David Bernstein – Page 2 – Delaware Docket

Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Apollo (Mauritius) Holdings Pvt. Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 8980-VCG (October 31, 2014) (Glasscock, V.C.)

Nov 05 2014

This decision involves a merger agreement (the “Agreement”) between Apollo (Mauritius) Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (“Cooper”), a principal purpose of which was for Apollo to acquire Cooper’s 65% interest in Chengshan Cooper Tires (“CCT”), a Chinese tire manufacturer. After the merger was announced, the minority owner of CCT apparently caused CCT’s union workers to go on strike by telling them that if they did not protest, they would be fired. The minority partner also prevented Cooper from getting access to CCT’s financial records, which made it impossible for Cooper to prepare and deliver financial statements for the third quarter of 2013 as required by the Agreement. Apollo refused to consummate the merger and sought a judicial declaration that its refusal was not a breach of the Agreement because Cooper had not satisfied several conditions to closing.

Vice Chancellor Glasscock agreed that Apollo was not required to carry out the merger because Cooper had not satisfied some of the conditions to closing. Among other things, he found that the strike at CCT violated a Cooper covenant to cause each of its subsidiaries to “conduct its business in the ordinary course of business consistent with past practice.” Cooper argued that an exception to the definition of “Material Adverse Effect” for a negative reaction to the Agreement by Cooper’s labor unions or joint venture partners also applied to the covenant to cause all subsidiaries to conduct their businesses in the ordinary course, but Vice Chancellor Glasscock rejected this argument, pointing out that even within the definition of Material Adverse Effect, there were some things (events that would prevent Cooper from fulfilling its obligations under the Agreement or from consummating the merger) that were not subject to the exception.

Another argument that Cooper made is that by attempting to negotiate terms on which the minority owner of CCT would withdraw its opposition to the transaction, Apollo acquiesced in proceeding with the merger despite what the minority owner was doing. Vice Chancellor Glasscock rejected this argument, saying that Apollo was negotiating with the minority owner in an effort to make it possible for the merger to proceed.

CoopervApollo

Wolst v. Monster Beverage Corporation, C.A. No. 9154-VCP (Del. Ch. October 3, 2014) (Noble, V.C.)

Oct 07 2014

By David Bernstein and Meredith Laitner

On October 3, 2014, the Delaware Chancery Court issued its ruling in Wolst v. Monster Beverage Corporation, C.A. No. 9154-VCP (Del. Ch. October 3, 2014) (Noble, V.C.), rejecting the plaintiff’s request to inspect Monster Beverage Corporation’s books and records pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

The plaintiff’s stated purpose for her request to inspect Monster’s books was to determine whether there was a basis for her to bring a derivative suit against Monster based on insider trading that occurred seven years ago. A class action regarding the insider trading had been settled for $16.25 million and a prior derivative suit, in which the plaintiff had been a participant, had been dismissed for failure to make a demand on the Board. Subsequently a demand on the Board had been made and rejected.

The Court held that the possible new derivative suit that was the reason for the plaintiff’s Section 220 demand was time-barred by laches. Further, Vice Chancellor Noble refused to extend to derivative claims the general rule that a class action tolls the statute of limitations for the members of the class pursuing individual direct claims.

WolstvMonsterBeverage

Zutrau v. Jansing, C.A. No. 7457-VCP (Del. Ch. July 31, 2014) (Parsons, V.C.)

Aug 07 2014

By David Bernstein and Meredith Laitner

On July 31, 2014, the Delaware Chancery Court issued its decision in Zutrau v. Jansing, C.A. No. 7457-VCP (Del. Ch. July 31, 2014) (Parsons, V.C.), requiring the parties to recalculate the payment to which the plaintiff was entitled because her 22% minority interest in a Delaware corporation was squeezed out through a reverse split that reduced her holding to less than one full share. The plaintiff in this case, a former employee of Ice Systems, Inc., brought a derivative suit in which she challenged numerous business decisions made by Ice Systems after her employment terminated and challenged compensation and expense reimbursement payments made to the CEO, who was also the 78% stockholder and the sole director. The plaintiff also (a) asked the Court to set aside the reverse split on the ground that it was made for the improper purpose of depriving her of the ability to bring a derivative suit, or alternatively (b) to increase the sum to which she was entitled as a result of the cancellation of her 22% interest through the reverse split.

