In Del. Corporate Law, Some Direction After Turbulent Year
Despite an unusual level of disagreement between Delaware's Supreme and Chancery courts in 2017, a sense of direction seems has emerged as to some hotly debated areas of corporate law heading into the New Year.
December 22, 2017 at 05:14 PM
4 minute read
Despite an unusual level of disagreement between Delaware's Supreme and Chancery courts in 2017, a sense of direction seems has emerged as to some hotly debated areas of corporate law heading into the New Year.
In the past year, the state's five justices parted ways with the trial court at a rate not seen in years, issuing a total of eight full reversals of Chancery Court rulings, compared to just two in each of the preceding two years.
However, the high court in 2017 delivered its clearest statements yet on to how handle the divisive issue of deciding fair value in appraisal actions, and the Chancery Court continued to build out its body of post-Trulia case law. A major theme of the year, said corporate law expert Lawrence Hamermesh, was a reduction in shareholder litigation that has curbed abusive practices, but may have also made some good cases harder to bring.
“I think the overarching theme is the evolution of shareholder litigation,” said Hamermesh, professor of corporate and business law at Widener University Delaware Law School. “It's hard to look at things and conclude that's not been cut back.”
After Trulia effectively put an end to disclosure-only settlements in Delaware, plaintiffs have opted to take their disclosure suits either to other states or to federal courts. Litigation in the Chancery Court has instead focused on claims for post-closing money damages and cases for statutory relief, such as books-and-records suits and appraisal actions.
In a win for plaintiffs, the Chancery Court this year notably held that business judgment presumptions would not apply in determining whether a claim is colorable under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Rather, the court indicated that it would continue to require plaintiffs to show a “credible basis” to suspect wrongdoing in order to state a proper purpose for inspection of corporate documents.
Meanwhile, spurred largely by the rise of appraisal arbitrage, appraisal suits have become an increasingly important part of the Chancery Court's docket. The practice, where investors would purchase stock after the announcement of a merger with an eye toward exercising a statutory right to receive fair value instead of merger consideration, has sparked a lively debate over the role of deal price in assessing how much a company was worth at the time of the sale.
As a result, the Chancery Court has taken on most of the burden in determining what valuation methods are most appropriate in the cases before it. In some cases, the trial court has relied on deal price as the best indicator of fair value, but in other notable instances, the court either eschewed deal price entirely or gave it little weight in finding fair value below the deal price.
While the Supreme Court in 2017 rejected the proposition from companies and scholars that the courts should always defer to the transaction price resulting from an arm's-length, conflict-free sale process, the high court signaled its clear preference for using deal price in cases that involve a robust and competitive sale process.
The Supreme Court, in two separate reversals, rejected the Chancery Court's finding that a “private equity carve-out” diminishes the reliability of the deal price, in one instance stating, “We do not understand the logic of this finding.”
“The Supreme Court has all but said to use the deal price … if there's a showing that the sale price is reasonable,” Hamermesh said.
Going forward, Hamermesh said, it is clear that the Chancery Court would follow the high court's instruction, though it may struggle with determining how to calculate merger synergies, which may impact whether the deal price was reasonable.
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
© 2024 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 AllCourt of Chancery Rejects 'Caremark' Liability for Imperfect Compliance With Legal Obligations
5 minute readEven With New Business Courts, Texas Is Still a Long Way from Taking Delaware's Corporate Law Mantle
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Nicholas M. DePalma and Christian R. Schreiber of Venable have stepped in to represent CP Management Services, CRS RB4 Holdings and other defendants in a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The suit was filed Aug. 30 in Virginia Eastern District Court by Greenberg Traurig on behalf of Daito Kentaku USA. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Claude M. Hilton, is 1:24-cv-01538, Daito Kentaku USA, LLC v. Comstock Partners, LC.
Who Got The Work
Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs partner Andrew J. Pulliam has entered an appearance for Steve Jensen in a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The action, filed Aug. 30 in Tennessee Middle District Court by the Law Office of Perry A. Craft on behalf of Timothy Robins, accuses the defendant of writing a worthless check for over $94,000 for the sale of auctioned goods. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Eli J. Richardson, is 3:24-cv-01064, Robins v. Jensen et al.
Who Got The Work
Lane Powell shareholder Pilar C. French has entered an appearance for Penney OpCo LLC in a pending consumer class action. The complaint, filed Aug. 26 in Oregon District Court by Hattis & Lukacs, alleges that the company markets fictional discounts for certain products. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai, is 6:24-cv-01414, Gamble v. Penney OpCo LLC.
Who Got The Work
Donald L. Carmelite and Coryn D. Hubbert of Marshall Dennehey have stepped in to defend the City of York, Detective Roland Comacho and Detective Lisa Daniels in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Middle District Court by Levin & Zeiger on behalf of Noel Matos Montalvo, seeks damages for the amount of time that Montalvo was incarcerated over five years for the exonerated killing of his common law wife. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jennifer P. Wilson, is 1:24-cv-01459, Montalvo v. City of York, et al.
Who Got The Work
Joseph M. Englert, Brian E. Pumphrey and M. Laughlin Allen of McGuireWoods have entered appearances for Bank of America NA in a pending class action. The action was filed Aug. 26 in Georgia Northern District Court by Podhurst Orseck; Webb, Klase & Lemond; Crabtree & Auslander; and Morrison + Associates on behalf of the representative of the beneficiaries of the Arthur N. Weinraub Trust, a trust which contains residential real property. The suit accuses the defendant of overcharging the trust by selecting unnecessary and/or excessively priced insurance for the property. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr., is 1:24-cv-03780, Weinraub v. Bank of America, N.A.
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