaction with a Controlling Stockholder under Court of Chancery Rules 23.1 and 12(b)(6)

Aug 04 2015

By Kristy Harlan and Stephanie S. Liu

In Teamsters Union 25 Health Services & Insurance Plan v. Baiera, et al, a stockholder of Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. challenged the fairness of the terms of a five-year services agreement that Orbitz entered into with a group of entities affiliated with Travelport Limited, a controlling shareholder of Orbitz when the agreement was negotiated and signed. The plaintiff asserted four derivative claims challenging the services agreement and a separate putative class claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Orbitz’s directors for allegedly violating the rules of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 for failure to make a demand or to adequately plead demand is excused and under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Delaware Court of Chancery concluded that demand was not excused as to any of plaintiff’s derivative claims and that it was not reasonably conceivable that the plaintiff could establish that Orbitz’s directors caused Orbitz to violate the NYSE Rules. Thus, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the derivative claims under Rule 23.1 and the NYSE-related claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Plaintiff Teamsters Union 25 Health Services & Insurance Plan (“Plaintiff”) has been a stockholder of Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. (“Orbitz”), an online travel company, at all relevant times with respect to its claims. Nominal Defendant. The Travelport Defendants (“Travelport”), which were majority owned by Defendant Blackstone Group LP (“Blackstone”), are group of entities affiliated with Travelport Limited, which provides transaction processing services to travel companies. The other defendants included Orbitz’s board of directors when the company entered into the New Agreement (the “Agreement Board”), Orbtiz’s board of directors when Plaintiff initiated this action (the “Demand Board”), and Orbitz’s current board of directors (“Current Board”).

Delaware Chancery Court Awards Attorneys’ Fees Based on Gross Amount of Settlement Award and Denies Sharing of Award by NY Counsel

Jun 16 2015

By Kristy Harlan and Sophia Lee Shin

Following the settlement of In re Jefferies Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation on March 26, 2015, the court issued this opinion on June 5, 2015 in response to plaintiffs’ Delaware counsel’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees and a motion by plaintiffs’ New York counsel for a share of that fee award. The court held that the Delaware counsel’s attorneys’ fees should be calculated on a gross basis, granting Delaware counsel an award of approximately 23.5% of the gross value of the settlement, and denied New York counsel’s motion for a share of that fee award.

On March 1, 2013, Jefferies Group, Inc. and Leucadia National Corporation consummated a stock-for-stock merger. On November 14, 2012, two days after the transaction was announced, the first of seven actions challenging the transaction was filed in New York state court. Eventually, the New York actions were stayed and the case proceeded in Delaware. The parties ultimately agreed to settle for payment of $70 million to the class, which settlement was approved by the court. The settlement contemplated that any award of attorneys’ fees would be in addition to the $70 million payment, with the defendants retaining the right to oppose the fee application.

Hello world!

Apr 10 2015

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

Chancery Court Holds Fee-Shifting Bylaw Inapplicable to a Former Stockholder Because it Was Adopted After Stockholder’s Equity Interest Was Eliminated

Mar 20 2015

By Susan Apel and Max Kaplan

Chancellor Bouchard finds, as a matter of first impression in Delaware, that a non-reciprocal fee-shifting bylaw is inapplicable to a plaintiff stockholder because it was adopted after the plaintiff’s interest in the corporation was eliminated in a reverse stock split.

In Strougo v. Hollander, C.A. No. 9770-CB (March 16, 2015), Plaintiff – a former stockholder of First Aviation Services, Inc. (“First Aviation”) – challenged (on behalf of himself and a putative class) the fairness of a 10,000-to-1 reverse stock split that cashed out the ownership interests of Plaintiff and the putative class at the request of the Chief Executive Officer and controlling shareholder of First Aviation in order to take First Aviation private. Four days after consummation of the reverse stock split, the First Aviation Board adopted a non-reciprocal fee shifting bylaw that required any “current or prior stockholder or anyone on their behalf” who initiates or asserts a claim or counterclaim against First Aviation or any director, officer or employee and who does not obtain a judgment on the merits that substantially achieves the full remedy sought, to be jointly and severally liable for all fees, costs and expenses incurred in connection with the claim or counterclaim. There was no public announcement to the First Aviation stockholders that the board had adopted the bylaw and Plaintiff was notified of the bylaw after the lawsuit was filed.

