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
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.
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 AllChancery Stays Action Pending Resolution of a Motion to Dismiss in a First-Filed Action to Which the Defendant Is Not a Party
5 minute readChancery Court Exercises Discretion in Setting Bond in a Case Involving Share Transfer Restriction
6 minute readTrending Stories
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