Strategic Partners Beware: Your 'Special Relationship' May Prolong Litigation
In their Technology Law column, Richard Raysman and Peter Brown write: In some cases, strategic partnerships go wrong and invariably litigation ensues. In 'Kortright Capital Partners', litigation ensued and one claim survived a motion to dismiss in part on the rationale that a strategic partnership sufficiently creates a "special relationship" between the partners that requires a greater degree of candor and fair dealing when contemplating the prospective strategic alliance with an unrelated third party.
July 10, 2017 at 02:02 PM
15 minute read
At the most basic level, a strategic partnership (often used interchangeably with the term strategic alliance) is a relationship between two or more commercial enterprises to pursue a set of shared goals, while at the same time remaining independent entities A strategic alliance is generally less time-consuming and involved than a joint venture, although The Economist once described them as “often said to be like marriages.” In a quintessential strategic partnership, the larger entity provides capital, product development and marketing, with the smaller entity providing specialized technical or creative expertise. Unsurprisingly, strategic partnerships take seemingly innumerable forms, from established businesses with startups, the United States and foreign governments, one of America's largest retailers and one of the largest Chinese e-commerce sites, and content creators and distributors.
In some cases, strategic partnerships go wrong and invariably litigation ensues. For instance, in March 2017, a complaint was filed alleging that the controlling shareholder negotiated an $800 million loan and strategic alliance behind the backs of the minority shareholders. In another, discussed in this column, an existing strategic partnership between investment advisors dissolved after one partner, at the direction of its shareholders, revoked prior consent to investment of its funds in a prospective strategic alliance with the successor entity of the other partner. Litigation ensued and one claim survived a motion to dismiss in part on the rationale that a strategic partnership sufficiently creates a “special relationship” between the partners that requires a greater degree of candor and fair dealing when contemplating the prospective strategic alliance with an unrelated third party. See Kortright Capital Partners LP v. Investcorp Invest. Advisers, — F. Supp. 3d —-, 2017 WL 2790547 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2017).
Facts, Procedural Background
Kortright Capital Partners was an SEC-registered investment adviser and capital manager. In November 2013, Kortright entered into a project agreement with Investcorp Investment Advisers Limited, another SEC-registered investment adviser. The project agreement required Investcorp to invest in Kortright: (1) $50 million of its proprietary capital; and (2) $40 million of its clients' capital in the Kortright funds (the funds). In return for this seed capital, Kortright granted Investcorp a portion of its operating revenue, influence over its corporate governance and access to Kortright's confidential information.
In January 2015, Kortright and Man Group plc, an investment manager and competitor of Investcorp, began to negotiate a transaction whereby Kortright would either bring the funds into Man Group or wind down the funds. Prior to the absorption of Kortright by Man Group, Investcorp was to redeem its proprietary capital, while leaving its clients' capital with Kortright. Kortright and Man Group structured any future transaction to transfer based in part on Investcorp's agreement to withdraw its proprietary capital, which it did in May 2016.
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 AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readPoll Workers Seek Contempt Against Rudy Giuliani, Alleging Continued Defamation
Rudy Giuliani's Attorneys Seek Withdrawal in Debt Enforcement Case
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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