DGCL §220 Books and Records Request Improper as Stockholder Demonstrates Proper Purpose but is Unable to Show Loss or Harm to Corporation

Feb 17 2015

By Porter Sesnon and Kristy Harlan

A Final Master’s Report recommended that the Chancery Court deny a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and grant the defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, relating to plaintiff’s demand to inspect a Delaware corporation’s books and records to investigate possible mismanagement, waste and breaches of fiduciary duty.

In October 2012, the plaintiff, Mr. Walther, made a demand to inspect the books and records of ITT Educational Services, Inc. (“ITT”) under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”). The Section 220 request stemmed from ITT’s public disclosures and a Majority Committee Staff Report (“Committee Report”) issued by the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee relating to ITT’s compliance with federal Title IV student loan eligibility requirements and its student loan default rates.

In re Zhongpin Inc. Stockholders Litig., C.A. No. 7393-VCN (November 26, 2014) (V.C. Noble)

Dec 03 2014

By Elise Gabriel and David Bernstein

In In re Zhongpin, shareholders of Zhongpin Inc. (“Zhongpin” or the “Company”) brought a class action complaint for breach of fiduciary duty against Xianfu Zhu (“Zhu”), Zhongpin’s CEO and chairman of the board, and Zhongpin’s board of directors (the “Board”) in relation to a merger through which Zhu – who owned 17.3% of Zhongpin’s common stock – would acquire the remainder of the Company’s outstanding shares for $13.50 per share in cash. The transaction was approved by an independent committee of Zhongpin’s Board and the Merger Agreement required approval by a majority of the unrelated stockholders, although this requirement had not appeared in Zhu’s original proposal to Zhongpin’s Board.

On the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court held that the plaintiffs had stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Zhu and the individual defendants. The Court stated that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that Zhu was a controlling stockholder even though he owned only 17.3% of Zhongpin’s stock by pointing to a statement in Zhongpin’s Form 10-K that referred to Zhu as “our controlling stockholder” and that said that as a result of the stock ownership “our controlling stockholder” was able to exercise significant influence over a variety of matters, including election of directors, the amount of dividends, if any, new securities issuances and mergers and acquisitions. The Court further held that the transaction was subject to review under the entire fairness standard rather than the business judgment rule because, even though the Merger Agreement required approval by a majority of the unrelated stockholders (and that approval was obtained), Zhu’s original proposal had not included a majority of the minority requirement at the outset. Finally, the Court was unwilling to dismiss the claims against the directors even though Zhongpin’s certificate of incorporation contained a provision under DGCL Section 102(b)(7) protecting directors against monetary liability, because, in a case subject to the entire fairness standard, a claim against directors cannot be dismissed until there is a determination as to entire fairness.

In re Zhongpin

NAMA Holdings LLC v. Related WMC LLC, et al., C.A. No. 7934-VCL (November 17, 2014) (Laster, V.C.)

Nov 24 2014

By Joshua Haft and Scott Waxman

In NAMA Holdings, LLC v. Related WMC LLC, The Related Companies, L.P., and WMC Venture, LLC, the plaintiff, NAMA Holdings, LLC (“NAMA”) filed claims against Related WMC LLC (“Related Sub”) for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and against The Related Companies, L.P. (“Related Parent”) and World Market Center Venture, LLC (“WMCV”) for tortious interference with contract. The case originated from a suit filed by Related Sub and WMCV seeking a declaration that they complied with certain of their contractual obligations under the WMCV operating agreement, in which the Delaware Chancery Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Related Sub and WMCV. In this Memorandum Opinion, the Delaware Chancery Court issued its post-trial decision after a trial on NAMA’s claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by Related Sub and tortious interference with contract by Related Parent and WMCV.

