Chancery Reviews SPAC Precedents and Dismisses Complaint for Failure to Show Impairment of Stockholders' Redemption Rights
In the recent decision of In re Hennessy Capital Acquisition IV Shareholder Litigation, the Delaware Court of Chancery observed that the ensuing "abundance of SPAC fiduciary duty claims suggests that stockholder plaintiffs have taken notice," and that SPAC litigation had become "ubiquitous" in the court.
June 19, 2024 at 09:00 AM
10 minute read
ContributorsIn In re MultiPlan Stockholders Litigation, the Delaware Court of Chancery reasoned that common special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) governance and compensation structures create potential conflicts between on the one hand, the sponsors holding founders' shares—whose compensation is tied to, and who tended to profit greatly from, any de-SPAC transaction, however poor; and on the other hand, public stockholders—who could lose their investments in a poor de-SPAC merger, and who have redemption and liquidation rights permitting the return of their original investments without having to participate in one. See 268 A.3d 784 (Del. Ch. 2022). In the recent decision of In re Hennessy Capital Acquisition IV Shareholder Litigation, 2024 WL 2799044, at **1, 9 (Del. Ch. May 31, 2024), the Court of Chancery observed that the ensuing "abundance of SPAC fiduciary duty claims suggests that stockholder plaintiffs have taken notice," and that SPAC litigation had become "ubiquitous" in the court. As the court explained, "remarkably similar complaints accuse SPAC directors of breaching their fiduciary duties based on flaws in years-old proxy statements that became problematic only when the combined company underperformed."
Hennessy Capital concerned a SPAC that raised roughly $300 million from public stockholders and pursued an acquisition by a deadline set in its charter for 18 months later. Less than three months before the deadline, the SPAC was contacted by representatives of Canoo, an electric vehicle startup. The SPAC's board of directors decided to pursue a transaction. The SPAC disseminated a proxy statement soliciting the public stockholders' support, explaining that the board viewed as "positive factors" the potential growth in certain of Canoo's business lines. After obtaining books and records, the stockholder plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit alleging those disclosures were materially misleading because Canoo had begun a process of transitioning away from two of those business lines. The alleged that, shortly before the proxy statement, Canoo hired McKinsey & Co. to assess Canoo's performance and growth plans, and its new board chairman (who also was a significant investor) had also begun to consider changes in the business plan, which ultimately were undertaken.
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 readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1An Eye on ‘De-Risking’: Chewing on Hot Topics in Litigation Funding With Jeffery Lula of GLS Capital
- 2Arguing Class Actions: With Friends Like These...
- 3How Some Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
- 4Fried Frank Partner Leaves for Paul Hastings to Start Tech Transactions Practice
- 5Stradley Ronon Welcomes Insurance Team From Mintz
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