Delaware Docket – Page 44 – Timely, brief summaries of cases handed down by the Delaware Court of Chancery and the Delaware Supreme Court.

Delaware Court of Chancery Dismisses Shareholder Derivative Action Against Interested Directors Following Secondary Offering

Jun 05 2015

In In re Molycorp, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed claims brought against director representatives of private equity investors for breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting, and unjust enrichment for failure to state a claim. The Court held that the private equity investors along with certain directors exercised their contractual rights to sell their stock in Molycorp Inc. a publicly traded corporation (“Molycorp”) in a secondary offering and the directors were under no obligation to delay such a demand registration during a time in which Molycorp was experiencing a cash shortfall.

Molycorp was engaged in the production and sale of rare earth oxides. Before Molycorp’s July 2010 IPO, three initial private equity investors (PEIs) negotiated a Registration Rights Agreement. The agreement secured the PEIs right to demand that Molycorp register their shares in a secondary offering. The results of the July 2010 IPO did not yield the funds expected, and a secondary offering of Molycorp shares in February 2011 left the company still short on cash. A potential loan from the Department of Energy fell through, and potential financing arrangements with two other companies looked increasingly unlikely. In May 2011, the PEIs exercised their demand registration rights, and the offering was held in June 2011. Due to a recent spike in the price of rare earth oxides, the PEIs (and several directors appointed by the PEIs) sold their shares in the resulting June offering at an inflated value. In September 2011, the rare earth oxide bubble burst. Subsequent efforts by Molycorp to make up for its cash shortfall by issuing convertible notes left it with inadequate funds to implement its planned production increase. As a result Molycorp missed out on potential profits from the rare earth element bubble.

Chancery Court Affirms Former Executive’s Right to Advancement in Connection with Federal Indictment

Jun 05 2015

By Lisa Stark and Lauren Garraux

In a post-trial memorandum opinion, Chancellor Andre Bouchard determined that Donald L. Blankenship, the former CEO and Chairman of Massey Energy Company (“Massey”), now known as Alpha Appalachia Holdings, Inc. (“Alpha”), was entitled to advancement of unpaid legal expenses incurred in connection with his indictment following an April 2010 mine explosion in West Virginia. According to Chancellor Bouchard, Blankenship’s right to advancement stemmed both from Massey’s October 2010 Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the “Charter”) and an Agreement and Plan of Merger between Massey and Alpha, pursuant to which Alpha acquired Massey.

Blankenship served as Massey’s CEO and Chairman until his retirement in December 2010. During his tenure at Massey, in April 2010, an explosion occurred at a West Virginia coal mine operated by a Massey subsidiary. The explosion killed 29 miners and led to both civil proceedings and a federal criminal investigation into the incident launched by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of West Virginia. For several years after the explosion, Massey and Alpha, which acquired Massey in January 2011, honored Blankenship’s right to advancement of his legal expenses and paid such expenses incurred in connection with the civil proceedings and federal criminal investigation. In November 2014, Blankenship was indicted on charges arising from the explosion. Following the indictment, Alpha stopped paying Blankenship’s legal fees.

Delaware Court of Chancery Holds That Collateral Estoppel Bars Claims By Other Preferred Stockholders

Jun 04 2015

By Annette Becker and Mark Hammes

In Brevan Howard Credit Catalyst Master Fund Limited, et al. v. Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc., the Delaware Court of Chancery considered the latest judicial iteration of rights of holders of preferred stock in Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc. (“SBS”) in which the plaintiffs sought damages as a result of SBS incurring indebtedness following the non-payment of dividends to the preferred stockholders without their consent. The Chancery Court granted defendant SBS’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that collateral estoppel and res judicata barred the plaintiffs from re-litigating issues previously decided in Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. v. Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc. against those in privity with the plaintiffs finding that the plaintiffs acquiesced to the non-payment of dividends. The Court dismissed the majority of the plaintiffs’ claims.

By way of background, in Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. v. Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc., a prior case involving similar claims brought by other preferred stockholders of SBS, such plaintiffs claimed that the non-payment of dividends to the preferred stockholders led to the occurrence of a voting right trigger event after which SBS incurred indebtedness in violation of the preferred stockholders’ contractual rights, the Court of Chancery granted a motion for summary judgment brought by SBS, holding that the defense of acquiescence as to the non-payment of dividends defeated those preferred stockholders’ claims. The Certificate of Designation of SBS (“Certificate”) setting forth the rights, privileges and preferences of the SBS preferred stock provided that dividends on the preferred stock were payable quarterly, and that if such dividends were not paid for four consecutive quarters, a voting rights trigger permitted the holders of 10% of the outstanding preferred stock to call a special meeting and elect additional directors. The Certificate also prohibited SBS from incurring additional debt after such a triggering event. According to the plaintiffs, a triggering event had occurred in April 2010, while additional debt was incurred in 2011 and 2012. None of the preferred stockholders called a special meeting to elect additional directors. Plaintiffs in this suit brought suit (1) seeking a declaration that a voting rights triggering event had occurred, (2) for breach of contract for incurring the debt, (3) seeking to exercise repurchase rights under the Certificate, and (4) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Court of Chancery Finds That Manager Breached Her Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty by Engaging in Numerous Self-Interested Transactions

