Inside: Bases for relief in emergency remedies and shareholder disputes
In order to get needed injunctive relief, one first has to understand the bases for requesting an injunction.
November 04, 2013 at 03:00 AM
12 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Litigation, especially involving shareholder disputes, can be messy, time-consuming and expensive. Sometimes, however, there is no alternative. In such cases, it is often necessary to go to the courts, and, moreover, to get a TRO, a preliminary injunction, or both, to ensure that those in control of a corporation are stopped from doing further damage to shareholders, or even the company itself, while the litigation is ongoing.
In order to get needed injunctive relief, which can often be the difference between life and death for a corporation, prosperity or poverty for a shareholder, one first has to understand the bases for requesting an injunction. This article will discuss the myriad bases an aggrieved shareholder can rely on in requesting an injunction.
Federal statutory law provides several bases for asserting a claim for injunctive relief on behalf of a shareholder of a publicly held corporation. These provisions apply in any jurisdiction in the United States.
In the aftermath of corporate restatements of financial reports, shareholders or former shareholders often feel that they were defrauded in connection with their purchases or sales of the corporation's securities in that the corporation or those on the other side of such purchases or sales withheld or misrepresented material information. Where shareholders are claiming that fraud or deceptive practices occurred in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, injunctive relief can be sought pursuant to section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) (2000), and SEC Rule 10(b)-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10(b)-5 (2008).
Shareholders frustrated with the management of a corporation may decide to find new candidates to manage the corporation and solicit the support of other shareholders to vote their shares in favor of these new candidates in an attempt to rid the corporation of old management. Shareholders who make such a move can be assured that old management will fight back by soliciting shareholders to vote in favor of their re-election, and a proxy war will ensue. For claims involving false or misleading statements made in the course of proxy solicitation, injunctive relief can be sought pursuant to section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78n(a).
Shareholder claims often arise in the context of takeover bids for a corporation in the form of tender offers. Where a shareholder owning more than 5 percent of the outstanding shares of a corporation makes a tender offer for all or a significant portion of the corporation's outstanding stock, or where the proposed acquisition will result in the shareholder owning more than 5 percent of the outstanding shares of the corporation, the Williams Act of 1968 requires certain disclosures in order to provide shareholders with enough information upon which to knowledgably accept or reject the offer. 15 U.S.C. §§ 78m(d)(1) (2002) and 78n(d)(1) (2008); 17 C.F.R. § 240.13(d)-1(e)(1). Among other things, bidders must disclose the identity of the prospective new owner, where his money for the takeover has come from, whether he plans to make any major re-organizations should the takeover succeed, and what stock or other securities this prospective owner already holds in the corporation at the time of the tender offer. The corporation that is the target of the takeover bid can seek injunctive relief where the required disclosures have not been made or are false or misleading.
Most of the bases for injunctive relief provided by the federal statutes involve fraud and nondisclosure and are most likely to be used where publicly held corporations are concerned. Situations affecting shareholders of closely held corporations, such as freeze-outs, deadlocks and oppression, are more likely to be addressed by state statutory law or common law.
The Model Business Corporation Act, adopted to varying degrees by 31 states, grants trial courts discretion to issue injunctions to protect shareholder rights. The Model Act specifically provides for injunctive relief for shareholders facing corporate dissolution and to stop director misconduct. The Model Act also provides that it does not in any way restrict a court's normal equitable powers to issue injunctive relief in other situations. Some states, such as Illinois, have gone further in their adoption of the Model Act and provide that courts can issue injunctive relief as appropriate to preserve corporate assets and carry on the business of the corporation. Such actions could involve a deadlock in the corporation's decision-making process or a deadlock among shareholders in their voting power; illegal, oppressive or fraudulent conduct by the directors; or misapplication or waste of corporate assets.
States that have not adopted the Model Act but have instead modeled their statute on Delaware's Corporation Act do not have a specific provision allowing for equitable relief for violations of the statute. Injunctive relief in these states would have to be obtained on traditional grounds.
Shareholders have common law rights to injunctive relief based on traditional grounds for granting such relief. For example, a shareholder can seek an emergency injunction to enforce the terms of a shareholder agreement or other transactional document or to prevent changes to such agreements. These situations are often appropriate for injunctive relief because shareholders' corporate rights may be at risk and the loss of such rights cannot easily be remedied by a money judgment alone.
Injunctive relief can also be obtained, under common law, to protect shareholder voting rights. A shareholder challenging an improper manipulation of the voting process will seldom have an adequate remedy at law.
An injunction may be obtained under the common law basis where a majority shareholder is accused of violating his fiduciary duties to the corporation, especially where the acts of the majority shareholder benefit himself at the expense of a minority shareholder. Injunctive relief may be particularly appropriate where the majority shareholder seeks to engage in self-dealing or waste corporate assets.
