Delaware Business Litigation Report

Norman v. Elkin, 2007 WL 2822798 (D.Del. Sept. 26, 2007)

In this action the District Court evaluated the application of the statute of limitations to claims that a corporate fiduciary engaged in self-dealing at the corporation’s expense. Plaintiff was a 25% shareholder in a closely-held Delaware corporation with Pennsylvania headquarters, formed to participate in the wireless communications industry. Defendant #1 owned the remaining shares of the corporation, and also served as its President and sole director. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant #1 breached his duties to the corporation when he personally obtained newly-issued communications licenses from the FCC, then sold them along with the corporation’s pre-existing licenses to a third party, keeping the proceeds of the sale himself. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant #1 took the action without notifying Plaintiff in his capacity as a shareholder, without holding an annual meeting, and without making any disclosure of the sale. Plaintiff sued Defendant #1, along with his wholly owned corporation and another corporate officer, in the Delaware Court of Chancery for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, declaratory relief, and breach of various fiduciary duties. Defendants removed the action to District Court based on diverse citizenship and moved for summary judgment, arguing that all claims were time-barred.

Superior Vision Services, Inc. v. Reliastar Life Insurance Company, C.A. No. 1668-N (Del. Ch. August 25, 2006).

This decision answers the question of when a minority shareholder may block a dividend payment pursuant to the authority to do so in the company's certificate of incorporation. The Superior Vision charter provided that a dividend could not be paid absent the consent of 2/3 of the shareholders. As a 44% owner, the defendant refused to consent to the dividend. The company sued alleging that the defendant had violated a fiduciary duty to consent to the dividend and its duty of good faith and fair dealing.

The Court first held that absent actual control over the board of directors, a minority shareholder would not be deemed to be in control of the board just because it can block a board decision to pay a dividend. As a result, the Court concluded that the defendant did not owe a fiduciary duty to the company or its shareholders. In addition, the Court held that when, as here, the certificate of incorporation confers a power to veto a transaction and does not condition the exercise of that right, then there is no duty to act reasonably in that regard. Hence, the duty of good faith and fair dealing was not implicated and the Court dismissed the complaint.

Gentile v. Rossette, C.A. No. 573, 2005 (Del. Supr. August 17, 2006).

This Delaware Supreme Court decision significantly clarifies the Court's Tooley decision that governs when a claim is a derivative claim. Because a derivative claim must meet significant pleading requirements under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1, this decision affects much of the corporate litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery and merits careful reading.

In re PNB Holding Co. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 28-N (Del. Ch. August 18, 2006).

As it has several times in recent years, the Court of Chancery has decided a case combining appraisal rights and a class claim for inequitable treatment in a merger. The Court held that when directors get together to freeze out the other stockholders the entire fairness test applies even when they do not own a majority of the stock. This follows because the interests of those directors in remaining shareholders differs from the other shareholders who will be frozen out. Absent some insulating procedure such a majority of the minority vote, the directors then have the burden of proving the merger was entirely fair.

Abraham v. Emerson Radio Corp. C.A. No. 1845-N, 2006 WL 1879205 (Del. Ch. July 5, 2006).

This decision makes it clear that a controlling stockholder may sell control without fear of liability for the actions of the buyer after the transaction closes, with few exceptions. While it has long been the rule that a stockholder may deal with its shares as it sees fit, case law recognized that a controlling stockholder has a fiduciary duty to its company and the minority owners by virtue of the controller's ability to control what the company does. How that duty applied in the sale of control context is the question addressed in this case.

Williamson v. Cox Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 1663-N, 2006 WL 1686375 (Del. Ch. June 5, 2006).

For the first time, the Court of Chancery has ruled that the power to veto a transaction may constitute the power to control a Delaware corporation. This is significant because a controlling stockholder has fiduciary duties to the other stockholders. While the facts of this case are probably unique and its implication for the litigants are unclear at this early stage, the complaint has withstood a motion to dismiss.

Gesoff v. IIC Indus. Inc., C.A. No. 19473, 2006 WL 1458218 (Del. Ch. May 18, 2006).

Plaintiff filed a class action, claiming a merger was the subject of unfair dealing and produced an unfair price. Another plaintiff filed a statutory appraisal claim based on the same merger.

Delaware Open MRI Radiology Associates, P.A. v. Kessler, C.A. No. 275-N, 2006 WL 1215096 (Apr. 26, 2006).

