By Scott Waxman and Zack Sager
In CIM Urban Lending GP, LLC v. Cantor Commercial Real Estate Sponsor, L.P., the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a breach of fiduciary duty claim against a general partner of a Delaware limited partnership because there was no independent factual basis for the breach of fiduciary duty claim apart from the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim.
By Annette Becker and Lauren Garraux
In a July 8, 2015 letter opinion, Vice Chancellor John W. Noble granted in part and denied in part the motion of Capella Holdings, Inc. and Capella Healthcare, Inc. (“Capella” or the “Company”) and five Capella directors (the “Director Defendants”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract claims asserted against them by James Thomas Anderson (“Anderson”), a founder and former director and officer of Capella, relating to a 2014 recapitalization of the Company.
Anderson’s counterclaims against Defendants all arise from a recapitalization of Capella which the Director Defendants approved in April 2014. Anderson voted against the recapitalization, which decreased Anderson’s ownership percentage in the Company, as well as that of the minority shareholders, and increased the ownership percentage of affiliates of GTCR Golder Rauner II LLC (“GTCR”), which, upon Capella’s formation, made an equity investment of approximately $206 million in the Company.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
By William Axtman and Dotun Obadina
In Quadrant Structured Products Company v. Vertin, creditor plaintiff Quadrant Structured Products Company, Ltd. (“Quadrant”) asserted breach of fiduciary duty claims derivatively against the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of the Athilon Capital Corp. (the “Company”) and EBF & Associates (“EBF”), the holder of all of equity and certain junior debt of the Company. EBF also managed the operations of the Company through service and license agreements between the Company and an affiliate of EBF, Athilon Structured Investment Advisors, LLC (“ASIA”), and appointed all five directors of the Board, three of which are current employees of EBF.
Quadrant, as holder of senior notes of the Company, asserted that (a) the Company was insolvent and (b) the directors of the Board and EBF breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty and committed corporate waste by (i) continuing to unnecessarily make interest payments on the junior debt, even though such payments could be deferred for an extended period of time (past the likely date of dissolution and liquidation of the Company), (ii) paying excessive service and license fees to ASIA and EBF to operate the Company, and (iii) changing the Company’s business model to take on greater risk under a strategy where EBF would benefit from any upside as the sole holder of the junior debt and the Company’s equity, but the Company’s more senior creditors (including Quadrant) would bear the cost of any downside. In addition, Quadrant asserted claims under the Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act based on the non-deferral of interest on the junior debt and the payment of excessive service and license fees to ASIA and EBF to operate the Company.
By Annette Becker and Jason Jones
In Chen v. Howard-Anderson, Vice Chancellor Laster considered a motion for summary judgment brought by certain officers and the Board of Directors of Occam Networks, Inc., (“Occam”), a public Delaware corporation seeking a determination by the Court that they did not breach their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs (former stockholders of Occam) claim that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties “by (i) making decisions during Occam’s sale process that fell outside the range of reasonableness (the “Sale Process Claim”) and (ii) issuing a proxy statement for Occam’s stockholder vote on the Merger that contained materially misleading disclosures and material omissions” (the “Disclosure Claim”).
In 2009, Calix, Inc. and Occam (competitors in the broadband market) began discussing a potential business combination. In response, the Board of Occam determined that formal discussions with Calix were not appropriate at that time and retained Jeffries & Company for advice on strategic alternatives. By June 2010, Occam proposed to acquire Keymile International GmbH (“Keymile”) for $80 million, and Calix submitted a term sheet proposing to purchase Occam for $156 million (in a mix of cash and stock). Another suitor, Adtran, presented a third option by offering a slightly higher cash offer price to acquire Occam as compared with the Calix offer. Occam had a cool reaction to Adtran. Occam prepared April and June financial projections for 2010, 2011, and 2012 which were more positive than the estimates of the two public analysts who followed Occam. The projections were not shared with Adtran, and were materially higher than Adtran’s internal projections for Occam, and later projections that Adtran would create. Occam did not provide Calix with the June financial projections. On June 23, 2010 Calix submitted a revised term sheet increasing its offer to purchase Occam to $171.1 million (to be paid in a mix of cash and stock). Adtran confirmed its interest in acquiring Occam and on June 24, 2010 proposed an all cash offer at a premium of approximately 11% over Calix’s bid. On June 24, 2010 the Board met to consider the various alternatives – the cash and stock merger with Calix, the cash sale to Adtran, or remaining independent and acquiring Keymile. It was not clear that the Board was aware that Adtran’s bid was 11% higher than Calix’s offer. The Board directed Jeffries to conduct a 24 hour “market check.”
By Kristy Harlan and Eric Taylor
In re Answers Corporation involves an allegation that the board of a publicly-traded Delaware corporation, Answers Corporation (the “Company”), breached its fiduciary duties in negotiating and approving a sale of the Company. The plaintiffs alleged that the three conflicted directors controlled the Board, that the four remaining directors breached their duty of loyalty and acted in bad faith, and that the buyer of the Company (“AFCV”) aided and abetted the directors’ breach of fiduciary duty.
In March 2010, the Company received an unsolicited expression of interest from AFCV concerning a possible transaction. Shortly thereafter, the Board discussed the possibility of exploring strategic alternatives, including the recent expression of interest, ultimately deciding to explore potential transactions and engage a financial advisor to assist in the process. As part of this process, the Board’s financial advisor continued discussions with AFCV regarding a potential transaction, in addition to conducting a market check where it approached ten other potential buyers. Despite discussions with at least seven other possible buyers, no potential buyer other than AFCV made an offer. During this time, the Board rejected multiple requests for exclusivity from AFCV in order to preserve the Board’s opportunity to negotiate with other potential purchasers. The Board also rejected several offers from AFCV, deeming them to be inadequate, and pressured AFCV to increase the price offered until the transaction was finally approved. The Board’s financial advisor discussed with the Board the relative merits of pursuing various sales processes, advising the Board that additional bidders were unlikely to come forward, and ultimately provided a fairness opinion with respect to the final price offered by AFCV. During the final stages of negotiation with AFCV, after several quarters of declining revenues, the Company received quarterly results reflecting significant improvements in performance and record revenues. Despite the improved results, the Board was concerned about the future stability and performance of the Company, primarily due to its significant reliance on Google-directed traffic (which was entirely dependent on Google algorithms, subject to change at any time in Google’s discretion) and increasing competitive pressures, and ultimately approved the sale of the Company to AFCV.
Copyright © 2024, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.