VC Investors Prevail in Copyright Infringement Claims involving Veoh Networks

A series of recent decisions dismissing copyright claims allow Veoh Networks and its investors to breathe a short sigh of relief. The first decision last August, in a case brought by adult site IO Group, ruled that Veoh was entitled to the safe harbor under the DMCA and was not infringing. In December, in a different case brought by Universal Music, the court again sided with Veoh, finding that is was entitled to the safe harbor even though, technically, its streaming process did result in some “copying” within the meaning of the Copyright statute.

Most recently, in early February, a sharply worded decision by the Central District of California dismissed Universal Music’s claims against Veoh investors (Shelter Capital, Spark Capital and Torrante) for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. UMG Recordings v. Veoh Networks Inc., 2009 WL 334022 (C.D.Cal). (The investors were added as defendants a year after the initial action against Veoh was filed). This decision is potentially significant because it shows a court’s unwillingness to pierce the corporate veil and go after deeper pockets in the copyright context – something that many investors have feared since the 2004 Napster case against Hummer Winblad – and presents a bit of a roadmap on how future claims may be constructed (and how to hedge against them).

After the Napster fallout and the lawsuits against Bertelsmann and Hummer Winblad resulting from their investment in Napster, many investors grew fearful that an investment in a user generated content (UGC) based business, such as Youtube or Veoh, could expose them to “aiding and abetting” claims for copyright infringement. In fact, it quickly became market for many investors to expand the scope of their indemnification agreements to demand that their portfolio companies indemnify the investors as shareholders, and not just the investor directors who served on the boards of these companies. Three years later, these concerns are finally coming to roost, albeit in a different economic, social and technological marketplace.

Per the roadman in Bertelsmann, the plaintiffs in Veoh alleged that the investors “controlled” Veoh by holding three of five board seats, providing all of their operational capital and making decisions all of the Company’s major decisions, including those relating to its content offerings. Assuming all that to be true, the court rejected the claims on the ground that they could not state a claim. The following are some nuggets from the decision:

> Membership on a Board of Directors necessarily and inherently entails making almost all these [operational] decisions. "To allow for derivative copyright liability merely because of such membership could invite expansion of potential shareholder liability for corporate conduct, without meaningful limitation."

> There is no common law duty for investors (even ones who collectively control the Board) “to remove copyrighted content,” in light of the DMCA.

> The court extensively distinguished the Bertelsmann decision, thereby limiting its future application, on a number of specific facts absent here. Most importantly, in that case the investors proceeded to invest and control Napster after the liability issues had been going on for two years and then did not stop the conduct after taking over. Therefore, prospective investors in a company where a copyright lawsuit is actually pending would be well advised to consider whether the indemnification agreement (which they are probably ultimately paying for) is going to serve its ultimate purpose.

> The court dismissed the vicarious liability claim – which requires a defendant to have a direct financial interest in the infringing conduct – by holding that a “profit from their investments through the sale of Veoh to a potential acquiring company or through a public offering… is too far removed from the alleged infringement to be considered a “direct” financial interest.” This should be compared against potential direct benefits mentioned by the court, such as where investors may receive fees paid by customers or advertisers, or even a dividend or distribution from those revenues. Therefore, investors considering a recapitalization or an early distribution of profits should consider this issue as part of their analysis.

First Circuit Court Surprises Media Lawyers with Controversial Decision in Libel Case

A recent decision by the 1st Circuit against Staples, Inc. surprised many media lawyers by holding that truth is not an absolute defense to a libel claim. It held that a truthful statement may give rise to a cause of action by a private-figure plaintiff if it was made maliciously. The decision departs from decades worth of jurisprudence establishing truth as an absolute defense to a defamation claim.

No doubt the extreme facts in this case drove the Court’s outcome. The case was brought by a former Staples employee who was terminated for “cause” submitting false expense reports. The termination took place after an extensive internal investigation that uncovered the fraud. After the termination, a manager issued an email to 1,500 Staples employees stating that the employee had been terminated for abusing the travel & expense policy. (The court’s commentary seems to suggest that the fact that employee was mentioned by name in this en masse email is what they thought a jury could consider to be malicious. Although the court held that there was no question that the statement in the email was true, it nonetheless allowed a libel claim to stand based on a 1902 law (G.L.c.231, sec. 92) that provides that truth is a justification for libel "unless malice is actually proved."

It is important to note, however, that this decision does not mean that Staples loses on this claim. The 1st Circuit remanded the case back to the US District Court for trial where a jury may still find that the manager’s email did not constitute malice.

Another interesting part of the decision deals with stock options. As part of the for “cause” termination, the employee’s vested stock options were terminated per the terms of the option plans. The agreements provided that whether or not termination is for cause would be “as determined by Staples, which determination shall be conclusive.” Finding no prior Mass. law on this issue, the 1st Circuit held it will not second guess the Company’s termination decision unless it finds that it was “arbitrary, capricious, or made in bad faith,” which in this case was based extensive internal investigation and therefore was allowed to stand.