Jun 03 2015

By Nick Froio and Zack Sager

In this memorandum opinion, the Delaware Court of Chancery found Sandra Manno (“Manno”), the manager of CanCan Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), liable for breaching her fiduciary duty of loyalty to the Company by engaging in numerous self-interested transactions.

A manager of a Delaware limited liability company owes traditional fiduciary duties of care and loyalty unless the organizational documents of the limited liability company modify such duties. The Court, citing Feeley v. NHAOCG, LLC, 62 A.3d 649 (Del. Ch. 2012), implied that the organizational documents of the Company did not modify the traditional fiduciary duties.

Tossed Out With The Weeds – Delaware Chancery Court Dismisses Derivative Action Alleging Breaches of Fiduciary Duty by DuPont Directors and Officers

May 18 2015

By Holly Vance and Jonathan Miner

In Ironworkers v. Andreotti, Vice Chancellor Glasscock of the Delaware Chancery Court granted DuPont’s motion to dismiss for plaintiff’s failure to properly state a derivative action claim. In reaching its decision, the Court affirmed that the business judgment rule is the standard of review used in derivative actions where the plaintiff has made a demand of the board of directors and the board declined such demand.

Beginning in 2002 DuPont began to develop genetically modified corn and soybean seeds to compete with Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” seeds, which have the ability to survive application herbicides, including Monsanto’s own Roundup herbicide. DuPont referred to the product it was developing as “GAT”. During this same time period, DuPont was also licensing the Roundup Ready gene trait from Monsanto. DuPont encountered setbacks in field testing of GAT and as a result began experiments in combining GAT together with the Roundup Ready gene trait. The relationship between DuPont and Monsanto deteriorated as DuPont attempted to develop its GAT products, and in May 2009 Monsanto brought suit against DuPont for breaches of the license agreement for the Roundup Ready gene trait, patent infringement and other related claims. In July 2012 a jury found in favor of Monsanto and awarded it $1.2 billion in damages. DuPont began steps to appeal the decision and began negotiating a settlement with Monsanto. On March 25, 2013 DuPont and Monsanto entered into a settlement agreement that was structured as a new license agreement and included royalty payments to Monsanto of $1.75 billion over 10 years for the rights to use the patent for the Roundup Ready gene trait.

Chancery Court Holds that Compensation Paid to Non-Employee Directors Pursuant to Shareholder-Approved Plan Must Be Reviewed Under Entire Fairness Standard

May 12 2015

By David Bernstein and Priya Chadha

In Calma v. Templeton, C.A. No. 9579-CB (Del. Ch. April 30, 2015) (Bouchard, C.), the Delaware Chancery Court held that Citrix System, Inc’s (“Citrix”) payment of compensation to non-employee directors under a shareholder-approved compensation plan must be reviewed under the entire fairness standard because the shareholders’ omnibus approval of a plan covering several different types of beneficiaries did not constitute ratification of the amount of compensation to be paid to non-employee directors.

In 2005, Citrix shareholders approved an equity compensation plan (the “Plan”) for beneficiaries such as directors, officers, employees, consultants, and advisors. The plan did not specify the amount of compensation that non-employee directors could receive, instead only providing a limit of 1 million restricted stock units (“RSUs”) for any beneficiary’s annual compensation. Based on the company’s share price at the time the suit was filed, 1 million RSUs would be worth over $55 million.

Chancery Court Holds That Merger Price That Resulted from a Strong Sale Process and Extensive Negotiations Is the Best Estimate of Fair Value in an Appraisal Proceeding

May 07 2015

By David Bernstein and Marisa DiLemme

Merlin Partners LP v. AutoInfo, Inc., C.A. No. 8509-VCN (Del. Ch. April 30, 2015) (Noble, V.C.) concerns an appraisal proceeding under Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law in which the Chancery Court found that, where there was a strong sale and negotiation process, and there were no reliable cash flow projections from which to make a discounted cash flow analysis and there were no sales of comparably sized companies in the same business, the price received in the merger was the best indication of fair value at the time of the merger.

