Delaware Business Litigation Report

G & G LLC v. White, 2008 WL 205150 (D. Del. Jan. 25, 2008)

In this opinion declining to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the District Court found that it had personal jurisdiction over both the directors/officers of a Delaware corporation and over a foreign corporation that invested in a Delaware corporation. Plaintiff was a Virginia limited liability company that loaned $2.5 million to a Utah corporation. Plaintiff was granted a security interest in the Utah corporation’s assets, and perfected that interest by filing the required financing statements in Utah. However, the Utah corporation subsequently was merged with and into a Delaware corporation. Plaintiff asserted that this was done at the insistence of various defendants that were seeking to invest in the Utah corporation after Plaintiff informed them that it would not agree to subordinate its security interest to theirs. Plaintiff posited that the investor defendants thereafter controlled the Utah corporation and the Delaware corporation it was merged into, and fraudulently concealed the merger to prevent Plaintiff from perfecting its security interest upon the merger, while at the same time perfecting their own in Delaware. Plaintiff pointed to numerous instances where the Utah corporation, the Delaware corporation, their counsel, the directors/officers of the Delaware corporation (who were appointed by the investor defendants), and the investor defendants failed to notify Plaintiff of the merger and/or made misrepresentations regarding the continuing status of the corporation as a Utah corporation. Taking the allegations as true, the Court found that the actions of the investor defendants and the directors they appointed was sufficient to confer specific jurisdiction over them. 

Fogel v. U.S. Energy Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 3271-CC (December 13, 2007).

Directors often think that if they get together that is a real board of directors'  meeting. Not so. As this decision holds, a board meeting is a formal event that must be preceded by the appropriate notice, be conducted by voting on the issues and otherwise be properly called and conducted. Gatherings of even all the directors that do not meet these tests are void.

Moreover, the consequence of holding a meeting void is that actions taken cannot be ratified later. Thus, even when all but one of the company's directors wanted to fire the CEO, their attempt to do so at a haste gathering of all the directors was ineffective.

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.

Thompson v. The Williams Companies, Inc., C.A. No. 2716-VCS (July 31, 2007).

Companies often find that they are required to provide advancement of attorney fees to former directors or others when the company really does not want to do so because of the conduct involved. Here, in a case involving an employee with an advancement  right, the Court held that requiring security for the amounts advanced is appropriate to insure repayment.

Note, however, that this discretion to require security was based on the terms of the provisions providing for advancement. Without that language in a mandatory advancement provision, it is doubtful that a company might require more than the usual and customary undertaking to repay.

Lemon Bay Partners LLP v. Hammonds, C.A. No. 05-327 (D.Del. June 26, 2007)

In this shareholder derivative action for breach of fiduciary duties against various corporate defendants, the Court held that the state law claims asserted so predominated the lone federal claim that exercise of supplemental jurisdiction was inappropriate. Plaintiffs, former shareholders of MBNA Corporation, asserted various claims against the defendants based on breach of fiduciary duties in connection with earnings reports and the merger of MBNA with Bank of America. Defendants moved to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the Plaintiffs’ sole claim that rested on federal jurisdiction was so predominated by the state law claims as to make the exercise of the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction inappropriate. The Court concurred with the defendants, concluding that Plaintiffs’ federal law claim bore only a tangential relationship to the rest of the claims. The Court therefore granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Openwave Systems Inc. v. Harbinger Capital  Partners Master Fund I, Ltd., C.A. No. 2690-VCL (May 18, 2007).

Corporate bylaws sometimes require that the company be given advance notice of the intent to nominate anyone for election to the board. When those provisions are not clear, they will be interpreted in the way that expands stockholder rights. However, when the provisions are clear enough to give notice of their minimum requirements, then they will be enforced. That is what occurred here where the winning candidate was disqualified for his failure to comply with a reasonably clear advanced-notice bylaw.

Levy v. Sterling Holding Co., LLC, 2007 WL 582555 (D.Del. Feb. 13, 2007).