The plaintiff’s claims arose out of the development of a retail shopping mall in Las Vegas, Nevada called the World Market Center (the “Center”). In order to develop the Center, Alliance Network, LLC (“Alliance Network”) was formed by Prime Associates Group, LLC, which was owned by Shawn Samson and Jack Kashani, Crescent Nevada Associates, LLC, owned by relatives of Kashani, and NAMA. NAMA contributed 70% of the capital for Alliance Network, but after a dispute over additional needed capital, the project was restructured such that WMCV was formed by Alliance Network and Related Parent, a New York City real estate firm. WMCV had two members, Network World Market Center, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Alliance Network (“Network”), and Related Sub.

In re KKR Financial Holdings LLC Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 9210-CB (October 14, 2014) (Bouchard, C.)

Oct 21 2014

By Kristy Harlan and Eric Taylor

This case involves a challenge to a stock-for-stock merger by a group of stockholders of the target company who alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by both the board of directors of the target (the “Board”) and an alleged controlling stockholder who held less than 1% of the stock of the target. The transaction (the “Merger”) involved the acquisition of KKR Financial Holdings LLC (“KFN”) by KKR & Co. L.P. (“KKR”). KFN was managed by an affiliate of KKR, which was responsible for day-to-day operations of KFN, subject to the oversight of the Board pursuant to a management agreement between the parties. In October 2013, KKR expressed interest in acquiring KFN to a member of the Board. Over the next several months, the Board began to discuss the approach from KKR, set up a transaction committee to review the potential transaction, and met several times with representatives from KKR to negotiate for better terms. In mid-December 2013, the Board approved the Merger and KFN and KKR executed a merger agreement. The transaction was valued at approximately $2.6 billion.

This case is the consolidated result of nine separate actions that were filed challenging the Merger in December 2013 and January 2014. KFN and KKR moved for summary judgment, which the plaintiffs sought to overcome by arguing that the Merger should be subject to “entire fairness” review, instead of the presumed business judgment review. The Court held that the business judgment rule applied, granted summary judgment to KFN and KKR and dismissed the suit with prejudice.

Branin v. Stein Roe Investment Counsel, LLC, et. al, C.A. No 8481 (June 30, 2014) (Noble, V.C.)

Jul 10 2014

By Eric Taylor and Jamie Bruce

This is a case dealing primarily with two issues: 1) when does an employee’s claim for indemnification from a Delaware LLC irrevocably accrue?; and 2) if a party has a viable claim for indemnification but is on notice that the agreement providing for indemnification may be modified, could a later amendment to such agreement defeat the claim? The Court held that it must look to the operating agreement in place when the events giving rise to the employee’s claim for indemnification accrued or when the lawsuit involving the claim was filed and that if such employee was entitled to indemnification under that agreement, the employee’s claim is vested. The Court further held that, once vested, the contractual right to indemnification could not be eliminated by a subsequent amendment to the agreement.

The plaintiff in this case, Francis Branin, Jr. (“Branin”), was a principal/owner and the CEO of an investment management firm that was sold in October 2000 to a larger investment management firm, Bessemer Trust, N.A. (“Bessemer”), at which time Branin became an employee of Bessemer. Branin later began meeting with Stein Roe Investment Counsel, LLC (“SRIC”) to discuss possible employment. During those discussions, Branin explained to SRIC that the sale of his prior investment firm was governed by an implied covenant in New York restricting the seller of a business from approaching former customers to regain their patronage after he has purported to transfer their “goodwill” to the purchaser. Under this “Mohawk doctrine”, Branin could not solicit his former clients, but he would be entitled to accept the business of his former clients if they approached him. With that knowledge, SRIC decided to hire Branin in July 2002. Branin claims that he did not solicit his former clients, but less than a year after he joined SRIC he was managing 30 client accounts that he had previously managed. Branin was sued by Bessemer alleging improper solicitation of clients. After nearly ten years of litigation, Bessemer unconditionally dismissed its suit and all claims against Branin. Branin is seeking indemnification from SRIC for more than $3 million in legal fees incurred in the litigation.

Author:admin