SEO Title | Deal Disputes
M&A Litigation
This links to the home page
FILTERS
  • Delaware Court Of Chancery Again Dismisses Aiding And Abetting Claims For Pleading Deficiencies
     
    07/23/2019

    On July 15, 2019, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed an aiding and abetting claim asserted against a private equity buyer and its principals in a stockholder class action involving breach of fiduciary duty claims against the former CEO of a technology company in connection with its take-private sale to the private equity buyer.  In re Xura Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 12698-VCS (Del. Ch. July 12, 2019).  As we discussed in a prior post, Vice Chancellor Slights declined to dismiss a different stockholder’s breach of fiduciary duty claims against the former CEO based on his allegedly self-interested participation in the merger, but the Court dismissed aiding and abetting claims asserted against the buyer and its principals.  In re Xura, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 12698-VCS (Del. Ch. Dec. 11, 2018)Ten days after this opinion was issued, a different stockholder filed a “nearly identical” complaint—this time asserting class action claimsraising “the same theories of aiding and abetting” that the Court had dismissed just days earlier.  In a separate summary order, the Court denied the former CEO’s motion to dismiss this new complaint.  In this decision, the Court dismissed the aiding and abetting claims for the same reason it did so in the prior suit—the complaint failed to include “well-pled allegations that [the buyer] ‘knowingly participated’ in the … alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.”
  • Delaware Court Of Chancery Holds Merger Agreement Preserved Sellers’ Ability To Assert Privilege Over Pre-Merger Attorney-Client Communications, Notwithstanding The Transfer Of Those Communications To The Buyer
     
    06/04/2019

    On May 29, 2019, Vice Chancellor Kathaleen S. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled that plaintiff Shareholder Representative Services LLC (“Shareholder Representative”) as the designated representative of Radixx Solutions International, Inc.’s (“Radixx”) selling stockholders, retained the ability to assert privilege over Radixx’s pre-merger attorney-client communications in a post-closing litigation against the acquiring company, RSI Holdco, LLC (“Holdco”).  Shareholder Representative Services LLC v. RSI Holdco, LLC, C.A. No. 2018-0517-KSJM (Del. Ch. May 29, 2019).  Specifically, the Court held that by its plain terms the merger agreement between the parties preserved the privilege, even though the communications were physically transferred to the buyer at closing.  Therefore, the Court granted plaintiff’s request for a protective order and barred Holdco from using or relying on any of Radixx’s pre-merger attorney-client communications.
    CATEGORY: Deal Disputes
  • Delaware Supreme Court Affirms Judgment In Favor Of Defendant On The Basis Of Plaintiffs’ Failure To Prove Damages
     
    05/23/2019

    On May 16, 2019, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed a judgment by Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery in favor of Potomac Capital Partners II, LP on claims by shareholder plaintiffs that the activist investor aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by the board of PLX Technology Inc. in connection with its acquisition by Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc.  In re PLX Technology Inc. S’holders Litig., C.A. No. 571, 2018 (Del. May 16, 2019).  As discussed in our post regarding that decision, the Court of Chancery found in a post-trial opinion that defendant had aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty but also concluded that plaintiffs failed to prove damages because the deal price likely exceeded the standalone value and no higher bidders had emerged.  On appeal, plaintiffs contended that the Court of Chancery erred in deciding the damages issue by importing principles from appraisal jurisprudence to give deference to the deal price.  In a summary order, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s “decision that the plaintiff-appellants did not prove that they suffered damages.”  The Court expressly declined to reach defendant’s arguments on cross-appeal that it had not aided and abetted any breaches of fiduciary duty because its affirmance on the damages issue “suffices to affirm the judgment.” 
  • Delaware Court Of Chancery Holds Merger Termination Valid After Plaintiffs “Forgot” To Provide A Notice To Extend, But Reserves Decision On Reverse Termination Fee
     
