New Schnatter Complaint Takes Aim at Papa John's Poison Pill
In a court filing made public earlier this week, Papa Johns founder John Schnatter said the plan prevented him from talking to other stockholders regarding "critical corporate matters," including a scheduled vote on the board's slate of nominees at the company's annual meeting in April.
February 28, 2019 at 05:39 PM
4 minute read
Papa John's founder John Schnatter has asked the Delaware Chancery Court to strike what he is calling a “draconian” poison pill plan, saying the measure was intended to silence investors who disapprove of controversial board actions.
In a court filing made public earlier this week, Schnatter said the plan prevented him from talking to other stockholders regarding “critical corporate matters,” including a scheduled vote on the board's slate of nominees at the company's annual meeting in April.
The move came as Schnatter, the company's largest shareholder, remains locked in a multifaceted legal battle for control of the pizza chain, after he resigned as chairman last summer amid reports that he had used a racial slur during a company training call. In January, Chancery Court Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard allowed Schnatter to access corporate documents related to his ouster, but said that any production would be limited to Schnatter's changing roles at the company.
Schnatter, who remains on the Papa John's board, alleged in a separate lawsuit last August that the company's other directors had breached their duties to investors in the wake of his ouster. This week, Schnatter said he was focusing that challenge on poison pill, which the company adopted July 22 to prevent him from acquiring more stock.
A common defense measure, poison pills are designed to prevent hostile takeovers by making a company's stock unpalatable to investors who exceed a certain level of equity. But Schnatter this week in an amended complaint that Papa John's plan worked to limit debate and stifle stockholder opposition to corporate acts.
According to the filing, the plan would be triggered once an investor masses a stake of more than 15 percent of Papa John's outstanding stock. Since Schnatter already owns a 30.9-percent stake in Papa John's, the provision would kick in if he acquires any more stock.
The poison pill contained a so-called “wolf-pack provision,” which prevents major investors like Schnatter from teaming up with other stockholders to take control of the company. Schnatter, however, said its terms were “breathtakingly expansive” and precluded him “from even discussing issues of common interest with other stockholders.”
According to Schnatter, it was solely up to a special committee of the Papa John's the board to decide when stockholders were “acting in concert” under the provision, and those decisions would be “unreviewable in real time.”
“Taken together, the broad definition of acting in concert, and the board's seemingly unlimited ability to wield the power of the poison pill without any check or balance, work together to immediately and effectively chill any stockholder from engaging in almost any interaction with other stockholders, including, without limitation, activities normally associated with proxy contests and simple discussions regarding the company's future,” he said in the filing.
Meanwhile, the complaint alleged the directors were taking steps to entrench themselves on the board ahead of the company's annual meeting, scheduled for April 30.
Earlier this month, the board signed a governance agreement with Starboard Value and Opportunity Master Fund Ltd., which allowed Starboard and its related entities to purchase up to 250,000 shares of preferred stock and nominate two directors for board election next month.
“While the special committee members are busy securing votes and diluting Mr. Schnatter's voting and economic interests, the poison pill prevents Schnatter from even discussing votes or other Company matters with other shareholders because of the acting in concert provision,” Schnatter's attorneys wrote. “Accordingly, the Governance Agreement and the Poison Pill work hand-in-hand to make it more likely that the incumbent members of the Board (other than Schnatter) keep their seats and that Schnatter cannot speak to other stockholders to challenge the company's proposals and nominees.”
A spokesman for Papa Johns did not immediately respond Thursday afternoon to a call seeking comment on the filing.
Schnatter is represented by Garland A. Kelley of Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro in Los Angeles and Peter B. Ladig, Brett M. McCartney and Elizabeth A. Powers of Bayard in Wilmington. An online docket-tracking service did not list attorneys for the Papa John defendants.
The case, captioned Schnatter v. Shapiro, has been assigned to Bouchard.
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 AllBeyond Meat Faces Shareholder Suit Over Ability to Produce Product at Scale
New Derivative Suit Says Kraft Heinz Shareholders Were Misled on Post-Merger Losses
3 minute readSupreme Court Will Again Be Focus of IP World in 2023
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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