In this shareholder derivative action, the plaintiff shareholder sued two defendants, both of whom occupied board positions with the corporation, for allegedly purchasing stock in the corporation and then selling it at a profit within six months, in violation of Section 16(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. After each side filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the SEC adopted Amendments to SEC Rules 16b-3 and 16b-7, which exempt certain transactions from the prohibitions of Section 16(b). Defendants argued that the transaction that formed the basis of Plaintiff’s complaint, whereby Defendant’s preferred stock in the corporation was “automatically” converted to common stock upon completion of an IPO, was an exempt “reclassification” transaction under the SEC Rules. Conversely, Plaintiff argued that the exemption did not apply. The Court found that the SEC had acted within its power in exempting reclassification transactions from Section 16(b), and that as a result of that exemption, Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International v. Jerney, C.A. No. 19947 (Del. Ch. March 1, 2007).

Payment of bonuses to officers and directors often seems so routine that extra care is not required to be sure they are fair. This case shows what can go wrong when fair process and fair amounts are not properly considered.

Because each member of the board was to receive a bonus under the plan in issue, the bonuses were subject to the rigorous entire fairness review by the Court. That involves testing to see if the process used to approve the bonuses was fair in the sense of using appropriate safeguards to protect the corporation's interests and fair in the sense that the amounts involved were within a range of reasonableness. These bonuses failed on both counts.

To begin with, the committee to whom the bonus plan was referred consisted of persons who would receive a bonus and a majority of the committee were closely allied with the CEO who was targeted for a $30 Million bonus under the plan. The consultant they hired came in after the plan was set up and was really only asked to justify the amounts involved.

Second, the amounts were extremely high compared to other bonuses and were for work that had not just been done already before the plan was announced but that had in a sense already been  the subject of prior bonuses. All in all, this was just too much and the Court voided the bonuses.

ATR-Kim Eng Financial Corp. v. Araneta, C.A. No. 489-N (Del. Ch. December 21, 2006).

Commentators sometimes wonder when director inattention will ever be so bad so as to warrant finding directors liable in the absence of self-dealing. This was just such a case. Briefly, the board consisted of a majority owner who picked a relative and an employee to constitute the other members of the board of directors. The Court concluded that the two non-controlling directors basically did nothing to carry out their duties to the entity and just accepted at face value everything they were told by the controlling stockholder. As a result, the Court found all the directors liable when the controlling stockholder looted the entity.

The decision is particularly interesting in that it may be an extension of the Delaware Caremark decision to no longer require a "red flag' to hold directors liable for failure to oversee the corporate entity's operations. That extension would apply when there was especially bad conduct and an utter failure by the board to meet or in any way supervise the management of the entity.

Shamrock Activist Value Fund LP v. iPass Inc., C.A. No. 2462-N (Del. Ch. December 12, 2006).

When seeking to inspect corporate records, the stockholder needs to have a reasonable purpose for doing so. If the stated purpose is to investigate wrongdoing, there must be a real basis to suspect wrongdoing or the demand will be denied. Here the demand was at least partially deficient because allegations of improper conduct seemed to be little more than that the company had not met its predicted financial results. The plaintiff escaped dismissal of its suit on narrow grounds that there were also allegations of a failure to carry out a plan that was more definite than just a prediction,  something closer to a promise that was broken.

Esopus Creek Value LP v. Hauf, C.A. No. 2487-N (Del. Ch. November 29, 2006).

Delaware law requires an annual stockholder meeting. The SEC rules prohibit calling a stockholder meeting when the company is delinquent in its SEC filings. In this case and in its decision in Newcastle Partners LP v. Vesta Insurance Group, Inc., 887 A.2d 975 (Del. Ch. 2005), aff'd., 906 A.2d 807 (Del. Ch. 2005) the Delaware Court of Chancery has resolved this apparent conflict. Here, the Court held that a stockholder meeting should go forward with adequate disclosures to the stockholders entitled to vote on the proposed sale of substantially all of the company's assets. The Court ordered the company to apply to the SEC for an exemption from the rules prohibiting the calling of a meeting.

Weisler v. Barrows, C.A. No. 06-362 GMS, 2006 WL 3201882 (D. Del. Nov. 6, 2006).

Plaintiff, a shareholder of Sycamore Networks, Inc. (“Sycamore”), a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Massachusetts, brought this derivative action against several of its directors and officers, including its chairman, CEO and CFO. The complaint alleged six counts: (1) a count against each director for section 14(a) violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”); (2) one count of disgorgement against four directors under section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Oxley Act”); (3) one count of breach of fiduciary duty against all directors; (4) one count of unjust enrichment against five directors; (5) one count of gross mismanagement against all defendants; and (6) one count of waste of corporate assets against all defendants.