    03/19/2019

    On March 14, 2019, after a two-day trial, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery rejected requests by plaintiff Vintage Capital Management, LLC and its affiliates for a declaration that defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc.’s termination of the parties’ merger was ineffective and an order that the parties must proceed with the deal.  Vintage Rodeo Parent, LLC v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0927-SG (Del. Ch. Mar. 14, 2019).  Pursuant to the merger agreement, both parties had a right to provide a notice of extension by the contractual “End Date.”  If neither party elected to extend, then either could terminate the agreement thereafter.  Plaintiffs argued that both parties had been working toward closing the deal and had expressly recognized that the closing could not occur until after the End Date.  On this basis plaintiffs contended that the contractual notice of extension had been effectively provided or waived.  But the Court held that defendant’s termination of the merger agreement after plaintiffs apparently “forgot” to provide a notice of extension by the End Date was valid.  However, the Court reserved judgment on defendant’s counterclaim for a reverse termination fee pending supplemental briefing, noting that it was “dubious whether the parties meant for a reverse breakup fee to apply in this situation.”
    CATEGORY: Deal Disputes
  • Delaware Court Of Chancery Denies Motion To Dismiss Breach Of Contract Claim For Failure To Use “Commercially Reasonable Efforts” To Obtain Regulatory Approval For Pharmaceuticals
     
    01/08/2019

    On December 28, 2018, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to dismiss a breach of contract claim brought by former stockholders of Ception Therapeutics, Inc. (“Ception”) against pharmaceutical company Cephalon, Inc. (“Cephalon”), which acquired Ception, alleging violations of an earn-out provision in their merger agreement.  Himawan v. Cephalon, Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0075-SG (Del. Ch. Dec. 28, 2018).  Ception claimed that Cephalon failed to use “commercially reasonable efforts,” as defined in the merger agreement, to obtain FDA approval for an antibody as treatment for a specific medical condition.  The Court found that because the agreement defined the standard for “commercially reasonable efforts” objectively, with reference to the effort that would have been expended by other companies similarly situated, the question of what constituted “commercially reasonable efforts” could not be decided on the pleadings.  The Court also dismissed an implied covenant claim against Cephalon and tortious interference claims against Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and its affiliates (together, “Teva”), which acquired Cephalon after the Cephalon-Ception merger. 
    CATEGORY: Deal Disputes
  • Delaware Court Of Chancery Holds That Concurrent Appraisal Action Does Not Preclude Post-Closing Fiduciary Duty Breach Claims
     
    12/18/2018

    On December 11, 2018, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty claims against the former CEO of a technology company (the “Company”) in connection with its take-private sale to a private equity firm.  In re Xura, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 12698-VCS (Del. Ch. Dec. 11, 2018).  Plaintiff alleged that the CEO was conflicted by self-interest while he steered the Company into the transaction.  As a stockholder at the time of the transaction, plaintiff simultaneously pursued appraisal of its shares of the Company.  Defendant argued that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue breach of fiduciary duty claims in light of the pending appraisal petition and, in any event, the approval by the majority of the stockholders cleansed the transaction under Corwin v. KKR Fin. Hldgs. LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015).  The Court, however, held that a plaintiff seeking appraisal can nevertheless maintain breach of fiduciary duty claims related to the same transaction and that the alleged omission from the proxy of various information material to the stockholder vote precluded the application of the Corwin doctrine at the pleading stage.
  • Delaware Supreme Court Affirms Landmark Decision That Found MAE Justified Termination Of Deal
     
    12/11/2018

    On December 7, 2018, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Delaware Court of Chancery’s landmark ruling that Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA (“Fresenius”) properly terminated its $4.3 billion agreement to acquire Akorn, Inc. (“Akorn”).  Akorn, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi AG, C.A. No. 2018–0300–JTL (Del. Dec. 7, 2018).  As discussed in our post on the Court of Chancery’s decision, Akorn sued for specific performance after Fresenius walked away from the deal citing the discovery of various regulatory compliance problems, which Fresenius asserted amounted to a material adverse effect (“MAE”).  The Court of Chancery concluded that Akorn violated not only multiple representations and covenants in the merger agreement but also the general MAE provision, ruling that an MAE had occurred and termination of the deal was justified.  Concluding that the factual record adequately supported the determination that Akorn’s breach of its regulatory representations and warranties gave rise to an MAE and that Akorn had suffered a general MAE, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Akorn’s claims.
    CATEGORY: Deal Disputes
  • Delaware Court Of Chancery Declines To Dismiss Fiduciary Duty Breach Claims In Connection With Take-Private Acquisition Of Recently Delisted Company
     
