Fiduciary Duty – Page 9 – Delaware Docket

Chancery Court Holds That a Proper Purpose with a Credible Basis to Investigate is Required to Grant a Section 220 Action in Pursuit of a Future Derivative Litigation

Apr 20 2015

By Meghan Wotherspoon and Calvin Kennedy

The Chancery Court held that a stockholder must show that there is a proper purpose with a credible basis in order to succeed in a Section 220 action to inspect the books and records of a corporation.

In Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. AbbVie Inc. and James Rizzolo v. AbbVie Inc., the plaintiffs, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (“SEPTA”) and James Rizzolo (“Rizzolo”), as shareholders of defendant AbbVie Inc. (“AbbVie”), made individual written demands on AbbVie for inspection of certain books and records pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”). The plaintiffs sought to obtain records to demonstrate that AbbVie’s directors breached their fiduciary duties. AbbVie rejected the demands for failure to state a proper purpose and each plaintiff then filed a Section 220 Complaint. As the actions stemmed from the same event, the Court utilized a single Memorandum Opinion to deliver its decisions.

Chancery Court Finds No Fiduciary Duty for Limited Partners

Feb 13 2015

By Scott Waxman and Eric Jay

Chancery Court grants motion to dismiss against former limited partners seeking damages for a freeze-out merger they claimed was a self-dealing transaction by the general partner and its affiliates. The Court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction with regard to the general partner defendants based on a standard arbitration clause that referenced AAA Rules. The Court also granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with regard to the affiliated limited partner defendants because majority ownership of the merged entities, without more, did not create a fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs.

On February 10, 2015, Vice Chancellor Parsons issued a memorandum opinion in Lewis v. AimCo Properties, L.P., 2015 WL 557995, (Del. Ch. Feb. 10, 2015) granting Motions to Dismiss for each group of defendants in the case. The case was brought by several former holders of limited partnership units (“Plaintiffs”) in four Delaware limited partnerships (the “Partnerships”). Each of the Partnerships was managed by corporate entity general partners (“GP Defendants”) that were each indirectly owned by Apartment Investment and Management Company (“AimCo”). AimCo also indirectly held a majority of the limited partnership units of each Partnership through various affiliates (together with various officers, the “LP Defendants”).

Chancery Court Denies Motion to Expedite on Speculative Disclosure Claims

Jan 14 2015

By Annette Becker and Eric Jay

On January 12, 2015, Vice Chancellor Glasscock issued an opinion in Parsons v. Digital River, Inc., et al., 2015 WL 139760 (Del. Ch. 2015) on a Motion to Expedite brought by Amy Parsons on behalf of similarly situated public stockholders (“Plaintiff”) as to disclosure claims concerning an imminent merger. The ruling on the disclosure claims was deferred after the Vice Chancellor denied Plaintiff’s Motion on December 31, 2014 as it related to Revlon claims raised, in order to allow Plaintiff to submit a supplemental brief clarifying why such claims would be material to stockholders.

The Motion was brought by Plaintiff against the Board of Directors of Digital River, Inc. (the “Company”) for breaches of fiduciary duties arising in connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into with Siris Capital Group, LLC, dated October 23, 2014 (the “Merger Agreement”). On November 18, 2014, Plaintiff initiated a class action to enjoin the proposed merger on the grounds that the Company was undervalued and that the Board of Directors failed to provide the stockholders with material information regarding the deal process.

Of the numerous disclosure claims raised by Plaintiff in the Motion to Expedite, Vice Chancellor Glasscock focused primarily on the claim regarding management retention, both because it was the most significant and it had not been rendered moot by the Company’s subsequent filing of a definitive proxy statement. Vice Chancellor Glasscock concluded that Plaintiff sought expedited discovery on the grounds that the disclosures were “simply not credible” without providing a factual basis for such assertion.

Because the disclosure claim was speculative, Vice Chancellor Glasscock found that the chance of receiving injunctive relief to be low and that the value of potential disclosure did not outweigh the cost of expedition. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite was denied.

Parsons v. Digital River, Inc., et al., 2015 WL 139760 (Del. Ch. 2015) (Glasscock, V.C.)