In this market where layoffs are looming in just about every industry, this case underscores the importance of proper procedure (and tact) in handling terminations. Based on this decision, employers should be additionally cautious when handling any announcements internal or external and discussions regarding anyone being terminated, as well as in the context of giving references or referrals. And while not all employers have Staples’ budget to conduct internal investigations to find "cause", any determination of such a finding should be well documented.

Delaware Supreme Court Provides New Guidance for Directors and Officers Evaluating a Corporate Sale or Restructuring

A recent decision by the Delaware Supreme Court, Gantler v. Stephens, C.A. No. 2392 (Del. January 27, 2009) (available here) provides new guidance for directors and officers on their fiduciary duties arising in connection with a possible corporate sale or restructuring. In Gantler, the Court held that directors and officers of an Ohio bank (the “Bank”) could be found to have breached their fiduciary duty by rejecting an opportunity to sell the Bank and instead pursuing a recapitalization that favored the insiders. The case was brought by a former director (Gantler) and minority shareholders of First Niles Financial, Inc. (“First Niles”), the Bank’s holding company.



In short, the historical position under Delaware corporate law has been that certain conflicts of interest of insiders (such as trying to keep one’s employment or directorship) are inherent and unavoidable, and if properly disclosed, would not result in a higher level of scrutiny from courts over board decisions. Gantler holds that this is not always true, and that specific facts can alter that position.



Specifically, where directors and/or officers are -- or with 20/20 hindsight, may be argued to be -- motivated to prefer one particular transaction over another, even if the motivation is reasonable and disclosed to shareholders, extreme care should be taken to ensure that the board evaluation and deliberation process is balanced and well-documented. Failure to do so may prevent a board from being entitled to the business judgment rule and subject the directors and officers to a stricter standard that the actions meet the “entire fairness” test under Delaware law.



After a strong acquisition market, in August 2004, the First Niles board agreed to put the Bank up for sale and hired investment bankers to pursue the opportunity. Shortly thereafter, the managing officers of First Niles (and the Bank), several of whom were also directors, advocated that the Bank abandon the process and privatize the company by delisting from the NASDAQ SmallCap Market. The Bank received offers from three strategic purchasers, each considered by the bankers to be within the recommended range. Two offers made clear that the purchaser would terminate the incumbent First Niles board upon closing. In the months that followed, management did not respond to the bidders’ due diligence requests and delayed the process (resulting in the withdrawal of one bid, which was not disclosed to the board until after the fact) and continued to discuss the privatization proposal. In March 2005, notwithstanding a favorable opinion from the bankers as to one of the offers, the board voted 4 to 1 to reject the offer, with Gantler being the only dissenting vote, and turned its attention to the privatization plan.



In April 2005, management presented to the board its privatization proposal, which would reclassify the First Niles common stock held by holders of 300 or fewer shares into a new class of Series A Preferred Stock that would pay higher dividends and have the same liquidation preference as the common stock, but that would not have voting rights except in the event of a proposed sale of the company. In December 2005, the proposal was approved 3 to 1 by the Board, with Gantler again being the only dissenting vote. Shortly thereafter, Gantler was replaced on the Board by an officer of the company. The following June, the newly-composed First Niles Board unanimously approved a charter amendment to effect the reclassification and proceeded with the proxy solicitation process for shareholder approval. The proxy statement did disclose that the directors and officers had a conflict of interest with respect to the reclassification and the alternative transactions that the board had considered, including a business combination that was turned down.



Following shareholder approval of the charter amendment, the plaintiffs brought suit in the Delaware Chancery Court alleging, among other things, that the board violated its various fiduciary duties by sabotaging due diligence and abandoning the sales process in favor of their own incumbency. In March 2008, the Chancery Court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim and the parties appealed.




In reversing the Chancery Court’s dismissal, the Supreme Court clarified several issues of Delaware corporate law, including the following:



§ Higher Scrutiny for Transactions with Potential Conflict of Interest. The Court agreed with the defendants that the Board’s duty in this case should be analyzed under the more favorable business judgment rule, as opposed to the “enhanced scrutiny” standard under Unocal.



However, the Court did hold that the business judgment presumption could be rebutted in this case because reasonable inferences of self interest could be drawn from the defendant directors’ and officers’ lack of cooperation with the due diligence requests and sabotaging of the bid process. In its analysis, the Court highlighted the specific conflicts arising from a sale of the Bank for each of the directors -- the potential loss of employment for the Chairman/CEO; and the loss of the Bank as a key client for businesses operated by two different directors. It is also interesting to note that the Court relied on the disclosure in the proxy statement of the potential for conflict of interest as an admission that the conflict did in fact exist.



There can be little question that the extreme facts of this case heavily influenced the Court’s decision to rebut the presumption of good faith by the board, and that the outcome may have been different if the some of the “sabotaging” activity was not present and if the board deliberations regarding the sale proposals were more extensive. The Court specifically noted that after only one bidder remained and the bankers opined that the bidder may continue to improve their offer, the board did not discuss the offer at one meeting and rejected in another, “without discussion or deliberation.”