    11/27/2018

    On November 20, 2018, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty brought by former stockholders of Tangoe, Inc. (the “Company”) against former members of its board of directors in connection with the take-private acquisition of the Company by a private equity buyer group in June 2017.  In Re Tangoe, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 2017-0650-JRS (Del Ch. Nov. 20, 2018).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants recommended an ill-advised and self-interested sale while a restatement of audited financials was pending and following the NASDAQ delisting of the Company.  Defendants contended that they were entitled to business judgment rule deference under Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015)—because a majority of stockholders tendered their shares—and that dismissal was also required because of an exculpatory charter provision pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 102(b)(7).  But the Court concluded that the alleged failures to provide adequate company financial information and to disclose the status of the restatement efforts precluded dismissal under Corwin.  The Court also found that plaintiffs adequately pled a non-exculpated claim for breach of the duty of loyalty, given the timing and structure of certain director compensation adjustments, which allegedly incentivized a change in control and supported an inference that defendants acted out of material self-interest.
  • Delaware Court Of Chancery Holds Alleged Breaches Of Representations Do Not Excuse Buyers’ Noncompliance With Post-Closing Obligations Where Buyers Seek To Enforce Claims For Indemnification
     
    11/06/2018

    On October 29, 2018, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery entered final judgment on counterclaims seeking to enforce covenants in a stock purchase agreement requiring the buyers to remit certain tax refunds and insurance proceeds. Post Holdings, Inc. and Michael Foods of Delaware, Inc. v. NPE Seller Rep LLC, C.A. No. 2017-0772 AGB (Del. Ch. Oct. 29, 2018). National Pasteurized Eggs, Inc. (“NPE”) was sold pursuant to a stock purchase agreement. Thereafter, the buyers initiated an action asserting claims for fraud and breaches of representations and warranties, seeking indemnification under the agreement. The sellers filed counterclaims to enforce covenants in the agreement requiring the buyers to remit certain tax refunds and insurance proceeds. The buyers argued that their obligation to remit such proceeds “should be excused” because of the sellers’ alleged prior material breach. Granting judgment on the pleadings to the buyers, the Court held that “buyers cannot continue to accept the benefits of the contract—as they seek to do in this action through their claim for indemnification—while disclaiming their contractual obligation to remit the tax refunds and insurance proceeds to the sellers promptly after they were received.”
    CATEGORY: Deal Disputes
  • Finding Insufficient Proof Of Damages, Delaware Court Of Chancery Enters Judgment In Favor Of Defendant Despite Finding Fiduciary Duty Breaches
     
    10/23/2018

    On October 16, 2018, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery found in a post-trial opinion that Potomac Capital Partners II, LP (“Potomac”), an activist investor, aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by the board of PLX Technology Inc. (“PLX”) in connection with its acquisition by Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc. (“Avago”), but entered judgment in favor of Potomac because plaintiffs failed to show causally related damages.  In re PLX Technology Inc. S’holders Litig., C.A. No. 9880-VCL (Del. Ch. Oct. 16, 2018).  After the deal closed, plaintiffs alleged that the sale process was unreasonably influenced by Potomac’s managing member, who became a director of PLX and chaired the special committee charged with exploring strategic alternatives for the company.  As discussed in our prior post, see Shearman & Sterling LLP, Declining To Find Enhanced Scrutiny Inapplicable To Post-Closing Damages Actions, Delaware Court Of Chancery Denies Motion For Summary Judgment, Need-to-Know Litigation Weekly, Feb. 21, 2018, https://www.lit-ma.shearman.com/declining-to-find-enhanced-scrutiny-inapplicable-, the Court previously denied a summary judgment motion filed by Potomac, finding that the PLX board’s actions in connection with the sale were subject to enhanced scrutiny and disputes of material fact existed as to whether the sale process was reasonable.  Following trial, the Court concluded that although Potomac aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by PLX’s board, plaintiffs had failed to prove damages because the deal price likely exceeded the standalone value and no higher bidders had emerged.
  • Delaware Court Of Chancery Rules For The First Time That MAE Justifies Termination Of Deal
     
