Del. Trial Disputing Pandemic's Alleged Effect on Merger Cancelled After $1.43B Agreement
The agreement settles claims that were set to be addressed by the Delaware Court of Chancery in what would have been the first trial to consider COVID-19's effects on a company as a potential material adverse event that could warrant another company backing out of a deal.
July 16, 2020 at 06:07 PM
3 minute read
Cybersecurity company Forescout Technologies Inc. and private equity company Advent International won't be going to trial this summer in Delaware, instead announcing Wednesday their closure of a $1.43 billion merger agreement.
The agreement settles claims that were set to be addressed by the Delaware Court of Chancery in what would have been the first trial to consider COVID-19′s effects on a company as a potential material adverse event that could warrant another company backing out of a deal.
In May, Advent International informed San Jose, California-based Forescout Technologies it would not be proceeding with the previously-agreed-upon $1.9 million deal, citing the impact of the pandemic on the company. Forescout Technologies maintained the deal didn't constitute a material adverse event as defined in the agreement and filed the case in May.
Delaware case law requires an event be durationally significant to qualify as a material adverse event. After the litigation was filed, Forescout Technologies preannounced second-quarter total revenue that was up 40 percent quarter-over-quarter at the midpoint of the announced revenue range.
Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III dismissed the case with prejudice once both companies agreed to the deal, a move eliminating the risk that could be presented by the third-party debt lenders involved in the deal — which Glasscock referred to as a Phyrric victory — without directly addressing claims of a material adverse event.
Lori Will of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, who represented Forescout Technologies, had previously told the court Advent International had tried to use the lack of debt as a defense to closing the merger but that Forescout Technologies was entitled to specific performance. In order to preserve the ability to seek specific performance, she argued, a decision would need to be made before the termination date listed in the merger agreement.
The case was expedited and the court had initially set an evidentiary hearing for June 2 and 3, which would have kept Forescout Technologies' ability to seek specific performance in place through June 6, the agreement's set termination date.
Rather than proceeding with a trial before June 6, the parties agreed to a temporary restraining order in the case, kicking into effect a backup termination date of Aug. 6. That temporary restraining order asked the court to prevent the parties from consummating the merger, causing a failed closing condition.
Given the additional time before the new termination date, the scheduled trial was moved to begin July 20.
During a July 10 phone conference, defense counsel expressed concern about traveling to Georgetown and sought to continue the trial, a request that Glasscock denied.
"In refusing to continue the trial, I noted that doing so would render the equitable relief sought by Forescout Technologies practically unattainable," Glasscock wrote in the Wednesday order.
Will said Thursday while the case didn't go on to address at trial whether COVID-19 damages constitute valid material adverse events, it's plausible cases addressing similar issues, many of which have been filed, could do so.
"I think it's going to be those types of scenarios where you're dealing with a company that's closing stores and people can't actually do business in the way that they used to anymore," Will said. "A lot of deals have just fallen apart entirely."
Kenneth Nachbar of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, who represented the affiliates through which Advent International was operating during the merger, did not immediately respond for comment Thursday.
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 AllOuraring Claims Competitor RingConn Infringed on Wearable Tech Patents
3 minute readAdobe Suit Takes Aim at Adobe Downplaying Competitor, Then Buys It for $20B
3 minute readAI Startup Faces Breach of Contract Over $15M In Earnout Payments
Trending Stories
- 1SDNY Criminal Division Deputy Chief Returns to Debevoise
- 2Brownstein Adds Former Interior Secretary, Offering 'Strategic Counsel' During New Trump Term
- 3Tragedy on I-95: Florida Lawsuit Against Horizon Freight System Could Set New Precedent in Crash Cases
- 4Weil, Loading Up on More Regulatory Talent, Adds SEC Asset Management Co-Chief
- 5Big Banks Did Great Last Year. What Does That Mean for Big Law?
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