Fiduciary and Contractual Claims Arising from LLC Management Dispute Survive a Motion to Dismiss

Dec 23 2014

By Scott Waxman and Ryan Drzemiecki

In an ongoing dispute between the members of a Delaware limited liability company, Vice Chancellor Parsons was tasked with resolving pre-trial motions filed by both the managing member defendants and the non-managing member plaintiffs. Except for plaintiffs’ claim of waste, V.C. Parsons denied the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss finding that, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of plaintiffs, facts have been pleaded that make the defendants’ inappropriate at this stage of the litigation. In addition, V.C. Parsons denied plaintiffs motion of summary judgment, which sought to remove the defendant LLC from its position as managing member, finding that the plaintiffs have not yet produced evidence sufficient to meet their burden of showing that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

This case involves an ongoing dispute between the managing member and non-managing members of Dunes Point West, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”). The Company was formed in 2006 to acquire and operate an apartment complex in in the State of Kansas (the “Apartment Complex”). Presently, Louis Cortese and the 2009 Caiola Family Trust (“Plaintiffs”) collectively hold 90% of the membership interests in the Company. Defendants include the Company’s managing member and holder of 10% of its membership interests, PWA, LLC, a Kansas limited liability company (“PWA”) and Ward Katz, the managing member of PWA.

Higher Education Management Group, Inc. v. Matthews, C.A. No. 911-VCP (November 3, 2014) (Parsons, V.C.)

Nov 06 2014

By David Bernstein and Max Kaplan

On November 3, 2014, the Delaware Chancery Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss derivative claims in Higher Education Management Group, Inc. v. Mathews, C.A. No. 911-VCP (Del. Ch. Nov. 3, 2014) (Parsons, V.C.), after finding, among other things, that plaintiffs failed to plead with particularity facts showing demand upon nominal defendant’s board would have been futile. In this case, defendant corporation’s subsidiary, Aspen University, paid out nearly $2.2 million in what were apparently expense reimbursements between 2003 and 2011. These outlays were never recorded in the firm’s accounts—a fact discovered by management through a November 2011 audit. Apparently, rather than recording the expense, which would have required Aspen to restate previous years’ financial statements, management chose to treat the $2.2 million as a secured loan receivable owed by Aspen University’s former CEO—plaintiff Patrick Spada—with the intention of taking a write-off in the future. Spada denied there ever was a loan and alleged that defendant officers and directors materially misrepresented the corporation’s finances by knowingly mischaracterizing the $2.2 million as a loan.

The court did not reach the merits of plaintiffs’ accusations, and it instead found that plaintiffs failed to either make a demand on the board or sufficiently plead that such a demand would be futile. Plaintiffs had argued that the director defendants had made knowing misrepresentations that exposed them to a “substantial likelihood” of liability, and therefore all the directors were “interested” for purposes of satisfying the demand futility test. However, Plaintiffs pled events that, if taken as true, showed only that two directors knew that there was no loan. With regard to all the other directors, plaintiffs alleged only general knowledge of the loan being fake, attributing identical actions to all of the directors as a group without making specific allegations with regard to individual directors. According to the court, “such broad and identical assertions . . . do not meet the requirements of pleading facts with particularity.” Having found that the facts pled by the plaintiffs were only sufficient to show that a minority of directors were “interested,” the court concluded that a demand had not been shown to be futile and dismissed the claim.

Higher Education Management Group, Inc. v. Mathews

In Re: Crimson Exploration Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 8541-VCP (October 24, 2014) (Parsons, V.C.)

Oct 26 2014

By William Axtman and Ryan Drzemiecki

In Re: Crimson Exploration Inc. Stockholder Litigation involved a consolidated class action claim made by certain minority stockholders (“Plaintiffs”) of Crimson Exploration, Inc. (“Crimson”) challenging the completed acquisition of Crimson by Contango Oil & Gas Co. (“Contango”). The transaction was structured as a stock-for-stock merger (the “Merger”), with the Crimson stockholders holding approximately 20.3 % of the combined entity following the merger and an exchange ratio representing a 7.7% premium based on the April 29, 2013 trading price of Contango common stock and Crimson common stock. Plaintiffs also alleged that the members of Crimson’s Board of Directors (the “Directors”) and various entities affiliated with the investment management firm Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. (“Oaktree”) breached their respective fiduciary duties by selling Crimson below market value for self-serving reasons. In total, Plaintiffs brought claims against Crimson, the Directors, Oaktree, Contango Acquisition, Inc. (the “Merger Sub”) and Contango (“Defendants”).

A major premise of Plaintiffs’ complaint is that Oaktree controlled Crimson and thereby had fiduciary duties to the minority stockholders of Crimson. Oaktree owned roughly 33.7% of Crimson’s pre-Merger outstanding shares and a significant portion of Crimson’s $175 million Second Lien Credit Agreement, which Contango agreed to payoff after the signing of the Merger, including a 1% prepayment fee (the “Prepayment”). Also, in connection with the Merger, Oaktree negotiated to receive a Registration Rights Agreement (the “RRA”) so that it had the option to sell its stock in the post-Merger combined entity through a private placement.

Comerica Bank v. Global Payments Direct, Inc., C.A. No. 9707-CB (Aug. 1, 2014) (Bouchard, C.)