The defendants moved to transfer the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and the Court granted the motion because it would convenience the parties and witnesses and serve the interests of justice.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had jointly and severally breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith, and candor by failing to: (1) discover or prevent the intentional manipulation of stock option grants between 1999 and 2004; (2) prevent the misreporting of earnings that was caused by the manipulation of the option grants; (3) oversee the administration of Sycamore’s stock-based compensation plans; (4) ensure Sycamore operated in compliance with applicable state and federal laws pertaining to dissemination of financial statements; (5) ensure the company did not engage in any improper or illegal practices; and (6) ensure that the company’s financial statements were compliant with GAAP. The conduct is alleged to have violated section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and section 304 of the Oxley Act.

The Court permitted the transfer of the matter on its individualized consideration of the motion under section 1404(a) and on whether it would convenience the parties and witnesses and serve the interests of justice. The Court also held that it was the defendants’ burden to establish the need for transfer. The Court observed that the standard for transfer did not demand a demonstration of compelling circumstances; rather, the defendants only needed to show that the case would be better off if transferred to the other jurisdiction. That inquiry required a “multi-factor balancing test” that consisted of not only the convenience of the parties and the witnesses but also the examination of certain public and private interests. The Court listed the private interests as: (1) a plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the defendant’s preference; (3) where the claim arose; (4) the convenience of the parties and witnesses; and (5) the location of the books and records. The Court listed the public interests as: (1) the judgment’s enforceability; (2) practical trial considerations making it easy, expeditious or inexpensive; (3) the administrative difficulty presented in the two fora; (4) local interest in deciding the controversy at home; and (5) the public policies of the fora under consideration. The Court found that the private and public factors weighed in favor of transfer and therefore permitted the defendants’ motion.

In Re Primedia Inc. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 1808-N (Del. Ch. November 15, 2006).

This case dealt with when directors would be considered interested in a deal so as to preclude the application of the business judgment rule and permit the suit to proceed.  Many of the directors were affiliated with the controlling stockholder who had purchased the corporation's preferred stock at a deep discount just before the board voted to redeem that stock at its face value. That decision was justified, it was argued, because the coupon rate on the stock was higher than market rate. The Court held that might well be so, but at the pleading stage it was too soon to accept that as a justification for the purchase that gave the controlling stockholder a big gain. The decision is particularly interesting for its discussion of when directors are considered sufficiently connected to a controlling stockholder so as to preclude application of the business judgment rule.

Stone v. Ritter,  C.A. No. 93, 2006 (Del. Supr. November 6, 2006).

The Supreme Court has issued the latest Delaware decision to interpret the duty to act in good faith. Indeed, it is possible to read Stone as holding there is no separate duty of directors to act in good faith. While that would be a mistake, the implications of this decision may be far reaching. At the very least, Stone upholds the conventional wisdom in Delaware that under Caremark the directors' duty to act is most easily triggered when there are red flags indicating something is wrong with the way the entity is being operated. A complaint that fails to plead those red flags has a good chance of being dismissed.

ATS, Inc. v. Bachmann, C.A. No. 2374-N (Del. Ch. October 11, 2006).

Delaware corporations frequently ask the Court of Chancery to decide if a proposed course of action is appropriate, particularly when the board of directors' fiduciary duties are implicated. In this decision the Court focused primarily on when the Court may provide that guidance and when the matter is not ripe for judicial action. The Court has rejected becoming involved in hypothetical issues not framed by a real world transaction, but more of a "what if" set of questions. Here, the Court accepted one question for its review and rejected others, thereby illustrating how it will deal with those situations.

AT&T Corp. v. Clarendon America Insurance, C.A. No. 04C-11-167, 2006 WL 2685081 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 18, 2006).

This case is part of a larger insurance coverage dispute involving Directors and Officers and Company Liability ("D&O") coverage purchased from certain of the defendants by plaintiff AT&T Corp. ("AT&T") and the company of which AT&T was the majority stockholder, the now-bankrupt At Home Corporation ("At Home"). AT&T sought D&O coverage in connection with several underlying shareholder suits brought against it and certain directors and officers of AT & T and At Home. The court previously decided the potential coverage liability under the AT&T D&O policies but not the At Home policies. See AT & T Corp. v. Clarendon America Ins. Co., C.A. No. 04C-11-167 (JRJ), 2006 WL 1382268 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 13, 2006, amended Apr. 25, 2006). At issue in this case are the D&O policies issued by the five defendant insurers to At Home, including the primary insurer and the four excess insurers (collectively, the "At Home Insurers"). The At Home Insurers moved to dismiss AT&T's complaint.

