Commentary

Complaint Dismissed Against Managers of a Del. LLC Where Plaintiffs Fail to Allege Standard of Conduct Violation

Under Delaware law, the members of a limited liability company may eliminate or modify the common law fiduciary duties of loyalty and care in their operating agreement. When they do so, Delaware courts will analyze any alleged management misconduct under the standard of conduct to which the parties agreed.

October 30, 2019 at 09:00 AM

4 minute read


Lewis Lazarus, Morris James Lewis Lazarus, Morris James

Under Delaware law, the members of a limited liability company may eliminate or modify the common-law fiduciary duties of loyalty and care in their operating agreement. When they do so, Delaware courts will analyze any alleged management misconduct under the standard of conduct to which the parties agreed. In MKE Holdings v. Schwartz, C.A. No. 2018-0729-SG (Del. Ch. Sept. 26, 2019), the Delaware Court of Chancery found the managers' contractual duty to be a narrow one: act with a good-faith belief that their conduct was in or not opposed to the LLC's best interests. It then dismissed a complaint alleging breach of duty by the managers for the plaintiffs' failure to allege facts making it reasonably conceivable that the defendants breached the contractual standard. The case reflects the Court of Chancery's application of contract principles to assess whether the defendants may have breached the duties to which parties in an LLC have agreed.

Court Finds Parties Eliminated Common-Law Fiduciary Duties

In MKE Holdings, the plaintiffs brought derivative claims against the managers of a Delaware LLC, alleging that they had violated the LLC's operating agreement and their fiduciary duties by making acquisitions that would benefit them personally, as well as by compensating themselves excessively. The defendants sought dismissal on the ground that their conduct did not violate the operating agreement. In construing the LLC's operating agreement, the Court of Chancery determined that the parties had eliminated the common-law duties of care and loyalty, and explicitly permitted the managers to engage in self-interested transactions, as long as the transactions were done in good faith (i.e., not in bad faith).

If this case involved the conduct of directors of a Delaware corporation, a claim that the directors caused the corporation to acquire an entity so that the defendants or their affiliates would earn a substantial fee in a self-dealing transaction likely would subject the transaction to a high level of scrutiny. Directors of a Delaware corporation cannot waive the duty of loyalty. Where, as here, parties to an LLC agreement modify or eliminate the duty of loyalty, the task for a reviewing court is to determine the extent to which the parties did so and the contractual standard they did impose on the managers. Here, although certain language in the operating agreement appeared to suggest that the parties had adopted a simple negligence standard of conduct, the court found otherwise in construing the contract as a whole. A reading of the parties' operating agreement that they intended to subject managers to liability for simple negligence was "nonsensical" because "It would eviscerate, and make surplus, the good faith standard and conflict-waiver provisions of the operating agreement. No reasonable drafter, or reader, would construe an explicit waiver of all duties but good faith—including a waiver of conflict and gross negligence—to be contingent on the actor avoiding simple negligence."

Court Finds Plaintiffs Failed to Plead Violation of Contractual Standard of Conduct

Bad faith, under the LLC operating agreement in this case, would be the managers entering into a transaction not reasonably believing that it was in or not opposed the LLC's best interests. The court found plaintiffs had failed to allege facts permitting an inference of bad faith because, among other reasons, the controlling entity the managers allegedly were acting to benefit owned 70% of the LLC and would suffer the most injury by the misconduct plaintiff had alleged.

Lessons Learned

This case provides an example of how difficult it is for a plaintiff in a limited liability company to state a claim where the parties have eliminated common law fiduciary duties and expressly permitted interested parties to make decisions that benefit themselves. Delaware courts hold parties in unincorporated entities to the contractual standards of their foundational agreements. Unless a plaintiff can plead facts making it reasonably conceivable that the defendants have breached the agreed-upon contractual standard, a Delaware court, construing the agreement as a whole, will dismiss the complaint.

Lewis H. Lazarus ([email protected]) is a partner at Morris James in Wilmington and chair of the corporate and commercial litigation group. His practice is primarily in the Delaware Court of Chancery in disputes, often expedited, involving managers and stakeholders of Delaware business organizations.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Go To Lexis →

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Go To Bloomberg Law →

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

NOT FOR REPRINT

Latest
Trending

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.

Read More

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.

Read More

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.

Read More

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.

Read More

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.

Read More

Law.com Pro