If directors or officers do have personal financial interests that diverge from the interests of other shareholders, a board should now be prepared for a higher standard of review of their actions. That said, Gantler should not be read to require a board to reach any particular decision (e.g. sell, recapitalize, etc.), but only that the process to reach that decision is fair and informed. Therefore, to the extent that certain opportunities can later be reasonably argued to have been more preferable for certain (minority) shareholders, boards should be advised to more carefully evaluate those opportunities and to document why they may not have been in the best interests of all shareholders.



Where a potential conflict does exist, boards should be advised to consider the appointment of an independent committee for the M&A process, where such committee would have the authority to engage its own advisors and independent legal counsel. Another approach may be to engage multiple investment banking advisors to provide a board with a comparative analysis of the opportunities. Finally, extreme care should be take to distribute all studies, reports and materials in advance of board meetings, to have substantive discussions on those issues at the meetings and properly memorialize in the minutes to evidence that the board fulfilled its duty of care (which it would seem was not met in Gantler).



§ Fiduciary Duty of Officers equal to that of Directors. As an issue of first impression, the Court held that officers of a Delaware corporation have the same fiduciary duties as directors. While this position has been implied, the Supreme Court has now explicitly held that officers owe fiduciary duties of care and loyalty that are the same as those of directors of Delaware corporations.



§ Shareholder Ratification Limited. The Court also disagreed with the Chancery Court’s finding that the shareholder approval of the privatization plan, as submitted by the First Niles board and described in the proxy, “ratified” the prior actions of the board, absolving them of liability. To clarify this area of the law, the Court imposed a number of specific limitations on this doctrine.



First, shareholder ratification is effective only where a “fully informed shareholder vote approves director action that does not legally require shareholder approval in order to become more legally effective.” Therefore, where a shareholder vote is otherwise required – such as for the approval of a charter amendment or a merger – the shareholder vote does not carry any ratifying effect of the preceding board action.



Second, the only director action that can be ratified is that which shareholders are specifically asked to approve. For example, the ultimate approval of a merger by shareholders does not mean that shareholders have also ratified all related director actions, such as defensive measures that may have been taken in the context of that transaction.



Third, the effect of shareholder ratification does not extinguish all claims in respect of the ratified director action, but rather subjects the challenged action to business judgment review (as opposed to the entire fairness test). Therefore, companies should not assume that a valid shareholder vote would sanitize the prior actions of a board in connection with any particular corporate decision or transaction.

Liability evolving for user-generated content

One of the greatest advances in our use of Web-based technology in the last decade – commonly referred to as “Web 2.0”, and now Web 3.0 around the corner – has been the outburst of online communities, collaboration among users and sharing of information and content. Today, household names like Craigslist help you find everything from Red Sox tickets and used lawnmowers to apartments and roommates. Facebook helps reconnect you with your past and Roommates.com and Match.com help find your future mates and partners. Thanks to Tributes.com – Monster.com founder Jeff Taylor’s most recent venture – even obituaries have become “social.”

Read the rest of this article here…

Delaware Supreme Court denies standing to directors to bring derivative action

A recent Delaware Supreme Court decision rules that directors who are not otherwise shareholders of a corporation do not have standing to bring a derivative claim on behalf of the corporation.

The case involved claims by the plaintiff director that the other directors of the corporation were controlled by a single shareholder, who was also the corporation's CEO and Chairman. The Court held that such standing was not expressly provided by the Delaware statute, and refused to judicially extend such standing pursuant to equitable doctrine.

The decision discusses commentary from the ALI (American Law Institute) specifically recommends that such standing be extended to directors. The Court refuses to adopt this standard in Delaware, while noting that the ALI proposal has only been adopted in one state, Pennsylvania. The Court also referenced the New York corporate statute as being unique in providing directors with a statutory right to sue other directors of the corporation. (I guess that's another reason not to incorporate in New York, if you need one).

Comment on Rule 144 Changes

In an effort to facilitate companies with raising capital and complying with disclosure and reporting obligations, in December 2007 the SEC unanimously adopted amendments to Rule 144 to reduce the requirements on the resale of restricted securities. Among the significant changes, the new rules reduce the holding period and the resale restrictions applicable to holders of such securities. The SEC has stated that it believes the “amendments will increase the liquidity of privately sold securities and decrease the cost of capital for all issuers without compromising investor protection.” These amendments are effective February 15, 2008 and will apply to securities issued before and after that date. There are also changes to Rule 145, which are not discussed here.

