Minority Members Allegedly Exploited Contract Rights in Breach of Fiduciary Duties to Acquire Company Assets on the Cheap
Where the interests of stockholders diverge from the contracts rights of other stockholders, directors and controlling stockholders may breach their fiduciary duty of loyalty by exploiting or opportunistically favoring their contract rights over the interests of the stockholders as a whole.
May 06, 2020 at 09:02 AM
4 minute read
Delaware law requires directors of a corporation to strive in good faith and on an informed basis to maximize the value of the corporation for the benefit of all of its stockholders, and not to prefer the interests of stockholders with contract rights or preferences. Consequently, where the interests of stockholders diverge from the contracts rights of other stockholders, directors and controlling stockholders may breach their fiduciary duty of loyalty by exploiting or opportunistically favoring their contract rights over the interests of the stockholders as a whole.
This potential conflict of interest is exacerbated by directors appointed by and beholden to constituent stockholders, which often creates a dual-fiduciary problem, for which Delaware law does not provide a safe harbor. In short, directors beholden to constituent stockholders may subordinate their judgment for the corporation and all of its stockholders in favor of the contract interests of the constituent stockholders. Constituency directors, who act to benefit constituent stockholders at the expense of the interests of the corporation and its stockholders as a whole, are subject to a claim for breach of their fiduciary duty of loyalty, including the duty of good faith, which is a component of the duty of loyalty under Delaware law.
These same principles apply by default to a limited liability company's managers and its controlling members where an operating agreement is silent, or does not unambiguously disclaim traditional fiduciary duties. This was the case in a recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision, Skye Mineral Investors v. DXS Capital (U.S.), C.A. No. 2018-0059-JRS (Del. Ch. Feb. 24, 2020) (Slights, V.C.).
By way of background, Skye Mineral Partners LLC's operating subsidiary owned valuable mineral deposits. Under the operating agreement, the approval of the minority members was necessary for the LLC to obtain financing. After the minority members' designated manager to the board learned that the mineral deposits of the subsidiary were worth $600 million, the minority members and their designated manager, who was beholden financially to the minority members, devised a plan to acquire the LLC subsidiary's debt, and then exercise the minority members' contract right to block refinancing that was necessary to continue the subsidiary's operations and service the debt. Their plan was to force the subsidiary into bankruptcy, where its assets were purchased by affiliates of the minority members for $40 million.
In Skye Mineral Investors the court held that the plaintiffs, the majority members of an LLC, pleaded claims for breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty that minority members exploited their contract right to block and control financing decisions in bad faith to enable them to acquire the LLC's assets on the cheap at the expense of the interests of the LLC and its members. The court found that neither a provision in the operating agreement that waived fiduciary obligations for corporate opportunities, nor a provision that allowed members to vote in the member's sole discretion, were sufficient to disclaim traditional fiduciary duties applicable to a general corporation. The court reasoned that express disclaimer language in the operating agreement was necessary to exempt the default traditional fiduciary duties.
Applying traditional fiduciary duties, the court ruled that the plaintiffs had pleaded legally sufficient claims that the minority members improperly exercised their control to prevent the majority members from financing the LLC subsidiary's debt and operations to force the subsidiary into bankruptcy, where affiliates of the minority members were able to purchase its assets on the cheap. To have the duties of a controller, the court found that the minority members exercised actual control via contractual blocking rights to "channel the corporation into a particular outcome," that enabled them to prevent financing that effectively shut down the LLC.
The court also held that the plaintiffs had pleaded sufficient claims that the minority members' designated manager breached his fiduciary duty of loyalty. The court explained that "when a fiduciary … intentionally 'sits back' while his company 'collapses' so that another to whom he is beholden can buy the company's assets 'out of bankruptcy very cheap,'" the constituency manager's divided loyalties may result in a breach of his duty of loyalty to the LLC and its members.
Albert H. Manwaring IV ([email protected]) is a corporate governance and fiduciary litigation partner at Morris James in Wilmington, Delaware.
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 AllChancery: Common Stock Worthless in 'Jacobson v. Akademos' and Transaction Was Entirely Fair
5 minute readThe Importance of Contractual Language in Analyzing Post-Closing Earnout Disputes
6 minute readDelaware Supreme Court Upholds Court of Chancery’s Refusal to Blue Pencil an Unreasonable Covenant Not to Compete
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1People in the News—Feb. 4, 2025—McGuireWoods, Barley Snyder
- 2Eighth Circuit Determines No Standing for Website User Concerned With Privacy Who Challenged Session-Replay Technology
- 3Superior Court Re-examines Death of a Party Pending a Divorce Action
- 4Chicago Law Requiring Women, Minority Ownership Stake in Casinos Is Unconstitutional, New Suit Claims
- 5GOP Now Holds FTC Gavel, but Dems Signal They'll Be a Rowdy Minority
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