Braddock v. Zimmerman, C.A. No. 489 (Del. Sup. September 12, 2006).

The Delaware Supreme Court has clarifed the rules as to when a plaintiff in a derivative suit must make a demand upon filing an amended complaint. The Court holds that if the derivative litigation has been properly instituted an amendment to the complaint does not need to be the subject of a demand on the board of directors as to those claims already "validly in litigation". Thus, even if the majority of the board has changed and is now independent under Rule 23.1 standards, no demand need be made in those circumstances.

North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. v. Gheewalla, C.A. No. 1456-N (Del. Ch. September 1, 2006).

This is another in a series of Court of Chancery decisions that limit the claims that creditors may make based on the theory the directors owe the creditors a duty when their corporation is insolvent or in the vicinity of insolvency. Ever since the famous footnote in Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland, N.V. v. Pathe Communications Corp., 1991 WL 277613 (Del. Ch. Dec. 30, 1991), creditors have argued that directors should owe them a fiduciary duty to take their interests into account when the creditors are the residual interest holders in a corporation that is insolvent or nearly so. A series of recent decisions have limited those creditor arguments. See e.g. Production Resources Group, L.L.C. v. NCT Group, Inc., 863 A.2d 772 (Del. Ch. 2004) [holding most creditor claims must be brought as derivative claims]. This new decision further limits creditor claims by holding that creditors may not bring a direct claim for breach of fiduciary duty based on the theory the entity is in the vicinity of insolvency. Further, the decision holds that for clearly insolvent companies, only creditors whose claims are beyond fair dispute may claim the directors owe them a duty.

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.

Trenwick America Litigation Trust v. Ernst & Young LLP, C.A. No. 1571-N, 2006 WL 2333201 (Del. Ch. Aug. 10, 2006).

The Delaware courts have struggled for the last fifteen years over the scope of the duties of directors to creditors when their company is in the vicinity of insolvency. In two landmark decisions, the first in 2004, and just recently, the Court of Chancery sought to define the limits of that duty. Indeed, in this decision the Court rejected the very idea that there is a duty to avoid taking risks that may have the effect of deepening the insolvency of a Delaware corporation, at least in most circumstances.

Acciptier Life Sciences Fund L.P. v. Helfer, C.A. No. 2057-N, 2006 WL 2252376 (Del. Ch. Aug. 2, 2006).

The Court of Chancery has upheld the use of a press release to announce a stockholder meeting date and to trigger the provisions of a ten day advance notice bylaw. The plaintiff's employees read the press release, which mostly focused on financial results, but they neglected to notice it also announced the annual meeting date. Thus, the plaintiff failed to get the names of its nominees to the company in the time required by a bylaw provision triggered by the notice of meeting.

AIG Retirement Services, Inc. v. Barbizet, C.A. No. 974-N, 2006 WL 1980337 (Del. Ch. July 11, 2006).

Business relationships between directors may sometimes make them unqualified to pass upon demands their company sue their fellow directors. This is such a case where the board members derived substantial benefits from their relationships with the potential target of litigation the plaintiff demanded be brought. Under those circumstances, the futility of making a demand under Rule 23.1 was easily established.

Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana v. Aidinoff, C.A. No. 20106, 2006 WL 1725572 (Del. Ch. June 21, 2006).

In this decision the Court of Chancery extensively discusses the legal theories under which the plainitff may seek a recovery from two of the entities alleged to have helped the AIG Chairman profit at the expense of AIG. In effect, the Court held that if as alleged these entities were set up to profit by doing what AIG might have done for itself, then their profits are subject to recovery under several theories such as the imposition of a constructive trust. The opinion is a good source of legal theory for recovery in such cases.

Wendell Brown v. LiveOps, Inc., C.A. No. 1991-N, 2006 WL 1667652 (Del. Ch. June 12, 2006).

In another rejection of artificial limits on the right to advancement, the Court of Chancery has rejected the argument that there is no right to advancement of legal fees to defend a suit that seeks recovery for post termination conduct.