Reduction of Holding Period and Resale Limitations

In general, the Securities Act of 1933 requires registration of offers and sales of securities unless an exemption is available. Rule 144 creates a safe harbor for the sale of securities by a person other than an issuer, underwriter, or dealer if certain conditions are met. In common practice, Rule 144 serves as the principal path to allow resales of “restricted securities” – those that were originally issued in private, unregistered transactions, under Regulation D or otherwise.
Under the existing regime, Rule 144 required an issuer’s affiliates (its directors, executive officers and significant beneficial owners) to hold their restricted securities of the issuer for at least one year before they could sell them. Any resale thereafter would be subject various limitations based on publicly available information on the issuer, the manner of sale, volume limitations and certain filing requirements. Non-affiliates of an issuer were subject to the same one-year holding requirement and subject to resale limitations during the following year. However, once securities were held by a non-affiliate for at least two years, the limitations would no longer apply and the securities could be freely resold.
Under the new rules, the holding period for restricted securities of public reporting companies was reduced from one year to six months. For non-affiliate holders of these securities, the new rules effectively eliminate after six months all resale restrictions other than the “current public information” requirement, and eliminate all resale restrictions after one year. Affiliates, however, will still need to comply with all resale limitations after they meet the six-month holding requirement.
For private companies, the holding period was effectively changed to one year. The SEC retained the one-year holding requirement for these companies out of their concern that “the market does not have sufficient information and safeguards with respect to non-reporting issuers.” After the one-year holding period is met, non-affiliates may sell their securities with no other resale limitations. While affiliates of these companies are subject to the same one-year holding period, their transactions will still continue to be subject to various resale limitations under Rule 144, including certain current public information requirements for non-reporting companies.
Based on significant comments from practitioners, one of the significant revisions from the amendments originally proposed in July 2007 was that the SEC chose not to adopt its proposal to suspend (or “toll”) the running of the holding period in the event of hedging of restricted securities. A previous tolling provision in the original Rule 144 was eliminated in 1990. Concerned that hedging activities significantly diminish a holder’s economic investment risk that serves as the basis for the holding period, the SEC again proposed that the holding period be tolled by up to six months for any short sales, puts or other hedging activities. Due to the overall concern over the burden placed on investors from complying with this regime and having to disclose information on their hedging transactions, the SEC has agreed not to adopt the tolling provisions, with the caveat that it will revisit the issue if hedging activities are abused.
Codification of SEC Staff Positions on Tacking
The SEC Staff has previously taken the position that tacking of prior holding periods is allowed in certain circumstances upon conversion or exchange of an issuer’s securities, including cashless exercise of options and warrants. The new rule provides that if the securities were originally acquired from an issuer solely in exchange for other securities of the same issuer, tacking will be allowed, even if the securities surrendered were not convertible or exchangeable by their terms. However, if the original securities did not permit cashless conversion or exchange by their terms and are later amended to cover this aspect, under the new rule tacking will not be allowed if the security holder provides consideration for the amendment other than solely securities of that issuer. In other words, if additional consideration is received for the amendment to provide for a cashless exercise feature, that consideration will be treated as a new investment decision by the holder and will restart the clock on tacking.
However, the new rules also codify that the grant of certain options or warrants that are not purchased for cash or property, such as the grant of employee stock options, does not create any investment risk and, therefore, in a cashless exercise of such options or warrants, the holder would not be allowed to tack the holding period and would be deemed to have acquired the underlying securities on the date of exercise and when the underlying shares were fully paid for.

WebbAlert added as a link

I recently started reading/following the posts on WebbAlert. Highly recommend their stories. I have linked a feed below.

Action by Written Consent Challenged by Court

Lawyers often say that bad facts make bad law. Until the recent passage of the corporate statute for Massachusetts under Chapter 156D, corporate lawyers in Massachusetts would often shy away from incorporating in Massachusetts because of the various statutory limitations and the lack of case law to help interpret corporate conduct. One key issue, one seemingly resolved in the new 156D, was the requirement in the old law that all stockholders must sign a written consent. With clients and investors spread around the world, and often traveling, this requirement delayed many a closing and created other issues. The new statute provides an opt-in procedure for a charter provision to permit the majority to act by written consent in lieu of a meeting. While most practitioners still see this format as being inferior to that in Delaware - where this is the default from which you need to opt out – it is still a major improvement.

A recent decision by a Massachusetts Superior Court involving a renewable energy start-up called Current to Current Corporation (C2C) places this provision in doubt and creates ambiguity around the process of removing directors by written consent.

In Peak Ventures, Inc. v. Manfred Kuehnle et al, Mass. Sup. CV 07-3772 (Gants, J., Aug. 24, 2007), the controlling stockholder group (including the company’s founder, CEO and chairman) sought to remove independent directors from the Board after they accused the CEO, Mr. Kuehnle, of self-dealing and sought to remove him from the Board. The complaint alleges that he failed to disclose the company’s grave financial position to the Board and excluded them from the fundraising process, driving the company into insolvency and into deep debts. The plaintiffs (the other board members who were also minority investors and option holders) upon learning of the alleged wrongdoing, noticed a meeting to remove the CEO from office and to take other emergency action. The CEO asked to delay the meeting, while taking action by written consent to amend the bylaws to give the stockholders additional control over key corporate decisions and to remove the independent directors from the Board and appoint two new directors that plaintiffs claimed to be “loyal” to the CEO. The bylaws for the company followed the 156D statutory language to allow actions by less than unanimous written consent and expressly provided that a “[c]onsent signed under this Section has the effect of a vote at a meeting.”

