Chancery Court Voids Stock Issue in Board Fight
The Delaware Court of Chancery on Thursday ruled that a hurried stock issuance designed to stave off a takeover of the Roma Restaurant Holdings Inc. board was void and could not be counted in a vote to control the company.
February 02, 2018 at 06:38 PM
4 minute read
Tamika Montgomery-Reeves.
The Delaware Court of Chancery on Thursday ruled that a hurried stock issuance designed to stave off a takeover of the Roma Restaurant Holdings Inc. board was void and could not be counted in a vote to control the company.
According to court documents, the transaction came just as Southpaw Credit Opportunity Master Fund and another company stood poised to take a majority stake in the parent of Tony Roma's restaurant chain in late 2016. After hearing about Southpaw's plans, the Roma board quickly approved a new compensation plan to issue stock to 14 of the company's employees, effectively diluting Southpaw's holdings and preventing it from gaining control of the three-member board.
In a 24-page memorandum opinion, however, Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves said the directors failed to obtain written agreements from the stock recipients joining them to Roma's shareholder agreement.
The oversight, she said, proved fatal to the board's attempt to argue that the issuance was voidable, and not void, as it tries to argue in related litigation that the board had ratified the transaction.
“The rushed nature of director defendants' actions likely made it impossible to obtain joinders from each restricted stock recipient before issuance. But that does not excuse noncompliance with the clear and express terms of the stockholders' agreement,” the vice chancellor said.
“All recipients of stock and stock equivalents must understand—following the opportunity to read and consult with counsel—the stockholders' agreement and then bind themselves to the stockholders' agreement at or before issuance to ensure compliance with that agreement.”
The ruling dealt a blow to Highland Capital Management, which had argued in a separate case that the company's employees had validly voted their shares to two Highland-aligned directors on the three-seat board.
Montgomery-Reeves stayed that case in favor of the Southpaw action, which went to trial in November.
Southpaw argued that the issuance was void, and the shares could not be counted in the vote.
Roma and the two directors did not contend that the issuance was valid. Instead, they countered that technical issues had frustrated their ability to obtain the joinders, and they asked for Montgomery-Reeves to declare the transaction voidable, thus giving the court discretion in how to proceed.
It would be unequitable, the defendants said, to find the issuance void solely on technical grounds.
But Montgomery-Reeves faulted Roma's directors for trying to entrench themselves, and saying that the failure to satisfy the joinder requirement was “more than a mere technical deficiency.”
“The award agreement substantively failed to comply with numerous elements of the joinder provision, including the timing under which the joinders must be completed as well as the requirements that the recipient acknowledge that they had ample time to read and consult with counsel on the stockholders' agreement,” she wrote.
“It was a failure to substantially perform the required actions. Thus, director defendants' case law is unavailing.”
Counsel for both sides declined to comment on Friday.
Southpaw was represented by Martin S. Lessner, James P. Hughes, Tammy L. Mercer and Richard J. Thomas of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor.
The Roma directors were represented by Kevin G. Abrams, John M. Seaman and Wade Houston of Abrams & Bayliss.
Roma was represented by Brock E. Czeschin and Anthony M. Calvano of Richards, Layton & Finger.
As of Feb. 2, the Highland case was still stayed.
The case was captioned Southpaw Credit Opportunity Master Fund v. Roma Restaurant Holdings.
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 AllEagle Pharma Founder Sues Company to Recoup Cost of SEC Investigation
2 minute readPrivate Equity Firm's Counsel to Del. Supreme Court: Forfeiture Provisions Present 'a Choice'
4 minute readDavis Polk Lands Spirit Chapter 11 Amid Bankruptcy Resurgence
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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