    10/09/2018

    In a first-of-its-kind ruling, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled post-trial that Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA (“Fresenius”) properly terminated its $4.3 billion agreement to acquire Akorn, Inc. (“Akorn”).  Akorn, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi AG, Quercus Acquisition, Inc., and Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA, C.A. No. 2018–0300–JTL (Del. Ch. Oct. 1, 2018).  Fresenius walked away from the deal after discovering various data integrity and regulatory compliance problems, asserting that the issues were so serious that they amounted to a material adverse effect (“MAE”).  Akorn sued for specific performance, alleging that Fresenius was merely suffering from buyer’s remorse.  Vice Chancellor Laster concluded that Akorn violated not only multiple representations and covenants in the merger agreement but also the general MAE provision, ruling that an MAE had occurred.
    CATEGORY: Deal Disputes
  • Finding That The Implied Covenant Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing Could Not Import Revlon-Type Duties, Delaware Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal Of Breach Claim
     
    09/25/2018

    On September 20, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing brought against the controlling unitholder and its affiliates on the board of a company that provides services to children with disabilities in connection with the sale of that company.  Miller v. HCP Trumpet Investments, LLC, No. 107, 2018 (Del. Sept. 20, 2018).  Pursuant to a waterfall set forth in the company’s operating agreement (the “OA”), the controlling investor was entitled to nearly all of the first $30 million in proceeds in the event of a sale.  The OA, which included an explicit waiver of fiduciary duties, provided that the board could approve a sale of the company to an independent third party and “determine in its sole discretion the manner in which [such sale] shall occur, whether as a sale of assets, merger, transfer of [m]embership [i]nterests or otherwise.”  After the company was sold for $43 million, minority members sued for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, arguing that it imposed an obligation to conduct an “open-market” sale process to ensure maximum value for all members.  Although the Delaware Supreme Court disagreed with the Delaware Court of Chancery’s holding that the implied covenant did not apply to the sale, the Court affirmed the dismissal on the basis that the implied covenant did not imply Revlon-type sale requirements.
  • Delaware Court Of Chancery Denies Motion To Dismiss LPA Breach Claims, Including Aiding And Abetting Claim Against Financial Advisor
     
    09/05/2018

    On August 29, 2018, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied defendants’ motions to dismiss an amended complaint in a long-running lawsuit arising from a sale of an interest in a pipeline by a general partner to a master limited partnership in which it held a controlling interest.  Mesirov v. Enbridge Energy Co. Inc., C.A. No. 11314 (Del. Ch. Aug. 29, 2018).  Plaintiff, a common unitholder of a Delaware master limited partnership (the “MLP”), brought claims for breach of the MLP’s Limited Partnership Agreement (“LPA”) against the general partner (the “GP”), its parent, and other affiliates.  Plaintiff alleged that the GP acted in bad faith by purportedly selling the interest for $1 billion even though it had previously acquired the same interest from the MLP five years earlier for $800 million and earnings metrics had declined over the period by 20%.  As discussed in our previous post, Vice Chancellor Slights originally dismissed this suit in April 2016, but the Delaware Supreme Court reversed and remanded in March 2017, holding that bad faith was sufficiently pleaded.  Here, Vice Chancellor Slights denied the GP’s motion to dismiss claims for breach of the LPA, finding them to be duplicative of the claims in the motion rejected by the Delaware Supreme Court in 2017.  Vice Chancellor Slights also declined to dismiss new claims for aiding and abetting against the GP’s financial advisor, which had delivered a fairness opinion regarding the transaction.
  • Finding Merger Agreement Provisions Regarding Milestone Payments Ambiguous, Delaware Court Of Chancery Denies Dismissal Of Post-Merger Breach Claims
     
    08/21/2018

    On August 10, 2018, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss breach of contract claims stemming from a merger agreement pursuant to which defendant, Stora Enso AB, acquired non-party, Virdia, Inc.  Fortis Advisors LLC v. Stora Enso Ab, C.A. No. 12291-VCS (Del. Ch. Aug. 10, 2018).  Plaintiff, Fortis Advisors LLC, as shareholder representative of Virdia’s pre-merger equity holders, asserted that Stora Enso breached the merger agreement in connection with its failure to achieve certain post-closing milestones obligating it to make certain contingent milestone payments.  Finding competing interpretations of the merger agreement both reasonable, the Court declined to dismiss the breach claims. 
    CATEGORY: Deal Disputes
  • Southern District Of New York Denies Claims For Investment Banking Fees, Holding That The Engagement Terminated And The “Agreement To Agree” Was Unenforceable
     