With the action to take effect on seven days from the notice, the plaintiffs sought a TRO to prevent the effect of the consent action to restructure the Board. The Court agreed with them in part, ruling that removal of directors without a meeting is a special circumstance that requires a live stockholder meeting. Say what? The order does not cite any case law in support of this decision, nor is there any in the plaintiffs motion for TRO. The court held that the specific requirement for a meeting before a director is removed “overrides the more general authorization in 156D, s 7.04 for shareholder actions to be conducted without a meeting." The court reasoned that “this exception reflects the Legislature’s recognition that, when a director is to be removed, the reasons for such removal should be aired at a meeting, which may not occur if the majority of shareholders are permitted to act without such a meeting through a Consent.”

This decision is troubling for many reasons. Getting entrepreneurs to think about corporate governance issues and to bring on independent directors at an early stage is difficult enough. Decisions like Peak Ventures are only likely to scare founders away from bringing others into their decision-making process, leaving young companies without an experienced sounding board for their decisions. Considering that many venture investors will seek board representation and will ask to add industry experts as independents to the board, founding stockholders would be well-advised to increase the board size to still retain majority of the board. Here the board consisted of 5 directors; now it would seem that 7 or 9 may be the right number – making meetings harder to schedule and conduct.

For practitioners, this decision poses an interesting opinion issue. Since most startups don’t hold formal shareholder meetings and make most, if not all, decisions by written consent, the election of directors on which one relies for providing a corporate authorization representation and opinion could now be placed in doubt. In light of this decision, diligencing for opinion may now include a closer examination of written consents vs. meeting minutes.

Delaware Chancery Court provides helpful drafting tips in Earnout case

After taking the summer off from blogging, its time to write again. I thought I would go back to one of my favorite topics to discuss - one often ripe for dispute - earnouts. An interesting decision by the Delaware Chancery Court last month raises some drafting issues.

The case involves a dispute over an EBITA-based earnout between sellers of a life-sciences startup and buyer, AmerisourceBergen Corporation. The deal involved a $21 million closing payment and an earnout of $55 million based on 2003 and 2004 results. Because Sellers saw this deal as giving them access to a larger marketing platform, they obtained buyer's agreement to exclusively promote seller's products as part of AmerisourceBergen's marketing pitches. The merger agreement also included language expressly requiring buyer to use "good faith" and not undertake any actions that would impede the earnout benefits to the sellers.

Notwithstanding these seller-favorable provisions and a finding by the Court in favor of liability for breaching the agreement, on this issue the Court only awarded nominal damages of 6 cents. (The Court did award $21 million on a separate claim that the earnout metric was miscalcuated, so the sellers did have something to celebrate). So, a liquidated damages clause may have been useful here to the sellers.

Another issue was cost control as related to the earnout computation. The agreement clause did not prevent sellers from controlling (reducing) its expenses during the earnout period. A buyer in this case may consider providing that any reductions in expenses (that are not buyer-approved) will get backed out of the EBITDA or other similar earnout metric. Conversely, sellers should try to control as much of the action as possible, so buyer's increases in overall corporate spending do not dilute their earnout.

The term "average" was also in dispute. Buyer argued that average meant "weighted average," while the contract was silent. The court did not find this argument compelling ("the most straightforward usage of the term 'average' is an arithmetic mean, or an average in which each term is given equal weight"). So, if you mean weighted average, you need to say so in the agreement and then spell out the rules on how the weighting is going to work.

The case also presents an example where the parties departed from GAAP in defining the Adjusted EBITA and the Court enforced their agreement, as opposed to referring back to what GAAP may require.

Delaware Supreme Court rejects theory that creditors may directly sue Boards of insolvent corporations for breach of fiduciary duty

A strong decision last week by the Delaware Supreme Court, NACEPF v. Gheewalla et al., protecting the boards of insolvent companies from creditor claims, may be another significant reason to incorporate in Delaware.

"Zone of insolvency"... Ahh. Makes me wistfully think back to the days of F*ckedCompany.com, circa 2002, sitting in scores of board meetings of companies that were soon to meet their maker. You all know the typical scenario. Company X raises %10-15M of venture capital in one or more rounds, market adoption slows and investors decide that another investment is probably not prudent. So they gently get out of the way, letting the management know that they won't lead the next round but would follow another lead. Burn rate is at a pretty good pace, and management ignores the VC body language, assuming that the cache of their past investors will help find new ones quickly, and that a follow is just as good anyway.

When things don't work as planned, and cash starts to get real tight, a board meeting is called where a new lawyer from your corporate law firm appears - their bankruptcy guy - and tells you that you probably need to shut the company down, or face potential claims from creditors because you are now in the "zone of insolvency". What is that, you say? Well, generally, the "zone" is when a company cannot pay its debts when they become due, such as payroll or vendor payables, etc. So now, he claims, you will face claims from creditors who don't get paid unless you shut the company down now, while there is still money left to pay. You shrug because that state probably describes the company from day one, so that just cannot be case. Otherwise, how do companies get started?

Unfortunately, this issue has plagued startups for the last decade, and probably has resulted in a good share of startups being shut down, when they may have made it in the end. Last week, the Delaware Supreme Court put an end to the dilemma by holding, in no uncertain terms, that "the creditors of a Delaware corporation that is either insolvent or in the zone of insolvency have no right, as a matter of law, to assert direct claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the corporation’s directors."

