Delaware Court Tosses Uber Derivative Suit Over Stolen Trade Secrets
The ruling found that Travis Kalanick faced a "substantial likelihood of liability" for failing to heed warnings that Otto founder Anthony Levandowski had downloaded thousands of proprietary files from Google's self-driving business Waymo before he left to form the San Francisco-based startup.
April 01, 2019 at 04:58 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Business Court Insider
The Delaware Chancery Court on Monday dismissed a shareholder derivative suit stemming from Uber's $680 million acquisition of a driverless-car technology company, whose founder was accused of stealing intellectual property and trade secrets from Google.
The ruling, from Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III, found that Travis Kalanick, an Uber director who formerly served as the ride-hailing company's CEO, faced a “substantial likelihood of liability” for failing to heed warnings that Otto founder Anthony Levandowski had downloaded thousands of proprietary files from Google's self-driving business Waymo before he left to form the San Francisco-based startup.
However, Glasscock said, there was no reason to believe that the rest of Uber's board had acted in bad faith by supposedly turning a blind eye to the misappropriation allegations, which ended up costing Uber $245 million in a settlement with Waymo last year.
“If the plaintiff's allegations are true, the directors who approved the Otto acquisition approved a questionable transaction without fully informing themselves,” Glasscock wrote in a 54-page memorandum opinion. “Their decision ultimately damaged Uber. Nonetheless, a failure to follow best practices is not necessarily a breach of fiduciary duty.”
Uber investor Lenza H. McElrath III filed her complaint for damages in February 2017, about nine months after Uber acquired Otto in a stock deal. According to the complaint, Kalanick had been in regular contact with Levandowski about poaching other employees from Google, and the two often exchanged text messages and would meet occasionally to discuss the acquisition over a series nighttime walks.
At the time, Uber had hired an outside firm, Stroz Friedberg, to investigate the deal and whether any theft of Google's intellectual property had occurred. According to McElrath, Kalanick knew that Levandowski had absconded with top-secret information from the Mountain View, California tech giant, but later ignored “serious reservations” that Uber's general counsel had raised about the deal.
McElrath said that Kalanick had been briefed on the preliminary finding's of Stroz's probe, but did not share the results with Uber's other directors before the board approved the purchase in April 2016.
McElrath's Grant & Eisenhofer attorneys argued in court filings that Kalanick had a history of flouting local taxi regulations in its ride-share business and violating copyrights with Scour, a file-sharing company he started, which later went bankrupt to protect against a $250 billion lawsuit from Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America and the National Music Publishers Association.
Kalanick's checkered past, they said, should have raised “red flags” for the board and triggered a duty to act when it came to an acquisition that might involve IP infringement.
Glasscock, however, said the complaint did “no more” than plead breaches of a duty of care against the directors, who were protected against such claims under Uber's charter. Despite Kalanick's potential exposure, the complaint did not implicate the remaining board members in a bad-faith attempt to purposely avoid their obligations to investors.
“Assuming the directors were aware of the culture of taxicab violations, I cannot infer from that knowledge that the directors were also aware or should have been aware of Kalanick's alleged participation in Levandowski's IP theft,” Glasscock wrote.
“This is not a sufficient red flag, in my mind, to convert a plain vanilla duty of care allegation into a persuasive pleading of bad faith on the part of the directors.”
Attorneys for the parties were not immediately available to comment Monday afternoon. A spokesman for Uber said the company is “pleased with the court's decision to dismiss this meritless complaint.”
Kalanick resigned as CEO in June 2017, amid a shareholder revolt following a series of missteps that had called his leadership into question. Among the headaches for Kalanick was Waymo's trade-secrets case, which sought $1 billion in damages in a California federal court. Uber last February agreed to settle the suit on the fifth day of trial for close to $245 million, but did not admit wrongdoing or issue and apology.
Kalanick, who remains on the company's board, was replaced by Dara Khosrowshahi in September 2017.
McElrath was represented by Michael J. Barry, Jeff A. Almeida and Rebecca A. Musarra of Grant & Eisenhofer in Wilmington.
Kalanick was represented by Joseph G. Petrosinelli and Kenneth J. Brown of Williams & Connolly in Washington, D.C.
The Uber directors were represented by Susan S. Muck, Kevin P. Muck and Marie C. Bafus of Fenwick & West in San Francisco and R. Judson Scaggs Jr., Susan W. Waesco and Sabrina M. Hendershot of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell in Wilmington.
The case was captioned McElrath v. Kalanick.
|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 AllAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Travis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 2Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 3For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 4As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
- 5General Warrants and ESI
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