    08/21/2018

    On August 10, 2018, Judge Jesse Furman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied claims for advisory fees brought by investment bank Stone Key Partners LLC (together with Stone Key Securities LLC, “Stone Key”) against its former client, Monster Worldwide, Inc. (“Monster”).  Stone Key Partners LLC v. Monster Worldwide, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-3851-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2018).  Monster engaged Stone Key in April 2012 to assist in a “review of strategic alternatives,” including a possible sale, and agreed to compensate Stone Key if it entered into certain transactions within 12 months of any termination of the engagement; Monster engaged another financial institution as a co-advisor.  The engagement letter with Stone Key did not clearly require written notice of termination and provided that Stone Key would be paid 55% of a fee that “shall be mutually acceptable . . . and consistent with compensation agreements customarily agreed to by” investment banks for similar transactions in connection with any “partial sale” transaction within the tail period.  The Court found that the engagement ended in August 2013, when it was clear (in the eyes of the Court) that the sale exploration process was over, and thus denied claims for transactions completed in 2015 and 2016.  The Court also rejected as unenforceable the partial sale fee provision, finding it to be an unenforceable agreement to agree.
  • Finding Disclosures Inadequate To Merit Application Of Corwin, Delaware Supreme Court Reverses Court of Chancery Dismissal Of Post-Closing Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Claims
     
    07/17/2018

    On July 9, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed and remanded a decision by the Delaware Court of Chancery to dismiss stockholder class claims for breach of fiduciary duty brought against the former directors of The Fresh Market (TFM) after its acquisition in a two-step take-private merger by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC (“Apollo”).  Morrison v. Berry, No. 445, 2017 (Del. July 9, 2018).  As discussed in our prior post on this case, the Court of Chancery dismissed claims that the sale process undertaken by TFM was a “sham” designed by TFM’s founder to deliver the company into the hands of a favored suitor.  Specifically, the Court of Chancery concluded that the facts regarding the involvement of TFM’s founder with Apollo were adequately disclosed in connection with the tender offer—in which 68.2% of shares were tendered—and the deal was therefore subject to the deferential business judgment rule under Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015).  Finding that the complaint adequately alleged several “materially incomplete and misleading” disclosures, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed.
  • Delaware Supreme Court Clarifies Standard For Contract Formation, Reversing And Remanding Court Of Chancery Decision On Enforceability
     
    06/05/2018

    On May 24, 2018, in an opinion by Justice Karen L. Valihura, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a decision by the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissing breach of contract and related claims.  Eagle Force Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Campbell, C.A. No. 10803-VCMR (Del. May 24, 2018).  As discussed in our prior post on this case, the Court of Chancery found that a limited liability company agreement and associated contribution agreement under which plaintiff-appellant purported to bring claims were not binding because they lacked several “essential” terms.  Reversing, the Delaware Supreme Court concluded that the agreements “sufficiently address[ed] all issues identified by the trial court as material to the parties.”  But the Court remanded for reconsideration of the evidence to make a finding on the parties’ “intent to be bound.”

    Read more
    CATEGORY: Deal Disputes
  • Delaware Court Of Chancery Relies On Corwin To Dismiss Post-Closing Fiduciary Duty Claims After Finding Acquiror Was Not A Controlling Stockholder
     
    03/20/2018

    On March 9, 2018, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III, of the Delaware Court of Chancery, dismissed a stockholder class action complaint seeking damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by directors of Rouse Properties Inc. (“Rouse”) and its 33.5% stockholder, Brookfield Asset Management, Inc. (“Brookfield”), arising out of Rouse’s merger with Brookfield in 2016. In Re Rouse Properties, Inc. Fiduciary Litigation, C.A. No. 12194-VCS (Del. Ch. Mar. 9, 2018). Plaintiffs, pre-merger stockholders of Rouse, alleged that breaches of fiduciary duty by a special committee of the Rouse board that negotiated the deal, and Brookfield, as an alleged controlling stockholder, led to a transaction that grossly undervalued Rouse. The Court found that the complaint did not come even “remotely close” to pleading that Brookfield exercised the “managerial clout and retributive power to infer actual control.” Concluding that Brookfield was not a controlling stockholder, the Court dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claims against Brookfield and, in light of the approval of the deal by a majority of the disinterested stockholders, applied the business judgment rule in accordance with Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015), to dismiss the claims against the special committee directors as well.