Minnesota Invco of RSA #7, Inc. v. Midwest Wireless Holdings LLC, C.A. No. 1887-N, 2006 WL 1596675 (Del. Ch. June 7, 2006).

In this case, the Court of Chancery was required to interpret complex agreements between the members of a Delaware limited liability company. The Court held that the defendant holding company had the right to "drag along" holders of a minority interest in an operating subsidiary of the holding company in connection with the sale of the holding company.

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.

AT&T Corp. v. Clarendon America Ins. Co., C.A. No. 04C-11-167(JRJ), 2006 WL 1360934 (Del. Super. Ct. May 18, 2006).

On April 25, 2006, the Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of multiple defendants. The plaintiff, AT&T, moved to certify an appeal pursuant to Rule 42, and the Superior Court granted AT&T leave to file and interlocutory appeal. On May 31, 2006, the Delaware Supreme Court accepted the interlocutory appeal as well.

Khanna v. McMinn, C.A. No. 20545-NC, 2006 WL 1388749 (Del. Ch. May 9, 2006).

Defendants moved to dismiss class and derivative complaint under Court of Chancery Rules 23.1 and 12(b)(6). Defendants also moved to disqualify the plaintiffs, to strike portions of the complaint and for continued sealing of the complaint.

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.

AT&T Corp. v. Clarendon America Ins. Co., C.A. No. 04C-11-167 (JRJ), 2006 WL 1382268 (Del. Super. Ct. April 25, 2006).

This was an insurance coverage case involving Directors and Officers and Company ("D & O") liability policies purchased by plaintiff AT & T Corp. ("AT & T") and At Home Corp. ("At Home") from various primary and excess insurers. AT & T sought coverage, including indemnity, payment of defense fees, costs, and settlements or judgments, relating to several underlying shareholders suits brought against AT & T and certain officers and directors of AT & T and At Home. The defendants brought motions for partial summary judgment, alleging that AT & T's clams fell outside the scope of coverage under the D & O policies. Ultimately, the court granted the defendants' motions.

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.

Levy v. Hayes Lemmerz International Inc., C.A. No. 1395-N, 2006 WL 985361 (Del. Ch. Apr. 5, 2006).

The plaintiffs in this case sought indemnification for a settlement of claims against them for $27.5 million, paying $7.2 million out of their own pockets. The plaintiffs were former outside directors of a public company engaged in the automobile supply trade who were sued by both stockholders and bondholders of that company for various statutory violations and breaches of fiduciary duty when the company was forced to reveal that some of its financial statements contained materially misleading information. The corporation that the plaintiffs served ("Old Hayes") entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy and emerged as the operating subsidiary of a new entity ("New Hayes"). When the plaintiffs sought indemnification for the settlement under the old corporation's bylaws, their individual indemnification plans, and the bankruptcy reorganization plan, both Old Hayes and New Hayes refused. The Court of Chancery dismissed the plaintiffs' claims as to New Hayes, which the court found as a matter of law had no obligation to indemnify its predecessors' former directors and officers; however, the court denied the motion to dismiss as to the old company because the directors had a right to proceed with their claim for indemnification against Old Hayes.

Feldman v. Cutaia, C.A. No. 1656-N, 2006 WL 920420 (Del. Ch. Apr. 5, 2006).

This action involved a series of transactions in which the Telx defendant directors allegedly granted themselves a significant equity stake in the company for little or no consideration. Plaintiff alleged that these transactions significantly diluted his equity position. This action also involved a self tender-offer by the company for $5 million worth of its securities. Defendant argued that plaintiff did not make a demand on the Telx board before proceeding with the derivative action and that the complaint did not plead with particularity facts that created a reasonable doubt as to the ability of the Telx board to independently consider such a demand. The Court of Chancery denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and permitted the plaintiff to proceed with his derivative suit.

Seinfeld v. Barrett, C.A. No. 05-298-JJF, 2006 WL 890909 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2006).

Plaintiff filed a derivative action against defendants, alleging that they violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 14a-8 and breached their fiduciary duties under Delaware law by making false and misleading statements in connection with a proxy statement issued by the defendants in March 2005. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to comply with Rule 23.1.

In re Triarc Companies, Inc. S'holders Litig., C.A. No. 16700, 2006 WL 903338 (Del. Ch. Mar. 29, 2006).