This case was described by Vice Chancellor Strine as "another progeny of one of our law's hybrid varietals: the combined appraisal and entire fairness action." The court was tasked with determining whether the share price in a squeeze-out merger was fair, and, if not, what the extent of the underpayment to the minority shareholders was. The court found that the merger price was unfair, and finding no difference between the award the petitioners/plaintiffs would receive in appraisal or in equity, the court awarded an amount equivalent to petitioners' pro rata share of the company's appraisal value on the date of the merger.

Oliver v. Boston University, C.A. No. 16570-NC, 2006 WL 1064169 (Del. Ch. Apr. 14, 2006).

Defendant Boston University ("BU") was the controlling shareholder of Seragen, a financially troubled biotechnology company. Plaintiffs, a group of former minority stockholders of Seragen's common stock, challenged certain transactions before Seragen was merged and the process by which the merger proceeds were divvied up. The plaintiffs contended that the BU defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Seragen's common shareholders by approving various financial transactions, which were not fair to the common shareholder as a matter of price and process. The Court of Chancery awarded damages in excess of $4.8 million plus interest for breaches of the fiduciary duty of loyalty.

Crescent/Mach I Partnership, L.P. v. Turner, C.A. No. 17455-NC, 2005 WL 3618279 (Del. Ch. Dec. 23, 2005).

Former stockholders who were cashed out in connection with merger sued the corporation's former controlling stockholder and the acquirer for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, respectively. Plaintiffs complained of numerous side deals, allegedly negotiated by the controlling stockholder. Plaintiffs also complained that the controlling stockholder breached his fiduciary duty by supplying growth projections that he knew to be unduly pessimistic and inconsistent with management's view. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court granted in part and denied in part.

Gentile v. Rossette, C.A. No. 20213-NC, 2005 WL 2810683 (Del. Ch. Oct. 20, 2005).

Plaintiffs, former shareholders of SinglePoint Financial, Inc. which merged into a subsidiary of Cofiniti, Inc., alleged that two former directors of SinglePoint breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the issuance of a large number of shares to one of the defendants and the merger. Defendants moved for summary judgment.

In re LNR Propert Corp. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 674-N, 2005 WL 3418631 (Del. Ch. Nov. 4, 2005, rev'd Dec. 14, 2005).

Former shareholders filed fiduciary class action in connection with a cash-out merger, naming corporation and former directors as defendants. The complaint alleged that the corporation's controlling shareholder negotiated to sell the company to a third-party investment firm in all-cash deal. The complaint further alleged that, as part of the transaction, the controlling shareholder and other members of company management agreed to invest approximately $184 million to acquire a 25% equity stake in the surviving entity. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Zimmerman v. Braddock, C.A. No. 18473-NC, 2005 WL 2266566 (Del. Ch. Sept. 8, 2005).

Plaintiff, a shareholder of priceline.com, Inc., moved for leave to amend his derivative complaint against directors of Priceline based upon three defendants' alleged insider trading and misappropriation of confidential information. Defendants argued amendment would be futile.

In Re Cox Communications Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 613-N, 879 A.2d 604(Del. Ch. June 6, 2005)

Vice Chancellor Strine ruled on a fee request in a case arising out of a proposal by the Cox Family to take Cox Communications private. The Family proposed a merger on fully negotiable terms with an opening bid of $32. The proposal was immediately followed by a flurry of class action lawsuits, as well as the formation of a special committee to review and evaluate the terms of the offer. The Family tentatively agreed with a special committee of independent directors to a price of $34.75 per share subject to approval by a majority of the minority stockholders and conditioned on settlement of the outstanding lawsuits, a final fairness opinion, and agreement on the terms of a final merger agreement.

Counsel for the plaintiffs eventually agreed that the $34.75 price accepted by the special committee was fair, accepted the other terms of the transaction, and agreed to settle their claims. After settlement, the Cox family agreed not to oppose a request by plaintiffs' counsel for payment of attorneys' fees of up to $4.95 million. Certain Cox stockholders, however, did object to the fee request and the Court of Chancery heard their obections.

The Court slashed a $4.95 million fee request to an award of $1.275 million and advised the plaintiff's bar to consider that award "generous."

Benihana of Tokyo, Inc. v. Benihana, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 550-N (Del. Ch. Feb. 28, 2005).

This case deals with several motions to dismiss on several grounds, the upholding of personal jurisdiction under a conspiracy or aiding/abetting theory and plaintiff's request for a declaratory judgment.