    Read more
  • Delaware Court Of Chancery Dismisses Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Claims In Connection With Two-Step Merger, Despite Finding Corwin Inapplicable
     
    12/12/2017

    ​On November 30, 2017, Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed breach of fiduciary duty claims against the board of Opower, Inc. (“Opower”) in connection with Opower’s acquisition by Oracle Corporation (“Oracle”).  Van der Fluit v. Yates, C.A. No. 12553-VCMR (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2017).  The Court found that the failure to disclose that certain executives who received transaction-related benefits were the primary negotiators of the transaction constituted a material disclosure violation.  Therefore, the Court declined to rely on stockholder approval to cleanse the transaction under the doctrine of Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015), because the tender was not fully informed.  Nevertheless, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, concluding that plaintiff had failed to plead a non-exculpated claim for breach of the duty of loyalty. 

    Read more
  • Texas Federal District Court Invalidates IRS Regulations Limiting Inversion Transactions  
     
    10/24/2017

    On September 29, 2017, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Texas Association of Business, holding that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and U.S. Treasury Department violated the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) when they promulgated an anti-inversion rule that ultimately inhibited the merger of Allergan PLC and Pfizer Inc.  Chamber of Com. of the U.S., et al. v. Internal Revenue Service, et al., No. 1:16-CV-944-LY (W.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2017) (Amended Order).  Specifically, the Court found that the government agency defendants were required—but failed—to provide the public and affected parties adequate notice and an opportunity to comment on the proposed anti-inversion rule before enacting it.  The ruling, which also held that plaintiffs had standing to challenge the rule (and that the government agencies had authority to implement it), creates an opening for other companies considering a possible inversion transaction. 

    Read more
    CATEGORIES: Deal DisputesStanding
  • Delaware Court Of Chancery Orders Specific Performance, Finding Plaintiff Did Not Breach Its Contractual Obligation To “Reasonably Cooperate”
     
    09/18/2017

    On September 11, 2017, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery ordered defendant, Comdata, Inc. (“Comdata”), to specifically perform under, and pay damages for its termination of, its merchant agreement with plaintiff, TA Operating LLC (“TA”).  TA Operating LLC v. Comdata, Inc., C.A. No. 12954-CB (Del. Ch. Sept. 11, 2017).  Specifically, the Court held that defendant’s termination of the merchant agreement could not be excused because plaintiff had not materially breached its obligation to “reasonably cooperate” with defendant to implement new technology “as soon as reasonably practical.”  In making this determination, the Court engaged in a “fact-specific inquiry” and relied in part on the parties’ “course of conduct,” finding that plaintiff had “made good progress” before encountering technological issues that caused delays and highlighting that defendant stayed “silen[t]” until it purported to terminate the agreement.
     
    CATEGORY: Deal Disputes
  • In A Post-Trial Opinion, Delaware Court Of Chancery Dismisses Breach Of Contract And Fiduciary Duty Claims For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction
     
    09/12/2017

    On September 1, 2017, Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed claims for breaches of contract and fiduciary duty brought by plaintiffs against a prospective business partner, finding that the forum selection clause in which defendant consented to personal jurisdiction in Delaware was part of an unenforceable contract.  Eagle Force Holdings, LLC v. Campbell, C.A. No. 10803-VCMR (Del. Ch. Sept. 1, 2017).  Specifically, the Court found that a limited liability company agreement and associated contribution agreement (the “Transaction Documents”) under which plaintiffs purported to bring claims were not binding because they lacked several “essential” terms.  Absent agreement on these critical points, the Court held that the parties “did not intend to bind themselves to the written terms of the Transaction Documents.”  Finding no other grounds for personal jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the action.

    Read more
  • Delaware Chancery Court Dismisses Post-Closing Challenge To Two-Step Merger Under Corwin Finding Tendering Stockholders Were Fully Informed 
     
    07/18/2017

    On July 13, 2017, Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a former stockholder’s breach of fiduciary duty claims against the former directors of Diamond Resorts International (“Diamond”) and an aiding and abetting claim against Diamond’s financial advisor in connection with Apollo Global Management LLC’s (“Apollo”) acquisition of Diamond in a two-step merger under Section 251(h) of the Delaware General Corporation Law, 8 Del. C. § 251(h).  Appel v. Berkman, C.A. No. 12844-VCMR (Del. Ch. July 13, 2017).  Relying on Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015) and In re Volcano Corp. Stockholder Litigation, 143 A.3d 727 (Del. Ch. 2016), the Court held the merger was “cleanse[d]” because “the disinterested stockholders of Diamond were fully informed and uncoerced when they overwhelmingly accepted the tender offer.” 

