Catagory:Consent

1
Court Relies on Canons of Construction to find LLC Agreement Consent Right Inapplicable to Contemplated Sale of Subsidiary Stock
2
Chancery Court Calls Plaintiffs’ Bet by Granting in Part and Denying in Part Partial Motion to Dismiss Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims in Case Alleging Failure to Disclose Material Facts and Structuring a Transaction for Defendants’ Personal Financial Benefit
3
Settlement Agreement Violates Preferred Stockholder Consent Rights
4
CONSENT TO JURISDICTION DOES NOT EQUAL MANDATORY FORUM SELECTION
5
CHANCERY COURT DISMISSES BREACH OF CONTRACT AND FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIMS BROUGHT UNDER AN UNENFORCEABLE CONTRACT
6
Oracle Partners, L.P. v. Biolase, Inc., C.A. No. 9438-VCN (Del. Ch. May 21, 2014), aff’d, C.A. No. 270, 2014 (Del. June 12, 2014)

Court Relies on Canons of Construction to find LLC Agreement Consent Right Inapplicable to Contemplated Sale of Subsidiary Stock

Jul 21 2020
Browse archives for July 21, 2020
Posted in

Consent, Contract Interpretation, LLC Agreement

Share

By: Scott E. Waxman and Michael C. Payant

In AM General Holdings LLC v. The Renco Group, Inc., et al., CA. No. 7639 and The Renco Group, Inc. v. MacAndrews AMG Holdings, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 7668-VCS (Del. Ch. June 26, 2020), the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court”) considered the latest dispute in a nearly decade-long litigation between The Renco Group, Inc. (“Renco”) and MacAndrews AMG Holdings LLC (“MacAndrews”), regarding interpretation of the Limited Liability Company Agreement (the “Agreement”) for AM General Holdings LLC (“Holdco”). Relying on canons of construction, the Court determined the Agreement did not provide Renco a consent right with respect to a contemplated subsidiary sale, and granted MacAndrews’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Read More

Chancery Court Calls Plaintiffs’ Bet by Granting in Part and Denying in Part Partial Motion to Dismiss Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims in Case Alleging Failure to Disclose Material Facts and Structuring a Transaction for Defendants’ Personal Financial Benefit

May 05 2020
Browse archives for May 05, 2020
Posted in

Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Business Judgment, Conflict of Interest, Consent, Derivative Suit, Direct Claim, Disclosure, Disclosure Claims, Disclosure Statement, Duty of Candor, Duty of Disclosure, Duty of Good Faith, Duty of Loyalty, Entire Fairness, Fair Price, Fair Value, Fiduciary Duty, Fiduciary Duty of Disclosure, Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty, Interested Transaction, Loyalty, Officers, Self-Interested, Uncategorized, Valuation

Share

By Joanna Diakos and Alidad Vakili

The Delaware Court of Chancery granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s partial motion to dismiss, finding that the standard for breach of fiduciary duty was not met as against certain directors and officers of the Company based on allegations they failed to disclose facts relating to a tender offer, but was met as against the directors and one of the officers on allegations that they approved a tender offer where they were expected to receive a personal financial benefit.

Read More

Settlement Agreement Violates Preferred Stockholder Consent Rights

Dec 20 2019
Browse archives for December 20, 2019
Posted in

Breach of Contract, Consent, Contract Interpretation, Controlling Stockholder, Fiduciary Duty, Summary Judgment

Tagged with , , , ,
Share

By: Jill B. Louis and Pouya D. Ahmadi

In PWP Xerion Holdings III LLC v. Red Leaf Resources Inc., C.A. No. 2017-0235-JTL (Del. Ch. Oct. 23, 2019), the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court”) granted Xerion Holdings III LLC’s (“Xerion”) motion for partial summary judgement on a breach of contract claim, holding that the Red Leaf Resources, Inc. (“Red Leaf” or the “Company”) breached Xerion’s contractual right to consent as the holder of a majority of the shares of the Company’s Series A preferred stock.

Read More

CONSENT TO JURISDICTION DOES NOT EQUAL MANDATORY FORUM SELECTION

Jul 11 2018
Browse archives for July 11, 2018
Posted in

Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Consent, Forum Selection Clause, Limited Partnership

Share

By Scott E. Waxman and Annamarie C. Larson

In In re Bay Hills Emerging Partners I, L.P., et al (C.A. No. 2018-0234-JRS), Vice Chancellor Slights denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss claims related to their “for cause” removal as general partners, instead staying the action pending resolution of the claims filed in a Kentucky court.  Regarding the forum selection issue, the Court of Chancery held that “the inclusion of the consent language and the lack of language indicating that Kentucky is the exclusive forum—such as by the use of the term ‘any’—[the LPA] does not contain clear language indicating that jurisdiction and venue must lie exclusively in Kentucky.”

Read More

CHANCERY COURT DISMISSES BREACH OF CONTRACT AND FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIMS BROUGHT UNDER AN UNENFORCEABLE CONTRACT

Sep 22 2017
Browse archives for September 22, 2017
Posted in

Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Consent, Contract Formation, Contract Interpretation, Contracts, Personal Jurisdiction

Share

By Scott E. Waxman and Michael Bill

In Eagle Force Holdings, LLC v. Campbell, No. 10803-VCMR (Del. Ch. Ct. September 1, 2017), the Court of Chancery dismissed plaintiffs’ breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims against the defendant due to a lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Plaintiffs argued the defendant consented to personal jurisdiction in Delaware by entering into the (1) Contribution and Assignment Agreement (the “Contribution Agreement) and (2) Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement (the “LLC Agreement,” and together with the Contribution Agreement, the “Transaction Documents”), but the Chancery Court found the Transaction Documents to be missing material terms and, thus, held them to be unenforceable.

Read More

Oracle Partners, L.P. v. Biolase, Inc., C.A. No. 9438-VCN (Del. Ch. May 21, 2014), aff’d, C.A. No. 270, 2014 (Del. June 12, 2014)

May 23 2014
Browse archives for May 23, 2014
Posted in

Consent, Director Removal, Fraud, Replacement of Directors, Special Meetings, Written Consent

Share

By Jamie Bruce and Ryan Drzemiecki

In his May 21, 2014 opinion in Oracle Partners, L.P. v. Biolase, Inc., C.A. No. 9438-VCN (Del. Ch. May 21, 2014), Vice Chancellor Noble addressed the issue of what was said, and the legal effect of the statements made, during a telephonic meeting (the “Meeting”) of the board of directors of Biolase, Inc. (“Biolase”) on Friday, February 28, 2014.

Prior to the Meeting, Biolase had six directors.  On the Monday following the meeting, Biolase issued a press release stating that two of the directors — Alexander Arrow, M.D. (“Arrow”) and Samuel Low, D.D.S. (“Low”) — had resigned from the board and two new directors — Paul Clark (“Clark”) and Jeffrey Nugent (“Nugent”) — had been appointed in their place.  In a contradictory Form 8-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) three days later, which included the press release as an exhibit, the Company disclosed only that Clark and Nugent had been appointed to the board, which had apparently increased to eight members.

Read More

Copyright © 2024, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.