Petitioners were former common stockholders of Respondent, AutoInfo, Inc. (“AutoInfo”) who exercised their appraisal rights in connection with AutoInfo’s merger with Comvest Partners (“Comvest”) at a price of $1.05 per AutoInfo share. AutoInfo was struggling financially and had begun a sale process in 2011 using an investment bank, Stephens Inc. (“Stephens”), which had long experience in the applicable industry, transportation. As part of the process, Stephens asked AutoInfo’s management to prepare five year financial projections that were “optimistic” to be used to market AutoInfo. Management had never prepared similar projections before and was doubtful of the validity of the results.

Chancery Court Blocks Stockholders’ Push for Search of Non-Employee Directors’ Personal Email Accounts, But Orders Production of Certain Documents Withheld as Privileged, in Books and Records Action under DGCL Section 220

May 06 2015

By Whitney Smith and Lauren Garraux

In an April 30, 2015 Memorandum Opinion, Vice Chancellor Parsons denied in part and granted in part a motion by two lululemon athletica, inc. (“lululemon” or the “Company”) stockholders to enforce a prior court order directing the Company to produce books and records relating to an investigation of potential insider trading or Brophy claims against the Company’s founder and then-chairman of the board of directors, and potential claims for mismanagement against the other directors. In doing so, the Court held that requiring the Company to search its non-employee directors’ personal email accounts for responsive documents was unwarranted, but determined that certain documents withheld as privileged should be produced pursuant to the fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege.

In May and October 2013, respectively, lululemon stockholders Hallandale Beach Police Officers and Firefighters’ Personnel Retirement Fund and Laborers’ District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) commenced separate actions under Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) Section 220, seeking documents relating to trades of Company stock involving Dennis Wilson, lululemon’s founder and then-chairman of its board in June of 2013. In particular, the timing of the trades — which were made within days of lululemon’s then-CEO’s announcement both to Wilson and the Company’s board that she planned to resign — raised questions, even prompting the Wall Street Journal (“WSJ”) to email the Company for confirmation of certain facts for a story regarding Wilson’s trades for an article which noted their favorable timing for Wilson.

Sound the Alarm? Not so Fast as Chancery Court Dismisses Derivative Suit Alleging Self-Interested “Pump-And-Dump” Scheme Arising Out of Alarm Company’s Repurchase of $450 Million in Stock from Hedge Fund Investor

May 05 2015

By Lauren Garraux and Phillip Kardis

In his April 28, 2015 Memorandum Opinion, Vice Chancellor Parsons dismissed a derivative suit brought by ADT Corp. stockholder Walter E. Ryan, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) against the Company’s board of directors, Corvex Management LP (“Corvex”), a hedge fund investor, and Corvex’s principal arising out of the Company’s repurchase of $450 million in stock held by Corvex, a move that led to a drop in the Company’s stock price. Citing Chancery Court Rule 23.1, Vice Chancellor Parsons dismissed the suit because Plaintiff had neither made a pre-suit demand on the Company’s board nor met his burden of proving that demand should be excused as futile under Aronson.

Plaintiff commenced this derivative action on August 1, 2014 and filed an amended complaint on October 3, 2014, asserting claims of breach of fiduciary duties of care and loyalty against ADT’s board of directors, aiding and abetting those breaches against Corvex and unjust enrichment against Corvex and Corvex principal Keith Meister (“Meister”) who, during the time period relevant to the complaint, held a seat on ADT’s board and audit committee. Plaintiff’s claims arose out of what Plaintiff characterized as a self-interested “pump-and-dump” scheme pursuant to which Meister managed to “pump up” the price of ADT’s stock and then convinced his fellow board members to repurchase most of Corvex’s ADT stock in November 2013 at $44.01 per share for an approximate total of $450 million, the alleged “dump.” Following the repurchase, ADT was left in a “far-worse-than forecasted financial condition,” with “diminished future prospects” and a slipping stock price that ultimately settled around $28 per share in the first few days of February 2014.

Chancery Court Interprets Redemption Option Provisions in LLC Agreement in Connection with Judicial Dissolution

May 05 2015

By Andrew Skouvakis and Peter C. Seel

In Hampton v. Turner, Vice Chancellor Noble denied a motion for summary judgment in a dispute about whether a limited liability company had properly exercised a redemption option under its operating agreement and tendered the correct purchase price for three members’ limited liability company interests, after such members sought judicial dissolution of the company. In denying summary judgment, Vice Chancellor Noble found that the operating agreement was unambiguous with respect to the application of the redemption option provisions and how those should be interpreted to determine a purchase price.