Investor's Suit for Corporate Records Exposes Deep Fissure in Silicon Valley Alliance
The Delaware Court of Chancery on Thursday ordered Palantir Technologies Inc. to turn over corporate records to a company run by Marc Abramowitz, in an unusual court battle that highlights the growing animosity between the reticent Silicon Valley firm and one of its biggest early investors.
February 23, 2018 at 05:50 PM
4 minute read
The Delaware Court of Chancery on Thursday ordered Palantir Technologies Inc. to turn over corporate records to a company run by Marc Abramowitz, in an unusual court battle that highlights the growing animosity between the reticent Silicon Valley firm and one of its biggest early investors.
Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III said in a 50-page memorandum opinion that Abramowitz had demonstrated a proper purpose of investigating potential fraud and mismanagement in the private software company, which specializes in big data analytics.
The ruling came nearly one year after Abramowitz's KT4 Partners sued for access to a swath of corporate information after a falling out with CEO Andrew Karp in 2015. That dispute has since sparked litigation in a California state court, where Palantir accused Abramowitz of using his influence as a major investor to extract sensitive trade secrets.
Typically, Delaware books-and-records actions are resolved in the span of just a few months, as long as a plaintiff establishes a narrow cause for enforcing stockholder inspection rights under state statute. However, Abramowitz's suit was built, Slights said in the opinion, on “hearsay, double hearsay and, at times, triple hearsay,” drawing the case into a protracted legal dispute over the scope of his investigation, with both sides trading accusations of wrongdoing.
Abramowitz had accused Palantir, among other things, of failing to convene stockholder meetings and improperly barring Abramowitz and other investors from selling stock while allowing sales by Karp and other executives. Abramowitz also asked for access to documents in order to investigate the value of the firm and Karp's compensation as its chief executive.
Palantir countered that Abramowitz's inspection demand was unrelated to KT4's interests as a stockholder. Rather, the company said, Abramowitz was trying to gain leverage in the California suit and obtain pre-suit discovery on breach of contract and tortious interference claims he planned to bring against Palantir.
The fraught nature of the litigation belies the once congenial relationship that Abramowitz once enjoyed with Palantir's brass.
After an initial investment of $100,000 in the Palo Alto, California, company in 2003, KT4 increased its holdings to approximately $60 million, Abramowitz said. In the 15 years he spent as an investor, Abramowitz was given “unique access” to Palantir executives, and met with Karp at least a dozen times, according to Slights opinion.
However, the relationship fractured in the summer of 2015, when Karp called Abramowitz and accused him of stealing the firm's intellectual property. Abramowitz then moved to sell his entire position to Brooklands Capital Strategies, but was blocked once Palantir principals got word of the transaction.
Abramowitz sent Palantir an information request in August 2016 under an agreement that allows “major investors” to view certain, nonconfidential records. Palantir told Abramowitz that it was reviewing the request, but the following month the company increased the threshold to qualify as a major investor, stripping KT4 of its special status.
The following month, Palantir filed its trade secrets suit in California Superior Court, accusing Abramowitz of stealing information involving clinical drug trials, cybersecurity insurance and oil and gas exploration. KT4 filed its book-and-records suit in Delaware in March 2017.
In his ruling, Slights agreed with Palantir that some of KT4's stated purposes reflected Abramowitz's personal desire to gain an upper hand and build out a case against Palantir unrelated to his interests as a stockholder. But he still allowed access to other areas, saying KT4 had cleared the low bar for forcing production.
“These are not proper purposes,” Slights said of KT4's bid for documents related to some corporate transactions.
“With that said, KT4 has sustained its burden of demonstrating a credible basis of wrongdoing in certain respects that do affect its interests as a Palantir stockholder.”
Slights ruled that KT4 could investigate corporate stock sales, Palantir's refusal to hold stockholder meetings and the amendments that limited KT4's rights. But he blocked Abramowitz's probe into Palantir's valuation and Karp's compensation.
Attorneys for both sides were not immediately available to comment.
The California action is still pending in state court.
KT4 partners was represented in the Delaware action by Barry S. Simon and Jonathan B. Pitt of Williams & Connolly in Washington, D.C., and Bartholomew J. Dalton and Andrew C. Dalton of Dalton & Associates.
Palantir was represented by Kevin J. Orsini and Rory A. Leraris of Cravath, Swaine & Moore and Blake Rohrbacher, Kevin M. Gallagher and Kelly L. Freund of Richards, Layton & Finger.
The Delaware case is captioned KT4 Partners v. Palantir Technologies.
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 AllZoom Faces Intellectual Property Suit Over AI-Based Augmented Video Conferencing
3 minute readEtsy App Infringes on Storage, Retrieval Patents, New Suit Claims
Trending Stories
- 1Buyer Beware: Continuity of Coverage in Legal Malpractice Insurance
- 2‘Listen, Listen, Listen’: Some Practice Tips From Judges in the Oakland Federal Courthouse
- 3BCLP Joins Saudi Legal Market with Plans to Open Two Offices
- 4White & Case Crosses $4M in PEP, $3B in Revenue in 'Breakthrough Year'
- 5Thursday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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