The Court agreed with the Chancery Court in its reasoning that “an otherwise solvent corporation operating in the zone of insolvency is one in most need of effective and proactive leadership—as well as the ability to negotiate in good faith with its creditors—goals which would likely be significantly undermined by the prospect of individual liability arising from the pursuit of direct claims by creditors.”

Because this has been such an important issue for academics and practioners alike, the Court noted that "the need for providing directors with definitive guidance compels us to hold that no direct claim for breach of fiduciary duties may be asserted by the creditors of a solvent corporation that is operating in the zone of insolvency. " When a solvent corporation is navigating in the zone of insolvency, the Court emphasized that the focus for Delaware directors does not change: " directors must continue to discharge their fiduciary duties to the corporation and its shareholders by exercising their business judgment in the best interests of the corporation for the benefit of its shareholder owners."

It is important to note that this decision does not completely eliminate Board liability for any claims, but just those claims that are "direct" claims brought by the creditors. In general, claims against a Board can be direct or derivative, depending on a myriad of factors, including how and to whom the harm occurs. A derivative claim is a claim brought by the corporation that has suffered from the misconduct of directors, and typically must be reviewed by an independent committee as to whether the claim is a valid one. Therefore, while the NACEPF decision does leave room for creditors to bring derivative claims, the risk is diminished that the threat of such an action would chill board members from continuing to serve and from making hard decisions in distressed circumstances.

Best state for incorporation

The folks for www.askthevc.com have a good post on best state for incorporation if you are thinking about venture capital. I agree that Delaware is really the best choice, but there are variations. I also am not a huge fan of Massachusetts, which, unlike Delaware, still has the annoying procedural requirement that they need original signatures for an effective filing. Another issue with Massachusetts is that you have to opt in, in a written provision in your charter, that shareholder consents do not have to be unanimous to be effective. If you forget to do this when you form the Company, you have to chase every shareholder, or call a meeting - which creates additional issues at closing that people don't always plan.

I think another interesting topic is choice of entity. Most vcs dont favor LLCs, and yet that may be the right structure. Perhaps I will take that on in a future post.

When is consent unreasonably withheld?

Consent provisions in contracts and leases become hot issues in the context of an acquisition. Landlords and licensors don't always have to play nice and a badly drafted consent provision in a key contract could kill an entire deal.

In negotiating these provisions, lawyers often try to soften the impact by requiring that the consenting party (such as a landlord, bank, licensor, etc.) does not "unreasonably withhold consent". What does this clause really mean?

A couple of recent decisions help interpret what protection this clause may actually provide to the party seeking consent in the future. They also provide guidance as to the type of information that a consenting party may reasonably request in order to evaluate whether or not to grant its consent.

A recent Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision, Chapman v. Katz, 448 Mass. 519, 862 N.E.2d 735 (Mass. Mar 16, 2007) restates the law in Massachusetts on when it is reasonable to withhold consent in the context of a commercial lease.

• In a commercial context, only factors which relate to a landlord's interest in preserving the property or in having the terms of the prime lease performed should be considered. Among the factors properly considered are the financial responsibility of the subtenant, the legality and suitability of the proposed use, and the nature of the occupancy. A landlord's personal taste and convenience, on the other hand, are not factors properly considered. . . .
• [I]t is unreasonable for a landlord to withhold consent to a sublease solely to extract an economic concession or to improve its economic position.

Another decision comes out of California from the auto franchise context . Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors Inc., 2007 WL 1191135 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. Apr 23, 2007). Here the court provided as follows:

• [W]ithholding consent to assignment of an automobile franchise is reasonable under California Vehicle Code section 11713.3(e) if it is supported by substantial evidence showing that the proposed assignee is materially deficient with respect to one or more appropriate, performance-related criteria. This test is more exacting than whether the manufacturer subjectively made the decision in good faith after considering appropriate criteria. It is an objective test that requires that the decision be supported by evidence. The test is less exacting than one which requires that the manufacturer demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed assignee is deficient.
• The relevant criteria include, without limitation: (1) whether the proposed dealer has adequate working capital; (2) the extent of prior experience of the proposed dealer; (3) whether the proposed dealer has been profitable in the past; (4) the location of the proposed dealer; (5) the prior sales performance of the proposed dealer; (6) the business acumen of the proposed dealer; (7) the suitability of combining the franchise in question with other franchises at the same location; (8) whether the proposed dealer provides the manufacturer sufficient information regarding its qualifications; and (9) the dealer's honesty and good faith in relations with the manufacturer.
• The initial burden of explaining the basis for the decision is on the manufacturer, but the ultimate burden of persuasion is on the assigning dealer to demonstrate that the manufacturer's refusal to consent is unreasonable.”

Final 409A Regulations

A few weeks ago the Final 409A Regulations were released by the IRS. The proposed regulations have been out for over a year, so this is pretty significant development. The final regs can be found here.

