The Failure of the 'Failing Business' Exception Under Delaware Law
In Stream TV Networks v. SeeCubic, the Delaware Supreme Court vacated a permanent injunction imposed by the Delaware Court of Chancery that prohibited Stream TV Networks, Inc. and the Rajan brothers, who collectively held a majority of the company's stock, from blocking a negotiated transfer of all of Stream's assets to satisfy its secured creditors.
June 22, 2022 at 09:00 AM
5 minute read
CommentaryIn Stream TV Networks v. SeeCubic, the Delaware Supreme Court vacated a permanent injunction imposed by the Delaware Court of Chancery that prohibited Stream TV Networks, Inc. and the Rajan brothers, who collectively held a majority of the company's stock, from blocking a negotiated transfer of all of Stream's assets to satisfy its secured creditors. In so doing, the Supreme Court held that a provision of Stream's certificate of incorporation requiring stockholder approval for certain asset transfers (the Stream charter provision) unambiguously applied to the transaction. While not necessary to its holding in light of its interpretation of the Stream charter provision, the Supreme Court also found that the common law "failing business" exception to the stockholder approval requirement for a sale of substantially all assets, if it ever existed in Delaware, did not survive the adoption of Section 271 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the DGCL).
In 2020, Stream encountered financial difficulties, and, at the urging of certain of its stockholders and secured creditors, several independent directors were appointed to the board of directors. The board subsequently formed a resolution committee comprised of two of the new independent directors, and the committee negotiated and approved an omnibus agreement pursuant to which Stream would assign all of its assets to a new entity established by the company's secured creditors in exchange for forgiveness of Stream's outstanding debt. Stream's stockholders other than the Rajan brothers were given the opportunity to exchange their Stream shares for an identical number of shares in the new entity, and the Rajan brothers would be permitted to maintain an indirect interest in the new entity through Stream, which would be issued shares in the new entity as well. The Rajan brothers brought suit to block the asset transfer contemplated by the omnibus agreement, claiming that stockholder approval of the transaction was required under the Stream charter provision and under Section 271.
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 AllThe 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 readHow New Jersey’s Pragmatic Bankruptcy Approach Sets It Apart Post-'Purdue Pharma'
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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