After the voluntary dismissal of a class action, plaintiffs petitioned the Court of Chancery for attorneys' fees and expenses. The court found that plaintiffs' counsel was entitled to fees for the preparation of the amended complaint and litigation efforts undertaken before the action that caused the voluntary dismissal. Plaintiffs' counsel was not entitled to fees for their work in connection with the original complaint nor for their work performed after the claims in the amended complaint were mooted.

Big Lot Stores, Inc. v. Bain Capital Fund VII, LLC, C.A. No. 1081-N, 2006 WL 846121 (Del. Ch. Mar. 28, 2006).

In 2000, in a sponsored management buyout, a corporation sold a subsidiary business that operated a chain of toy stores (KB Toys) in exchange for $257.1 million in cash and a $45 million note due in 2010. In 2002, the new owners refinanced the business and distributed approximately $120 million to the buyout sponsor, affiliates, two officers and directors of the subsidiary that invested in the buyout, and others. In 2004, the KB Toys filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Plaintiff Big Lots, Inc, an unsecured creditor and holder of the $45 million note, brought this action asserting direct claims of breach of fiduciary duties, fraud, and civil conspiracy. The plaintiff sought recovery for the amount due on the note and restitution for alleged unjust enrichment. The Court of Chancery dismissed the complaint namely because the claims were derivative in nature, not direct, and thus belong to the bankruptcy estate.

Carlson v. Hallinan, C.A. Nos. 19808, 19466, 2006 WL 771722 (Del. Ch. Mar. 21, 2006).

This case involved a direct and derivative action arising out of a dispute between two men engaged in the business of making short term, unsecured loans. Plaintiffs asserted direct claims for breach of contract and derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duties. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendant Hallinan breached an oral contract with plaintiffs by paying himself and another defendant executive compensation. Plaintiffs also asserted that the defendants breached fiduciary duties they owed nominal defendant CR Services Corp. by paying themselves an excessive amount of executive compensation. The Court of Chancery found, among other things, that Hallinan breached the oral contract with plaintiffs and defendants committed multiple breaches of their fiduciary duties to CR because they failed to meet the entire fairness standard regarding their compensation.

Highland Legacy Ltd. v. Singer, C.A. No. 1566-N, 2006 WL 741939 (Del. Ch. Mar. 17, 2006).

A large shareholder brought a derivative action alleging that the directors committed corporate waste by approving exorbitant fees to unqualified financial advisers. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 for failure to allege with particularity facts establishing demand futility. The court's review of the complaint revealed that plaintiff did not allege with particularity facts from which the court could reasonably conclude that the majority of the directors were disabled from impartially considering a demand. The court therefore granted defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 23.1.

Shamrock Holdings of Ca., Inc. v. Arenson, C.A. No. 04-1335-SLR, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9835 (D. Del. Mar. 14, 2006).

Plaintiff Shamrock Holdings of Ca., Inc. ("Shamrock") was a Class A member of ALH Holdings, Inc. ("ALH"), a Delaware limited liability company, and the other plaintiffs were employees and/or members of ALH's Supervisory Board (the "Board"). In connection with the failure of ALH's business, and its investors' subsequent loss of their investments, plaintiffs filed an action in the Court of Chancery seeking a declaration that (i) they did not breach ALH's operating agreement; (ii) they did not breach their fiduciary duties as ALH employees, members or Board members; (iii) they had relied in good faith on the advice of experts and professionals in making their decisions; (iv) they were not liable to the defendants under the terms of a consulting agreement; and (v) they were entitled to advan

Horbal v. Three Rivers Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 1273-N, 2006 WL 668542 (Del. Ch. Mar. 10, 2006).

Plaintiffs, founders of a Health Management Organization, alleged that their co-investors abused their positions by siphoning off tens of millions of dollars from the HMO in the form of disguised salaries and corporate perquisites; plaintiffs call these "de facto dividends." The Court of Chancery granted defendants' motion to dismiss because plaintiffs did not adequately allege self-dealing, the center of a de facto dividend claim.

Canadian Commercial Workers Industry Pension Plan v. Eric Alden, et al., C.A. No. 1184-N, 2006 WL 456786 (Del. Ch. Feb. 22, 2006).