Recent Massachusetts decision on director and shareholder duties

A recent decision by the Massachusetts Superior Court for Suffolk county (Boylan v. Boston Sand & Gravel Co., 2007 WL 836753 (Mass.Super.) has a very good synthesis of duties owed by directors and stockholders of Massachusetts corporations:

"[The defendants] as directors of [the company] , owed a fiduciary duty to the corporation, which included both a duty of care and a duty of loyalty. Demoulas v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc., 424 Mass. 501, 528 (1997). Since they were both directors and shareholders of [the company] and since [the company]was a closely-held corporation, they owed their fellow shareholders, ..., “substantially the same duty of utmost good faith and loyalty in the operation of the enterprise that partners owe to one another, a duty that is even stricter than that required of directors and shareholders in corporations generally.” Id. at 529; Donahue v. Rodd Electrotype Co. of New England, Inc., 367 Mass. 578, 592-594 (1975).

*7 If [the defendants] wished [the company] to engage in a self-dealing transaction ... they must:
1. make full and honest disclosure of all the known material facts of the proposed transaction, including the details of the transaction and their conflict of interest; Demoulas at 531. See Puritan Medical Ctr. Inc. v. Cashman, 413 Mass. 167, 172 (1992); Dynan v. Fritz, 400 Mass. 230, 243 (1987) (“good faith requires a full and honest disclosure of all relevant circumstances to permit a disinterested decision maker to exercise its informed judgment”); ALI Principles of Corporate Governance § 5.02(a) (1994); and
2. “then either receive the assent of disinterested directors or shareholders, or otherwise prove that the decision is fair to the corporation.” Demoulas at 533. The burden of proving that the assenting directors were disinterested rests with the self-dealing directors, see Houle v. Low, 407 Mass. 810, 824 (1990), as does the burden of proving that the self-dealing was “intrinsically fair, and did not result in harm to the corporation or partnership” if the transaction was approved by self-interested directors. Demoulas at 530-531, quoting Meehan v. Shaughnessy, 404 Mass. 419, 441 (1989).


If the self-dealing directors fail to provide full disclosure of the material facts of their proposed transaction, then they breach their fiduciary duty by proceeding with the transaction, regardless of its approval by the Board or its fairness to the corporation. See Geller v. Allied-Lyons PLC, 42 Mass.App.Ct. 120, 128 (1997) (“full disclosure of all material facts respecting the finder's fee agreement [is] a prerequisite for enforcement”). The Board's approval is vitiated by the failure of full disclosure.

If the self-dealing directors provide full disclosure to the Board and the transaction is approved by the disinterested directors, then the decision enjoys the deference provided by the business judgment rule. See Harhen v. Brown, 431 Mass. 838, 847 (2000). If the self-dealing directors provide full disclosure to the Board and the transaction is approved by self-interested directors, the decision does not enjoy the benefit of the business judgment rule and must be demonstrated to be fair to the corporation. Demoulas at 533."

DC Circuit ruling on broker dealers

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today vacated the 2005 Securities and Exchange Commission rule deeming certain broker-dealers not to be investment advisers (17 CFR 275.202(a)(11)-1). The Court held that the Investment Advisers Act, 15 USC § 80b-2(a)(11)(F), does not authorize the SEC to except from the Investment Advisers Act a group that is already covered in another § 80b-2(a)(11) exception. The decision came in Financial Planning Association v. SEC, Case Numbers 04-1242 and 05-1145.

Brown University Venture Forum for Enterprise Slide Deck

I recently spoke at a program on valuation and term sheets at Brown University put on by the Brown Forum for Enterprise. I discussed the topic of valuation issues surrounding stock options and 409A. The slide deck can be viewed here.

Study for West Coast VC Deals in Life Sciences

Fenwick publishes a quarterly study of VC deal activity in various areas. The most recent life sciences report can be found here: http://www.fenwick.com/vctrends/LS_VC_Survey_2006.htm?WT.mc_id=LSVCS_032707_e-mail-corp

Delaware Chancery Court rules on post-closing adjustment dispute

A March decision of the Chancery Court in Matria Healthcare v. Coral SR LLC is an essay on post-closing adjustment (true-up) provisions and the interplay of dispute resolution mechanisms in a purchase agreement.

The case involved a merger between two companies in the disease management and wellness business, Matria and CorSolutions. Apparently, before the closing CorSolutions received some complaints from a key customer about their bill and failed to disclose that to the buyer. Matria got the call from the customer - one day after closing - and then spent the next six months negotiating what turned into a $4 million settlement. This was done without discussion with the seller and without their consent. After the settlement, Matria sought relief from the seller for their payment and the dispute ensued.

To complicate things, this agreement had four different types of dispute and resolution mechanisms, two of which are relevant here. The first was a typical post closing adjustment (true up) provision relating to balance sheet adjustments for things like working capital, cash on hand, indebtedness, etc. Disputes arising from adjustments would be submitted to an outside accountant (a “Settlement Accountant”). These claims were not limited by a cap and would be adjusted on a first dollar basis.

Other claims by the parties relating to the transaction, such those arising from breaches of representations, warranties or covenants, would be handled by a AAA arbitration. These claims would be resolved against a $20 million escrow fund, and were subject to a basket (i.e. deductible) of $4.5 million. The agreement also provided a typical exclusive remedy clause where all claims other than fraud or for injunctive relief would be limited to the escrow fund.