The Court did not decide whether the plaintiff no longer had standing to sue derivatively because she was no longer a stockholder when she commenced the suit, because the defendant acknowledged that if Ice Systems would have been entitled to recover sums if the plaintiff had been able to sue derivatively, the corporation’s right to recover those sums would increase the amount to which the plaintiff is entitled because of the cancellation of her stock interest, and therefore, the outcome of her suit would be the same whether or not she was permitted to sue derivatively.

In re Jenzabar, Inc. Derivative Litig., Civil Action No. 4521-VCG (July 30, 2014) (Vice Chancellor Glasscock)

Aug 07 2014

By David Bernstein and Priya Chadha

In In re Jenzabar, Inc. Derivative Litig., Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III held that a terminated trust that has not yet distributed to its beneficiaries shares of a corporation, cannot bring a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation. It “can take only those actions related to preserving its assets for purposes of distribution and wind-up, together with those actions for which the trust instrument specifies.”

The Gregory M. Raiff 2000 Trust (the “Trust”) was established in 2000. The terms of the Trust Instrument held that it was to terminate in 2002 and distribute all of its assets to another trust. However, the Trust assets, which included shares of Jenzabar, were never actually distributed after the Trust terminated in 2002. After the trustee filed this derivative action on behalf of the Trust in 2013, Jenzabar filed a motion to dismiss the derivative suit, arguing that the Trust lacked the capacity to sue because it had terminated. The Plaintiff countered that because the Trust had never distributed its assets, it still had the capacity to bring a derivative suit due to the fact that it still held Jenzabar stock.

Vice Chancellor Glasscock rejected this argument. He said that Massachusetts law, which governed the Trust, restricted the powers of a trustee of a terminated trust to what’s necessary to “preserve the trust property while winding up the trust and delivering any trust property to the beneficiary.” He said that post termination, the only litigation in which the Trust could engage was defensive action necessary to preserve its assets, pursuing litigation was not encompassed within the Trust’s limited powers and thus, it lacked the capacity to pursue the derivative action.

InReJenzabar

Eurofins Panlabs, Inc. v. Ricerca Biosciences, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 8431-VCN (May 30, 2014) (Noble, V.C.)

Jun 03 2014

By David Bernstein and Marisa DiLemme

The decision in Eurofins Panlabs, Inc. v. Ricerca Biosciences, LLC concerns a Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement (the “SAPA”) entered into in September 2012 by plaintiff, Eurofins Panlabs, Inc. (“Eurofins”), a Delaware corporation, and defendants, Ricerca Biosciences, LLC (“Ricerca”), a Delaware limited liability company, and Ricerca Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation. Ronald Ian Lennox (“Lennox”), Chairman and CEO of Ricerca, is also a defendant in the case.

Most of the opinion focuses on Eurofins’ claims against Ricerca related to specific provisions of the SAPA, whether Ricerca breached these provisions, and whether the breaches of contract were also fraudulent. The Court dismissed many of Eurofins’ claims against Ricerca. All claims against Lennox, aside from those based on the relationship with AstraZeneca PLC (“AZ”), were also dismissed.

Ravenswood Inv. Co., L.P. v. Winmill & Co. Inc., C.A. No. 7048-VCN (Del. Ch. May 30, 2014)

Jun 02 2014

By David Bernstein and Elise Gabriel

In Ravenswood Investment Co., Vice Chancellor Noble of the Delaware Chancery Court considered the novel issue of whether, under Delaware law, a corporation may condition a stockholder’s right to inspect the corporation’s books and records on an agreement not to trade in the corporation’s stock for a period of time. Here, the defendant Winmill & Co. Incorporated (“Winmill”), a Delaware holding company, had refused to allow plaintiff stockholder Ravenswood Investment Company, L.P. (“Ravenswood”) to inspect its nonpublic financial statements absent Ravenswood’s agreement not to trade in Winmill’s stock for up to a year. Winmill was apparently concerned that Ravenswood would use the material, non-public information to trade in Winmill’s stock, thus threatening “tipper” liability under federal securities law.

Vice Chancellor Noble concluded that a trading restriction imposed on a stockholder’s right to inspection under Delaware General Corporation Law § 220 is contrary to Delaware law. He found that Ravenswood had requested inspection for the proper purpose of valuing its stock, and any purported secondary purpose or ulterior motive was irrelevant. Vice Chancellor Noble was unwilling to incorporate an “inequitable” notion into Delaware’s § 220 jurisprudence that would frustrate a stockholder’s fundamental right to value its stock. In a footnote, he further stated that the Court did not address whether the requested financial statements should be deemed confidential, but if the parties could not agree on a confidentiality agreement, the Court would be available to address that issue. Vice Chancellor Noble refused, however, to require Winmill to pay Ravenswood’s attorneys’ fees, finding that Ravenswood had not produced requisite evidence of Winmill’s bad faith.

