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).

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.

Delaware court comments on "spring loaded" options

This has been an interesting month for stock option decisions. As mentioned in my prior post, a few weeks ago the Delaware Chancery court took a hard line against backdating option practices in Ryan v. Gifford (now available on the Chancery Court's website here).

Another decision issued on the same day (2/6/07)is In re Tyson Foods, an opinion written by Chancellor Chandler. The relevant part of this case is the discussion on "spring loaded" option grants issued by the Company to favor executives. Ok, so what are "spring loaded" options? The court explains that the are options granted right before a company makes an announcement that is expected to have a positive result on the stock price. The converse of this practice are "bullet dodging" grants, where the grants are timed to take place after the impact of an announcement that is anticipated to depress stock price, thereby giving the benefit of a lower strike price.

This theory of liability is interesting because it is different than straight backdating. As the court points out, backdating has the inherent problem of falsifying information about the grant itself. The date of issuance is false, as is the representation to stockholders that the option was granted at fair market value on its grant date. Spring loading, however, does not necessarily face the same ethical issues. As the court notes, a company may be justified in knowing issuing options that are in the money to executives, as a means to retention and providing performance incentives. The problem lies with disclosure.

The court notes that "[t]he touchstone of disloyalty or bad faith in a spring-loaded option remains deception, not simply the fact that they are (in every real sense) 'in the money' at the time of issue. A board of directors might, in an exercise of good faith business judgment, determine that in the money options are an appropriate form of executive compensation.... A company with a volatile share price, or one that expects that its most explosive growth is behind it, might wish to issue options with an exercise price below current market value in order to encourage a manager to work hard in the future while at the same time providing compensation with a greater present market value. One can imagine circumstances in which such a decision, were it made honestly and disclosed in good faith, would be within the rational exercise of business judgment...."

The interesting common thread between both decisions is the overtone relating to good faith/bad faith by directors. Some commentators have already noted that this arises from the Disney decision from 2006 where the Delaware Supreme Court elaborated on what some see as a new duty by the board, one of good faith. This analysis seems to allow for a private right of action under state law against directors, where theories under federal law for insider trading have not gotten much traction with the courts. (“To act in good faith, a director must act at all times with an honesty of purpose and in the best interests and welfare of the corporation.”)

The court also notes in dictum that a director may be absolved of liability if shareholders have expressly empowered the board of directors (or relevant committee) to use backdating, spring-loading, or bullet-dodging as part of employee compensation, and that such actions would not otherwise violate applicable law. It seems like this language could be useful in drafting future plans, although it begs the question as to what impact it would have under 409A, where you may still run into a problem for issuing options below fair market value.