In this derivative action brought against four former directors and officers of Case Financial, Inc., the nominal defendant, the two remaining defendants moved to dismiss after two others settled. Plaintiff alleged breach of loyalty, breach of the Caremark duty of oversight, corporate waste and common law fraud. The Court of Chancery partly granted the motions.

In re Serena Software, Inc. S'holders Litig., C.A. No. 1777-N, 2006 WL 375599 (Del. Ch. Feb. 09, 2006).

This is a motion for expedited proceedings for a preliminary injunction pertaining to certain disclosure claims not made public in SEC-filed proxy statements soliciting shareholder vote for an agreement for sale of the corporation at $24 per share. Class actions were earlier filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and California's Superior Court challenging the sale transaction as a director-interested one.

Gilliland v. St. Joseph's at Providence Creek, C.A. No. 04C-09-042, 2006 WL 258259 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 27, 2006).

After the board of directors of an LLC terminated the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed suit, alleging, among other things, that the board's actions were void. The defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's suit. The court found that one of the directors was immune from suit pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 8133, which grants immunity to an organization's volunteers. Another defendant, the LLC from which plaintiff had been terminated, argued that the claim against it should be dismissed because the board's actions were voidable rather than void. However, there was no indication that the Board had ever ratified the voidable acts. The Court directed the Plaintiff to file a more definite statement as to what it was claiming against that defendant.

Stone, et al. v. Ritter, et al., C.A. No. 1570-N, 2006 WL 302558 (Del. Ch. Jan. 26, 2006).

This matter involved an attempt to institute a derivative proceeding against fifteen current and former director defendants of AmSouth Bancorporation for alleged failures of fiduciary duties through insufficient internal control systems to guard against statutory violations under the Bank Secrecy Act and the Anti-Money Laundering Regulations. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and it was granted by the court for insufficiency of pleading under Chancery Court Rule 23.1.

On November 6, 2006, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed this decision.

Joyce C. Delucca v. KKAT Management, L.L.C. et al., C.A. No. 1384-N, 2006 WL 224058 (Del. Ch. Jan. 23, 2006).

This case was decided on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff sought to obtain advancement of attorney fees allegedly contractually agreed, to defend a New York action and fees on fees for initiating and prosecuting this action. The plaintiff was sued in the New York action by affiliates-entities of her then employer.

Radiancy, Inc. v. Zion Azar, et al., C.A. No. 1547-N, 2006 WL 224059 (Del. Ch. Jan. 23, 2006).

This is a summary judgment motion for advancement of legal fees made by defendant-officers. Their corporation alleged fraud, fiduciary violations and usurpation of corporate opportunity against defendants as a bar to advancement. Defendants replied with counterclaims under their respective employment contracts. The motion was granted and denied in part.

Unisuper, Ltd. v. New Corporation, C.A. No. 1699-N (Del. Ch. Jan. 20, 2006).

Opinion and order granting interlocutory appeal on two contract issues, after court dismissed corporate allegations of fraud, negligent misrepresentation and fiduciary duty breach.

In re Tele-Communications Inc. Shareholders Litig., C.A. No. 16470, 2005 WL 3547674 (Del. Ch. Dec. 21, 2005), opinion revised and superceded by No. CIV. A. 16470, 2005 WL 3642727 (Del. Ch. Dec. 21, 2005), (revised Jan. 10, 2006)(Westlaw citation not available).

This summary judgment action originates from a Consolidated Amended Complaint that alleged nondisclosure of material information Continue Reading Posted By MorrisJames Delaware In Case Summaries , Class Actions , Derivative Claims , Directors , Fiduciary Duty , M&A , Special Committees | Permalink 0 Comments

Unisuper v. News Corp., C.A. No. 1699-N, 2005 WL 3529317 (Del. Ch. Dec. 20, 2005).

In the context of converting from an Australian corporation to a Delaware corporation, News Corp.'s board adopted a policy that if a shareholder rights plan was adopted following reincorporation, the plan would have a one-year sunset clause unless shareholder approval was obtained for an extension. The policy also provided that if shareholder approval was not obtained, the company would not adopt a successor shareholder rights plan having substantially the same terms and conditions. Several weeks later, News Corp.'s board adopted a poison pill in response to a specific third-party takeover threat. One year later, the board extended the poison pill without a shareholder vote, in contravention of its prior policy.