Ravenswood v. Winmill

ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund (German Tennis Federation), No. 534, 2013 (May 8, 2014)

May 10 2014

By David Bernstein and Elise Gabriel

In ATP Tour, Inc., the Delaware Supreme Court responded to certified questions from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware regarding the validity of a fee-shifting provision in a Delaware non-stock corporation’s bylaws. The bylaw at issue provides that any member that asserts a claim against the corporation or another member and does not “substantially achieve, in substance and amount, the full remedy sought” will be obligated to reimburse the corporation or the member for all fees, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and other litigation expenses. The Supreme Court answered, in relevant part, that such a fee-shifting provision is authorized by the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”), and therefore is facially valid, but whether it would be enforceable depends on the circumstances under which it is adopted and under which it is invoked. The Delaware Supreme Court stated that bylaws that otherwise may be facially valid will not be enforced if adopted or used for an inequitable purpose.

Here, two members of ATP Tour, Inc. (“ATP”), a Delaware membership corporation operating a professional tennis tour, had unsuccessfully sued ATP for breach of fiduciary duty and antitrust violations. ATP then moved to recover its costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to the bylaw provision described above. The Federal District Court, in which the suit had been brought, found the issue of enforceability of a fee-shifting bylaw to be novel and certified four questions regarding its validity and its enforceability to the Delaware Supreme Court. After stating that the bylaw provision was facially valid, the Delaware Supreme Court found that it could not answer the questions regarding enforceability because they depended on the circumstances under which the bylaw was adopted and was being invoked, which were not before the Supreme Court. The fourth question was whether the bylaw could be enforced against a party that became a member before the bylaw was adopted. The Delaware Supreme Court answered this in the affirmative because the member had agreed to be bound by rules that may be adopted or amended from time to time.

Although ATP was a non-stock membership corporation, the decision was based on provisions of the DGCL that apply to all corporations, and there is no reason to think the decision would have been different if ATP had been a stock corporation.

ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund

Hamilton Partners, L.P. v. Highland Capital Management, et al., C.A. No. 6547-VCN (May 7, 2014) (Noble, V.C.)

May 09 2014

By David Bernstein

Plaintiff Hamilton Partners, L.P. challenged in the Delaware Chancery Court the fairness of a merger between a Nevada corporation, American HomePatient, Inc. (“New AHP”), a successor to a Delaware corporation of the same name (“AHP”), and Highland Capital Management, L.P. (“Highland”), which before the challenged transactions owned 48% of AHP’s stock and held most of its debt. The initial question was whether the validity of the actions was governed by Nevada law or by Delaware law. The Court said that most of the transactions took place under an agreement that was signed while the corporation was a Delaware corporation and that those transactions would be governed by Delaware law. However, transactions that were not approved by the Board until after the reincorporation in Nevada would be governed by Nevada law.

The Court then addressed whether the fairness of the merger should be determined under the business judgment rule or under the entire fairness test, which would apply if Highland was a controlling stockholder. The Court said that although there were prior Delaware decisions that made it possible that Highland’s 48% ownership interest alone might not have caused it to be viewed as a controlling person when determining whether the Board’s approval of the merger should be evaluated based on the business judgment rule or on the entire fairness test, the combination of Highland’s 48% stock interest and the fact that it had used its creditor position to force the corporation to engage in the series of transactions that was being challenged made it clear that Highland was a controlling person and that the entire fairness test should apply. Therefore, noting that it is almost never possible to dismiss a complaint in an instance in which the entire fairness test applies, the Court refused to dismiss the claim against Highland.

The Plaintiff also sued Joseph Furlong, the CEO and a director of AHP, claiming that he had a personal interest in the merger (he would receive a $6.5 million payment if it took place) and therefore his actions as a director should be evaluated under the entire fairness test. The Court said that because the Board consisted of three directors, and the other two directors, whose independence was not challenged and who were not claimed to have been dominated by Furlong, approved the merger, and their approval was governed by the business judgment rule, it made no difference whether Furlong’s approval was governed by the business judgment rule or was subject to the entire fairness test. The Court also pointed out that because the merger was approved by the Board after the corporation had reincorporated in Nevada, Furlong’s liability would be governed by a Nevada statute that exculpates a director from personal liability unless the director’s act or failure to act constituted a breach of fiduciary duties and the “breach of those duties involved intentional misconduct, fraud or a knowing violation of the law”. The Court found that the Plaintiff had not claimed that Furlong had been guilty of intentional misconduct, fraud or a knowing violation of law, and therefore Furlong was entitled to the protection of the Nevada exculpation statute. Accordingly, it dismissed the claims against Furlong.

hamiltonpartnersl p v highlandcapital1

Third Point LLC v. Ruprecht, C.A. No. 9469-VCP (May 2, 2014) (Parsons, V.C.)

