Revlon Does a 'Mindbody' Good
In the 120-page opinion for In re Mindbody, Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick throws shade on Corwin, finding Mindbody's sales process run by Richard Stollmeyer—founder and then-CEO—was not cleansed by Corwin and holding him and Mindbody's private equity acquirer, Vista Equity Partners, liable.
April 19, 2023 at 09:00 AM
8 minute read
Any law school corporations class dabbles in Revlon claims, but in reality, such claims are infrequently litigated in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Although Revlon requires the board of directors to obtain the best price available for the stockholders in change-of-control situations, Revlon claims can be "cleansed" by Corwin if the transaction does not involve a controlling stockholder and was approved by a majority of the corporation's fully informed, uncoerced and disinterested stockholders. Corwin cleansing became popular as boards used special committees and a majorityoftheminority vote, resulting in few plaintiff stockholders succeeding on Revlon claims because upon a Corwin cleanse the deferential business judgment rule applied. But in the 120-page opinion for In re Mindbody, C.A. No. 2019-0442-KSJM (Del. Ch. March 15, 2023), Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick throws shade on Corwin, finding Mindbody's sales process run by Richard Stollmeyer—founder and then-CEO—was not cleansed by Corwin and holding him and Mindbody's private equity acquirer, Vista Equity Partners, liable. In finding "a single disclosure deficiency will defeat Corwin cleansing," the court ensured viability of post-merger Revlon claims and reinforced the significance (to both sellers and buyers) of avoiding conflicts and making full disclosures.
This content has been archived.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
© 2024 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 Stays Action Pending Resolution of a Motion to Dismiss in a First-Filed Action to Which the Defendant Is Not a Party
5 minute readChancery Court Exercises Discretion in Setting Bond in a Case Involving Share Transfer Restriction
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Trump’s DOE Pick Could Spell Trouble for Title IX Enforcement, Higher Ed Funding
- 2Jefferson Doctor Hit With $6.8M Verdict Over Death of 64-Year-Old Cancer Patient
- 3Seven Rules of the Road for Managing Referrals To/From Other Attorneys, Part 1
- 4What Went Wrong With Adeel Mangi's Long, Strange Trip Through the Judicial Nomination Process?
- 5Defense Counsel Turns $2.2 Million Broward Jury Verdict to $500K
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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