Court: Certificate of Incorporation Doesn't Grant Preferred Stockholders Liquidation Preference
A recent Chancery Court decision illustrates that courts are reluctant to imply preferred stockholder rights that are not clearly set forth in the documents containing the preferred stock terms.
July 20, 2017 at 12:57 AM
6 minute read
The recent decision in In re Appraisal of GoodCents Holdings, C.A. No. 11723-VCMR (Del. Ch. June 17), illustrates that courts are reluctant to imply preferred stockholder rights that are not clearly set forth in the documents containing the preferred stock terms. In GoodCents, Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves held that a disputed provision in a company's certificate of incorporation granted preferred stockholders the right to a class vote, but not the right to a liquidation preference in lieu of a class vote, in the event of a merger.
|Background
In July 2015, GoodCents entered into a merger transaction. Because the merger consideration was less than the liquidation preference GoodCents believed its preferred stockholders were entitled to in the event of a merger, the preferred stockholders received all of the merger proceeds and the common stockholders, the two founders of GoodCents' predecessor entities, received no consideration. In November 2015, the two former common stockholders brought an appraisal action, arguing that, for purposes of the appraisal, the holders of common stock and preferred stock should be treated pro rata, with the preferred stock entitled to consideration on an as-converted-to-common basis. The parties subsequently cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the proper allocation of the fair value of GoodCents among common and preferred stockholders.
Under Article V, Section B.2b of GoodCents' amended and restated certificate of incorporation, “except in a transaction governed by Section B.6,” the preferred stockholders of GoodCents cannot be paid a dividend unless the common stockholders receive an equal dividend per share on an as-converted basis.
Sections B.6.a and B.6.b set forth a liquidation preference in the event of a “liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the corporation.” Section B.6.c provides: “Without the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the series 1 cumulative convertible preferred stock, the corporation shall not … effect any merger or consolidation … unless the agreement or plan of merger … shall provide that the consideration payable to the stockholders of the corporation … or consideration payable to the corporation … shall be distributed to the holders of capital stock of the corporation in accordance with Sections B.6.a and B.6.b above.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDelaware Supreme Court Upholds Court of Chancery’s Refusal to Blue Pencil an Unreasonable Covenant Not to Compete
4 minute readChancery Stays Action Pending Resolution of a Motion to Dismiss in a First-Filed Action to Which the Defendant Is Not a Party
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1To Speed Criminal Discovery, NY Bill Proposes Police-to-Prosecutor Pipeline For Records
- 2Merchan Rejects Trump's Bid to Delay Manhattan Sentencing
- 3High-Low Settlement Agreement 'Does Not Alone Establish Bias:' State High Court Affirms $20M Med Mal Verdict
- 4NYAG Preparing to Withdraw From Defense of Four Correction Officers' Federal Lawsuits
- 52 Judges: Meet the New Chief Justice and the GC Who Just Rose to the Bench
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250