    Read more
  • Delaware Chancery Court Declines To Dismiss Acquiror’s Post-Closing Indemnification Claims In Light Of Contractual Ambiguity In Stock Purchase Agreement
     
    05/16/2017

    On May 3, 2017, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights of the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the buyer of EMSI Holding Company (“EMSI”) asserting post-closing claims for indemnification against the sellers—the company’s former investors—for allegedly fraudulent representations made by EMSI in the Stock Purchase Agreement (“SPA”).  EMSI Acquisition, Inc. v. Contrarian Funds, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 12648-VCS (Del. Ch. May 3, 2017).  Specifically, the Court concluded that extrinsic evidence is required to resolve an ambiguity in the SPA as to whether plaintiff’s indemnification claims were subject to contractual limitations on recovery.  Significantly, the Court also declined to import a heightened pleading standard from federal securities fraud cases to assess whether the complaint adequately pleaded that the representations were fraudulent.  Separately, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s additional claim for the “confirmation” under the Delaware Arbitration Act of an auditor’s post-closing determination—pursuant to the SPA—of purchase price adjustments, because the SPA “explicitly provide[d]” that the auditor was “acting as an expert and not an arbitrator.”   

    Read more
    CATEGORY: Deal Disputes
  • Delaware Supreme Court Determines “Reasonable Best Efforts” Provisions Impose Affirmative Obligations, But Affirms Chancery Court’s Refusal To Enjoin Merger Termination
     
    04/04/2017

    On March 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Court of Chancery’s denial of an injunction sought by plaintiff The Williams Companies, Inc. to prevent defendant Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. from terminating a merger of the two energy companies.  The Williams Companies., Inc. v. Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., C.A. Nos. 12168 & 12337 (Del. Mar. 23, 2017).  The 4-1 decision authored by Justice James T. Vaughn, Jr. determined that the Chancery Court erred by “adopt[ing] an unduly narrow view of the obligations imposed” by defendant’s covenants in the merger agreement to use “reasonable best efforts” to consummate the deal and “commercially reasonable efforts” to secure an opinion from its outside tax counsel—a condition precedent to the merger—that the transaction qualified for tax-free treatment.  According to the Delaware Supreme Court, those provisions “placed an affirmative obligation on the parties to take all reasonable steps to obtain the [tax-free] opinion and otherwise complete the transaction.”  Nevertheless, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the injunction because the Chancery Court found that defendant’s conduct (or lack thereof) did not “materially contribute” to outside tax counsel’s decision not to issue the tax-free opinion. 

    Read more
    CATEGORIES: Deal DisputesInjunctions
  • Delaware Supreme Court Reverses Dismissal Of LPA Breach Claims, Holding General Exculpatory Provisions Did Not Preclude Claims For Breaches Of Specific Provisions And Easing The Standard For Pleading Bad Faith
     
    03/28/2017

    On March 20, 2017, the Supreme Court of Delaware reversed the Court of Chancery’s dismissal of a lawsuit challenging a transaction between affiliated entities.  Brinckerhoff v. Enbridge Energy Co., No. 273, 2016 (Del. Mar. 20, 2017).  Plaintiff, a common unitholder of a Delaware master limited partnership, Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (the “MLP”), brought suit against several defendants, including the general partner Enbridge Energy Co. (“EEP GP”); its controlling parent, Enbridge, Inc. (“Enbridge”); another affiliate of each; and certain directors and officers of these entities.  Plaintiff alleged that defendants approved a transaction involving conflicts of interest in bad faith and in violation of certain provisions of the MLP’s Limited Partnership Agreement (“LPA”).  In reversing the dismissal, the Court held that (1) “good faith” and other provisions in the LPA exculpating the general partner from monetary damages can replace default fiduciary duties with a contractual good faith standard, but do not preclude equitable relief or alter the affirmative obligations under the LPA; and (2) bad faith was sufficiently alleged under the LPA “if the plaintiff pleads facts supporting an inference that [the general partner] did not reasonably believe it was acting in the best interest of the [MLP].”

