In the context of limited liability companies, a right of first refusal (ROFR) limits the ability of an equityholder to transfer equity to a third party without first offering other existing equityholders a right to match the third party’s offer. Occasionally, equityholders choose to bundle equity they propose to transfer to a third party with a number of other assets. Such bundling can impair rights of first refusal in at least two manners. First, bundling requires an allocation of value as between the equity subject to the ROFR and the other assets. If no allocation methodology is specified in the contract, then the transferring party could attempt to overallocate value to the equity subject to the ROFR. Although courts have historically been willing to reevaluate overallocation in light of the transferor’s ulterior incentives, see, e.g., Gleason v. Norwest Mortgage, 243 F.3d 130 (3d Cir. 2001) (remanding to district court for hearing and fact finding on the price of a bundle subject to a ROFR), uncertainty regarding a court’s re-allocation weighs heavily on a ROFR holder contemplating exercising such right. Second, by introducing both a potentially divisible bundle of assets and a delay mechanism through the allocation, bundling provides the transferring party with additional time to evaluate whether the ROFR holder will exercise its right or challenge the allocation; the transferring party may then choose to cancel the proposed sale in its entirety, or partially cancel the sale by coaxing the proposed third-party purchaser to exclude from their offer the assets not subject to the ROFR.
In HUMC Holdco v. MPT of Hoboken TRS, C.A. No. 2019-0972-KSJM (Del. Ch. July 2, 2020), the Delaware Court of Chancery confirmed a number of default rules related to bundling, including the scope of ROFRs and their revocability. This case involves an alleged breach of an LLC’s operating agreement, which granted a ROFR to HUMC Holdco LLC (the ROFR holder) with respect to the LLC membership interests held by MPT of Hoboken TRS LLC (the transferor). Although the operating agreement required any would-be transferor to notify its fellow members of a qualifying “Offer,” the transferor failed to notify the ROFR holder when the transferor entered into an agreement to transfer its membership interests to a third party (the purchaser). As relevant here, the Purchaser’s agreement to acquire the transferor’s membership interests was conditioned on its acquisition of real estate owned by two of the transferor’s affiliates.
Matching the Whole Bundle?
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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]