Finally, a court, under the common law, can enjoin a corporation from issuing more stock if the purpose of such an issuance is to dilute the shares already held by its shareholders. One possible scenario is where a corporation issues stock options under an employee stock ownership plan that, if exercised, will dilute the interests of non-employee shareholders in order to obtain or keep voting control of the corporation.
Litigation, especially involving shareholder disputes, can be messy, time-consuming and expensive. Sometimes, however, there is no alternative. In such cases, it is often necessary to go to the courts, and, moreover, to get a TRO, a preliminary injunction, or both, to ensure that those in control of a corporation are stopped from doing further damage to shareholders, or even the company itself, while the litigation is ongoing.
In order to get needed injunctive relief, which can often be the difference between life and death for a corporation, prosperity or poverty for a shareholder, one first has to understand the bases for requesting an injunction. This article will discuss the myriad bases an aggrieved shareholder can rely on in requesting an injunction.
Federal statutory law provides several bases for asserting a claim for injunctive relief on behalf of a shareholder of a publicly held corporation. These provisions apply in any jurisdiction in the United States.
In the aftermath of corporate restatements of financial reports, shareholders or former shareholders often feel that they were defrauded in connection with their purchases or sales of the corporation's securities in that the corporation or those on the other side of such purchases or sales withheld or misrepresented material information. Where shareholders are claiming that fraud or deceptive practices occurred in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, injunctive relief can be sought pursuant to section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Shareholders frustrated with the management of a corporation may decide to find new candidates to manage the corporation and solicit the support of other shareholders to vote their shares in favor of these new candidates in an attempt to rid the corporation of old management. Shareholders who make such a move can be assured that old management will fight back by soliciting shareholders to vote in favor of their re-election, and a proxy war will ensue. For claims involving false or misleading statements made in the course of proxy solicitation, injunctive relief can be sought pursuant to section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Shareholder claims often arise in the context of takeover bids for a corporation in the form of tender offers. Where a shareholder owning more than 5 percent of the outstanding shares of a corporation makes a tender offer for all or a significant portion of the corporation's outstanding stock, or where the proposed acquisition will result in the shareholder owning more than 5 percent of the outstanding shares of the corporation, the Williams Act of 1968 requires certain disclosures in order to provide shareholders with enough information upon which to knowledgably accept or reject the offer.
Most of the bases for injunctive relief provided by the federal statutes involve fraud and nondisclosure and are most likely to be used where publicly held corporations are concerned. Situations affecting shareholders of closely held corporations, such as freeze-outs, deadlocks and oppression, are more likely to be addressed by state statutory law or common law.
The Model Business Corporation Act, adopted to varying degrees by 31 states, grants trial courts discretion to issue injunctions to protect shareholder rights. The Model Act specifically provides for injunctive relief for shareholders facing corporate dissolution and to stop director misconduct. The Model Act also provides that it does not in any way restrict a court's normal equitable powers to issue injunctive relief in other situations. Some states, such as Illinois, have gone further in their adoption of the Model Act and provide that courts can issue injunctive relief as appropriate to preserve corporate assets and carry on the business of the corporation. Such actions could involve a deadlock in the corporation's decision-making process or a deadlock among shareholders in their voting power; illegal, oppressive or fraudulent conduct by the directors; or misapplication or waste of corporate assets.
States that have not adopted the Model Act but have instead modeled their statute on Delaware's Corporation Act do not have a specific provision allowing for equitable relief for violations of the statute. Injunctive relief in these states would have to be obtained on traditional grounds.
Shareholders have common law rights to injunctive relief based on traditional grounds for granting such relief. For example, a shareholder can seek an emergency injunction to enforce the terms of a shareholder agreement or other transactional document or to prevent changes to such agreements. These situations are often appropriate for injunctive relief because shareholders' corporate rights may be at risk and the loss of such rights cannot easily be remedied by a money judgment alone.
Injunctive relief can also be obtained, under common law, to protect shareholder voting rights. A shareholder challenging an improper manipulation of the voting process will seldom have an adequate remedy at law.
An injunction may be obtained under the common law basis where a majority shareholder is accused of violating his fiduciary duties to the corporation, especially where the acts of the majority shareholder benefit himself at the expense of a minority shareholder. Injunctive relief may be particularly appropriate where the majority shareholder seeks to engage in self-dealing or waste corporate assets.
Finally, a court, under the common law, can enjoin a corporation from issuing more stock if the purpose of such an issuance is to dilute the shares already held by its shareholders. One possible scenario is where a corporation issues stock options under an employee stock ownership plan that, if exercised, will dilute the interests of non-employee shareholders in order to obtain or keep voting control of the corporation.
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 All'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
GCs Jettisoning Zero-Based Budgeting in Quest to Be Nimble, More Efficient
3 minute readFoley & Lardner Litigator Joins Brewers Roster as Legal Chief
Mary O'Carroll on Her Move to Goodwin: Law Firms Are at the Heart of Industry Disruption
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 5A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
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