Delaware Business Litigation Report

Schuss v. Penfield Partners LLP, C.A. 3132-VCP (Del. Ch. June 13, 2008)

This decision explains how distribution rights for a withdrawing partner may be determined and points out that ambiguous language in the partnership agreement may lead to uncertainty. This was particularly important here as the withdrawing partner was given an in-kind distribution of these hedge funds securities after they had declined in value in the period after the date for determining the partner's share and the actual distribution date. This may become an important issue when the market is declining.

The Court also held that the plaintiff had stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty by alleging the controlling general partner had selected the assets to go to the departing partner with the intent of hurting his interest.

Madison Real Estate Immobilien-Anlagegesellschaft Beschrankt Haftende KG v. KanAm USA XIX LP, C.A. 2863-VCP (Del. Ch. May 1, 2008)

This case sets out the law governing the right to inspect a limited partnership's records, particularly in the context of a possible tender offer. Delaware law draws a distinction between seeking inspection to determine the value of one's interest in the partnership and seeking inspection for purposes of making a tender offer. In the later case, inspection may be denied as not being for a purpose truly related to acting as a partner, but instead as an acquiror. While one might argue this distinction is too fine a line to draw, that is the law for now.

The opinion is also noteworthy for dealing with how to interpret a partnership agreement's contractual right to inspect. As the opinion points out, the right to inspect "books of account" is not as broad as the right to inspect "books and records."

Forsythe v. ESC Fund Management Co., C.A. No. 1091-VCL (October 9, 2007).

The duties of a general partner in a Delaware limited partnership are governed by the partnership agreement. But when those duties may be delegated to third parties under the terms of the partnership agreement, the GP duties are less clear. Here, the Court had to decide if the scienter required by the Caremark case applied to hold the GP liable if red flags pointed to abuses by the parties running the show or whether instead the general partnership obligations of a GP to be responsible for its agents was the standard to apply.

Recognizing that in this case the authority to delegate to third party managers with clear conflicts of interest put the GP on notice, the Court held that the GP had more than just Caremark-like duties -there was a duty of more active inquiry.

Twin Bridges Limited Partnership v. Draper, C.A. No. 2351-VCP (September 14, 2007).

This decision deals with how to change the governance structure of a limited partnership by using a merger to amend the partnership agreement. At the outset, the Court ruled that the doctrine of independent legal significance would not be applied to a two-step transaction involving an amendment to a limited partnership agreement to permit a merger and then the merger itself. Instead, the Court ruled that the two transactions were integrated and thus, considered as if they were a single event. This may mean that the corporate law concept of treating two transactions separately if they are authorized by two different sections of the corporate law will not apply in the context of a limited partnership that is based on contract law.

In addition, the Court held that using a merger to add an additional, tie-breaking general partner to the partnership governance structure was permissible absent a clear prohibition in the partnership agreement.

Download file

Hillman v. Hillman, C.A. No. 1557-N (Del. Ch. August 23, 2006, modified,November 16, 2006).

When a general partner is dismissed as the limited partnership's general partner, the DRULPA is not clear on what happens to the interest of that former general partner. After a close reading of the statute and its legislative history, the Court of Chancery concluded that the former general partner is entitled to be paid back his partnership interest, but otherwise has no continuing interest in the limited partnership. The decision affects partnerships that have not provided for the result of a general partner dismissal in the partnership agreement. Note also, this decision deals solely with a general partner who is dismissed, not one who withdraws and is then subject to other sections of the statute.

Kevin McGovern, et. al. v. General Holding, Inc., et. al., C.A. No. 1296-N (Del. Ch. June 2, 2006).

In this action to recover for the diversion of partnership property, the Court of Chancery fashioned a unique remedy by ordering that the partnership be sold by a receiver so as to realize the special value of its technology.

Anglo American Security Fund, L.P. v. S.R. Global Int'l Fund, L.P., C.A. No. 20066-N, 2006 WL 1494360 (Del. Ch. May 24, 2006).

Plaintiffs and defendants brought cross-motions for summary judgment on claims arising from disputes over interpretation of limited partnership agreement ("LPA").

McGovern v. General Holding, Inc., C.A. No. 1296-N, 2006 WL 1468850 (Del. Ch. May 18, 2006).

Plaintiffs brought action individually and on behalf of limited partnership against 90% owner of limited partnership for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of limited partnership agreement.

Madison Real Estate Immobbilien-Anlagegesellschaft Beschrankt Haftende KG v. GENO One Financial Place L.P. and GENO Auslandsimmobilien GmbH, No. Civ.A. No. 1928-N, 2006 WL 456779 (Del. Ch. Feb. 22, 2006).

The plaintiff is a German entity organized under that country's laws, as is the second named German limited liability defendant. The latter party is also a general partner in the first defendant entity. The plaintiff was one of two bidders that made an unregulated tender offer for a part of the first-named defendant's Delaware limited partnership interest. Plaintiff filed a motion in the Court of Chancery for expedited injunction proceedings, seeking to enjoin the defendant's general partner from approving any transfer agreements related to the tender offers.

Ramunno v. Capano, et al., C.A. No. 18798-NC, 2006 WL 375541 (Del. Ch. Feb. 10, 2006).

This is a fiduciary claim based action to appraise the fair value of real property brought by the trustee of four trusts that held a 12.1% interest in that property held by the defendant entity and its two majority interest holders, after that entity's merger into a new Delaware limited partnership.

Ruggerio v. Poppiti, C.A. No. 18961, 2005 WL 2622716 (Del. Ch. Oct. 5, 2005).

Plaintiff, who was limited partner of partnership and sole stockholder of corporation controlled by Defendants, alleged that Defendants failed to report or account to him regarding his ownership interest in the entities, breached their fiduciary duties and commingled assets. Defendants counterclaimed for money loaned by limited partnership to corporation.

Jacques Pomeranz, et al. v. Museum Partners, L.P., C.A. No. 20211, 2005 WL 217039 (Del. Ch. Jan. 24, 2005).

In this motion to dismiss opinion, the court examines whether the claims were tolled or untimely and held against the plaintiff. The plaintiff had instituted contract claims, fiduciary duty violation claims and a breach of the limited partnership agreement claim against the defendant-partners.