Aug 18 2014

By Scott Waxman and Zack Sager

This case involves the unfriendly winding up of a two-member Delaware limited liability company (the “LLC”). One of the issues raised in this case was whether “cause” existed for the Court of Chancery to intervene and wind up the LLC’s affairs and appoint a liquidating trustee under Section 18-803(a) of the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (the “LLC Act”). One of the members of the LLC (“Global”) argued that the Court did not have cause because a deadlock did not exist among the parties entitled to wind up the LLC. Global argued that because it was the 51% owner of the LLC and had the right to make any decisions necessary to wind up the LLC, no deadlock existed.

In rejecting Global’s argument, the Court stated that nothing in the LLC Act “requires a finding of deadlock as a prerequisite to this Court assuming control of the wind up process of a Delaware LLC and/or appointing a liquidating trustee.” According to the Court, ample cause existed because Global was unwilling to wind up the LLC in an orderly and timely manner and took a confrontational approach that was contradictory to its obligation to wind up the LLC promptly so as to maximize the value of the property distributed to the members. Chancellor Bouchard noted that although the “contours of [default fiduciary duties] may be different after dissolution of an LLC during the wind up period, they continue to encompass, in my view, an obligation to distribute the assets of the company promptly consistent with maximizing their value.”

Comerica Bank v Global Payments Direct

Capano v. Capano, C.A. No. 8721-VCN (June 30, 2014)

Jul 12 2014

By Eric Feldman and Sophia Lee Shin

Capano, et al. v. Capano, et al. is a consolidated case involving three brothers that came before the Delaware Court of Chancery, in which Joseph and Gerry Capano each filed a complaint against Louis Capano.

Facts

Louis, Joseph and their father, Louis Sr., were equal partners in a Delaware partnership, Capano Investments. Upon Louis Sr.’s death, the partnership structure changed such that Louis and his son controlled 48.5% of the partnership, Joseph and his son controlled 48.5%, and Gerry (as the beneficiary with voting control of CI Trust) controlled 3%. In 2000, the partnership was subsequently converted into a Delaware limited liability company, Capano Investments, LLC (“CI-LLC”), with the same membership and respective ownership interests as those of the partnership

In 2000, Louis and Gerry executed two documents that purportedly granted Louis an interest in CI Trust: (1) Gerry granted Louis the “Power to Direct”, an irrevocable proxy to direct CI Trust’s trustee (at the time, Daniel McCollom) to vote its interest in CI-LLC; and (2) Gerry granted Louis the “Option” to purchase Gerry’s interest in CI Trust, but only with the consent of CI Trust’s trustee, and at a purchase price of $100,000 and the forgiveness of a $100,000 advance. Both the Power to Direct and the Option were signed by Louis and Gerry and had “(SEAL)” printed next their signatures.

David Raul v. Astoria Financial Corporation, C.A. No. 9169-VCG (June 20, 2014) (Glasscock, V.C.)

Jun 22 2014

By Masha Trainor and Dotun Obadina

Raul v. Astoria Financial Corporation involves the question of whether, under the corporate benefit doctrine adopted by Delaware courts, a stockholder can recover, from a corporation, attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of the stockholder’s attorney investigating the corporation’s activities. In this case, David Raul (“Raul”), as custodian of Malka Raul Utma, NY, a common stockholder of Astoria Financial Corporation (“Astoria”), filed a complaint against Astoria, seeking an equitable assessment of attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the investigation of potential violations of “say-on-pay” disclosure requirements under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Say-On-Pay Disclosure Requirements”).

The corporate benefit doctrine provides for an award of attorneys’ fees to a stockholder if (1) the stockholder presents a claim to the corporation such that, at the time the claim was presented, a suit based on the actions underlying the claim would have survived a motion to dismiss and (2) a material corporate benefit results.

In re TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 9415-VCN (Del. Ch. June 13, 2014)

Jun 17 2014

By William Axtman and Joshua Haft

In In re TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, plaintiff stockholders of TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. (“TriQuint”) moved to expedite their breach of fiduciary duties claims against TriQuint’s board of directors for approving a merger of equals with RF Micro Devices, Inc. (“RFMD”) in which the shares of each company would be exchanged for 50% of the shares of a newly formed entity, Rocky Holding, Inc. (“Rocky Holding”). In this letter opinion, the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled on plaintiffs’ motion for expedited proceedings with regard to plaintiffs’ claims that the TriQuint board (i) engaged in defensive entrenchment tactics, (ii) agreed to preclusive deal protection devices, and (iii) failed to provide all material information to the stockholders in advance of the stockholder vote.

In order to show good cause for expedited proceedings under Delaware law, plaintiffs must articulate “a sufficiently colorable claim” and show “a sufficient possibility” of irreparable injury so as to justify imposing the costs of an expedited preliminary injunction proceeding on the defendants and the public.

Catagory:Fiduciary Duty