Chancery Re-Affirms That Director-Designating Investor Is Entitled to Privileged Communications From Company Counsel in Appraisal Litigation
In Hyde Park Venture Partners Fund III v. Fairxchange, the Delaware Court of Chancery reaffirmed the joint client concept of corporate privilege and held that the company could not assert privilege against a former director or his designating investor except as to a books and records demand in which the company and the director were contemporaneously adverse.
April 12, 2023 at 09:00 AM
6 minute read
ContributorsAn employee, agent or principal of an investor is often designated to serve on a company's board of directors when that company receives an investment or acquires the investor. That board member then becomes privy to legal advice the company receives from its counsel. If the director leaves the board he or she is no longer within the circle of confidentiality that entitles the director to have access to the company's future privileged communications. What happens however when there is a cash out merger, the investor seeks appraisal and then seeks privileged communications its designee received while on the board related to the transaction that spawned the appraisal action? In Hyde Park Venture Partners Fund III v. Fairxchange, C. A. No. 2022-0343-JTL (Del. Ch. March 9, 2023) the Delaware Court of Chancery reaffirmed the joint client concept of corporate privilege and held that the company could not assert privilege against a former director or his designating investor except as to a books and records demand in which the company and the director were contemporaneously adverse.
Background
The plaintiff, a venture capital firm, invested in a Delaware corporation and acquired the right to designate a person to serve on the company's board of directors. While so serving, the designee received privileged communications and other information that he presumptively shared with his designating investor. Later the director disagreed with the other members of the board as to whether the company should accept a merger proposal, preferring that the company retain a financial advisor to provide valuation advice and to assist in pursuing financing. When he disagreed with the rest of the board as it considered the merger proposal, he made a demand for books and records as a director. Thereafter, other stockholders acted by written consent to remove him as a director. The merger closed and the designating investor pursued an appraisal action. In the appraisal litigation the company's successor in the merger asserted the attorney-client privilege to withhold documents reflecting privileged communications while the director had been on the board. The designating investor moved to compel as to all documents so withheld except for those relating to the former director's books and records claim as to which both parties agreed the company and the designated director were adverse.
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 readChancery Stays Action Pending Resolution of a Motion to Dismiss in a First-Filed Action to Which the Defendant Is Not a Party
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
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