    Read more
  • Delaware Chancery Court Focuses On Negotiation History In Denying Former Securityholders A Milestone Payment Based On The Interpretation Of An Ambiguous Merger Agreement
     
    03/21/2017


    On March 15, 2017, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery decided, post-trial, that a biopharmaceutical company was not required to pay a $50 million “milestone payment” under the terms of a merger agreement.  Shareholder Representative Services LLC v. Gilead Sciences Inc. et al., C.A. No. 10537-CB (Del. Ch. Mar. 15, 2017).  As noted by the Court, this case turned on the interpretation of one word—“indication”—as it was used in a merger agreement.  Finding the term “ambiguous when construed within the four corners of the merger agreement,” the Court relied on extrinsic evidence—primarily related to the negotiation history—to determine that the limited approval of a drug to treat a narrow subpopulation of blood cancer patients did not constitute the requisite approval for a specified “indication” that would trigger the contractual milestone payment.

    Read more

    CATEGORY: Deal Disputes
  • Delaware Chancery Court Dismisses Fraud Claim As Barred By Purchase Agreement Anti-Reliance Provisions
     
    12/05/2016

    On November 30, 2016, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted, in part, ValueClick Inc.’s motion to dismiss in a fraud and contract dispute over alleged misrepresentations relating to the sale of certain of its subsidiaries to IAC Search, LLC.  IAC Search, LLC v. Conversant LLC (f/k/a ValueClick, Inc.), C.A. No. 11774-CB, 2016 WL 6995363 (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2016).  ValueClick, now known as Conversant LLC, sold six subsidiaries — including Investopedia, LLC — to IAC for $90 million in January 2014 pursuant to a Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”).  In its complaint, IAC alleged that ValueClick fraudulently induced IAC to overpay for Investopedia by supplying false information to IAC during the due diligence process.  IAC also asserted several claims for breaches of representations and warranties included in the Purchase Agreement.  Although the Court upheld some of the breach of contract claims, Chancellor Bouchard found that “certain provisions of the [Purchase Agreement] add up to a clear disclaimer of reliance on extra-contractual statements that bar[] IAC’s claim for fraud.”

    Read more
    CATEGORY: Deal Disputes
  • Southern District of New York Grants Partial Summary Judgment Rejecting Successor Liability in Copyright Infringement Dispute
     
    07/25/2016

    On July 15, 2016, Judge Naomi Buchwald of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted partial summary judgment to defendant Cowen & Company, LLC (“Cowen”) on successor liability claims brought by Energy Intelligence Group, Inc. and Energy Intelligence Group (UK) Limited (together, “EIG”).  Energy Intelligence Grp., Inc. v. Cowen & Co., No. 14-cv-03789 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2016).  The Court held that the assignment of the assets of Dahlman Rose & Company LLC (“Dahlman”) to Cowen following the acquisition of Dahlman by Cowen’s parent company, Cowen Group, did not create successor liability for alleged copyright infringement by Dahlman.  In so holding, the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that two exceptions to the rule against successor liability for the assignment of assets applied, namely that Cowen had either expressly assumed Dahlman’s tort liability or that the acquisition was a de facto merger.

    Read more
    CATEGORY: Deal Disputes
  • Delaware Chancery Denies Williams’ Request to Enjoin ETE from Terminating $38 Billion Deal
     
    07/04/2016

    On June 24, 2016, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Chancery Court issued a memorandum opinion denying a request by plaintiff The Williams Companies Inc. (“Williams”) to enjoin defendant Energy Transfer Equity L.P. (“ETE”) from terminating its merger agreement with Williams.  Williams Cos. v. Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., C.A. No. 12168-VCG, memo op. (Del. Ch. June 24, 2016).  Vice Chancellor Glasscock held that ETE was contractually entitled to terminate the merger because a mutual condition precedent—the issuance of a tax opinion by ETE’s counsel, Latham & Watkins LLP (“Latham”), that the transaction should receive tax-free treatment under Section 721(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (the “721 Opinion”)—was not satisfied.  Central to the decision was the Vice Chancellor’s conclusion that Latham’s determination was made in good faith.  Although Williams has appealed the decision, ETE terminated the merger as of June 29, 2016.

    Read more
    CATEGORY: Deal Disputes