May 05 2014

By David Bernstein and Meredith Laitner

On May 2, 2014, the Delaware Chancery Court issued its decision in Third Point LLC v. Ruprecht, C.A. No. 9469-VCP (May 2, 2014) (Parsons, V.C.), denying plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction which, if granted, would have delayed the Sotheby’s annual stockholder meeting until the court could determine whether the members of the Sotheby’s Board violated their fiduciary duties by adopting a “poison pill” rights plan that would be triggered if anybody acquired 10% of Sotheby’s outstanding shares, except that a Schedule 13G filer (which must be a passive investor) could acquire up to 20%. Third Point had accumulated 9.6% of Sotheby’s stock and had nominated three candidates, including Third Point’s CEO, Daniel Loeb, for election to the Sotheby’s Board. Third Point had asked that it be permitted to acquire up to 20% of Sotheby’s shares, but the Sotheby’s Board denied the request. Third Point claimed in the lawsuit that this adoption of the poison pill rights plan and refusal to grant the requested waiver was an impermissible effort by the Sotheby’s Board to obtain an advantage in the proxy contest.

Third Point had commenced the lawsuit in March 2014 after a series of acrimonious public and private communications in which Loeb had referred to what he claimed was Sotheby’s deteriorating competitive position with regard to Christie’s, accused Sotheby’s of having “a sleepy board and overpaid executive team,” said he intended to replace the CEO of Sotheby’s, and told people inside and outside of Sotheby’s that he would shortly be running Sotheby’s. In return, Sotheby’s had publicly listed what it viewed as Loeb’s failed efforts to remake companies after it got footholds on their boards.

OTK Associates, LLC v. Friedman, et. al., C.A. No. 8447-VCL

Feb 07 2014

By David Bernstein

On February 5, Vice Chancellor Laster issued an opinion regarding the Morgans Hotel Group case. OTK Associates, LLC, directly and derivatively on behalf of Morgans Hotel Group Co., alleged that the Board of Directors of Morgans had breached its fiduciary duties and violated Morgan’s operating documents in connection with a two-part recapitalization transaction with Yucaipa Companies, LLC that VC Laster had previously enjoined. The defendants argued that because the Yucaipa Transaction was not consummated and the related Board actions were blocked by a preliminary injunction, any claims based on these facts would be moot. Citing a Delaware Supreme Court decision, VC Laster said that even though the Yucaipa transactions did not take place, Morgans could have been injured by the breaches of fiduciary duty, such as by incurring uneccessary expenses, and therefore denied the motion to dismiss based on mootness.

The defendants also said the case should be dismissed because between the time the case was originally brought and the time OTK filed an amended complaint, new directors had been elected, and the plaintiff had failed to make a demand upon them as required by Delaware Rule 23.1. VC Laster said that almost all the claims in the amended complaint related to the same facts that were the subject of the original complaint, and because demand would have been futile at the time of the original complaint, there was no need to make a demand on the new Board to assert claims regarding the facts that were the subject of the original complaint, even if the amended complaint raised new theories of liability. He did dismiss a claim based on a subsequent Yucaipa repudiation of the agreements relating to the transactions, because that did not happen until after the original complaint had been filed, and demand on the Board was required with regard to a claim based on new facts.

The principal issue raised by the defendants was an assertion that there was an action pending in the New York courts and, because the transaction documents said they were governed by New York law, the Delaware courts should defer to the New York courts. VC Laster said that the Delaware courts would have honored the choice of law provision if the suit had involved the contract. However, the suit involved claimed breaches of fiduciary duty regarding the way the contract was approved, not the contract itself, and therefore, under the internal affairs doctrine, would be governed by Delaware law. Therefore, he refused to stay the Delaware proceeding. Finally, the Court refused to dismiss claims against two individual directors despite the fact that the Morgans Certificate of Incorporation contained an exculpation clause of the type permitted by Section 102(b)(7) of the General Corporation Law, because the claims raised in the complaint alleged breaches of the directors’ duties of loyalty, which cannot be protected under Section 102(b)(7).

OTK v Friedman

Author:David Bernstein