The court noted that, in anticipation of a potential hierarchy issue stemming from the different ADR provisions, the parties also provided that any claim that could be brought related to the financial statement adjustments will be subject to that provision and not subject to the escrow fund. ("The items set forth on or reflected in the [financial statements delivered in connection with the true-up] and any matters relating thereto that could have been subject to adjustment or dispute pursuant to [the true-up] are subject solely to the adjustments set forth in Article II [i.e. by the Settlement Accountant] . . . and accordingly shall not be subject to any claim by [Matria]… on the Escrow Fund.”)

If the claim went before the Settlement Accountant, Matria may recover fully on its $4 million claim; if it goes before the AAA, they will likely get nothing since it will be wiped out by the $4.5 million basket. Therefore, it is not surprising that the parties could not agree on the forum.

The interesting part of this decision is the analysis of how Matria’s claim arising from the customer complaint could be characterized under the agreement. The Court noted that the claim could be (1) a potential claim, serious enough to be reflected on CorSolutions’ balance sheet, and therefore properly before the Settlement Account on a first dollar basis; (2) a misrepresentation based on a failure to disclose and a breach of various representations and warranties and, thus properly before the AAA and subject to the cap and basket ; and (3) a Third-Party Claim pursued by the customer, where yet a third mechanism from indemnity and damage relief would apply. The discussion appears on pp. 15-16 of the decision.

At the end of the day, the court being predominately known for its strict construction, directed the dispute to the Settlement Accountant on the basis of the hierarchy clause that was in the agreement, albeit with some reluctance. (“The result reached here is, in large part, unpalatable; it is the product, however, of words chosen by sophisticated parties who drafted a complex and comprehensive agreement. More importantly, it is not for some judge to substitute his subjective view of what makes sense for the terms accepted by the parties.”).

The moral of the story here is that these are very complex provisions that really need to be tested by the drafters in advance to make sure that they will work in the field. The Matria decision has a lot of other interesting nuggets for transactional lawyers relating to arbitrability, contract constuction and drafting examples (that may or may not work, depending on one's viewpoint) and therefore worth a closer a read.

Federal court rules for Buyer in earnout case

Earnouts are rife with controversy. While they are popular in today’s deal market, and most parties see them as a creative remedy to bridge a pricing or funding gap, the majority fail and result in disputes. Assuming the best of intentions to honor the original agreement, it is impossible to predict all of the parameters that may impact a future earnout potential. A recent decision by the US District Court for E.D. of Wisconsin, Didion Milling, Inc. v. Agro Distribution, LLC (2007 WL 702808) is a good primer of some the issues that may need to be tested at the purchase agreement stage.

The earnout here was based on a net cash flow determination, where the APA provided a list of guidelines on how it would be calculated, including a reference that GAAP would be used. Despite a provision in the APA that the agreement could not be assigned, the buyer assigned the agreement to another entity, which in turn assigned it again, so that the party owing the earnout was not the original buyer. Since the earnout was based on a calculation of the original business acquired, this complicated the earnout calculation not to seller’s liking.

One issue was that net cash flow was supposed to take into account after-tax numbers. The original buyer was a corporation, so it paid its own taxes. The ultimate successor was an LLC, a pass-thru, so the tax rates and rules would be different, and would not be paid by the business but by its members. This created ambiguity as to whether taxes should be included, and if so, how much. This is probably something that, now with 20-20 hindsight, should be addressed specifically in the purchase agreement.

The parties disagreed as to the interest deduction against the earnout calculation, and whether the buyer’s overall cost of capital can be used to apply across the board. Again, probably something that can be spelled out in advance, at least by plugging in numbers for min/max.

Finally, this case also involves a claim for good faith and fair dealing, which is common in earnout cases. To provide the flavor what is usually alleged, the plaintiffs claimed that each of the following was a separate reason to find bad faith: (1) buyer acquired the business aware that seller had not consented to the assignment; (2) buyer focused on reselling the business rather than operating it; (3) buyer failed to provide seller with monthly financial statements; (4) buyer failed to provide seller with the documentation necessary to support calculation of net cash flow; and (5) buyer engaged in “sharp dealing” by assessing taxes, charging interest, and early expensing of payment. The court rejected all of these as a matter of law.

A couple of these deserve comment. On the consent issue, the court noted that while a good faith claim did not work here because the ultimate buyer had no privity with the seller under the original seller, there could be a claim for intentional interefence with a contract (which was not alleged here).

On “sharp dealing”, the court explained that a party may violate the duty of good faith by taking deliberate advantage of another party’s oversight. Such sharp dealing may or may not be actionable in tort. Actions such as avoiding an unbargained for expense or obtaining an advantage by way of exploiting superior knowledge do not, however, constitute sharp dealing or a breach of the duty of good faith.

ACG Boston DealMaker Blog

For those interested in a mix of deals in both private equity and venture capital, ACG Boston's DealMaker site is a great spot to learn about new deals and happenings in the Boston high-tech and investment market.