Justia Delaware Court of Chancery Opinion Summaries

Bloodhound Technologies, Inc. (Bloodhound) created web-based software applications for healthcare providers. Plaintiffs were five software developers, including Bloodhound's founder, whose work laid the foundation for Bloodhound's success. Plaintiffs all held common stock. Plaintiffs claimed that after Bloodhound raised its initial rounds of venture capital financing, the venture capitalists obtained control of Bloodhound's board of directors, after which the venture capitalists financed the company through self-interested and dilutive stock issuances. Plaintiffs did not learn of the issuances until Bloodhound was sold for $82.5 million. At that point, Plaintiffs discovered their overall equity ownership had been diluted to under one percent. After members of management received transaction bonuses and the preferred stockholders received millions in liquidation preferences, Plaintiffs were left collectively with less than $36,000. Plaintiffs filed this action against Bloodhound's board members who approved the transactions and their affiliated funds, challenging the dilutive transactions, the allocation of $15 million to management, and the fairness of the merger. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on a wide range of theories. With limited exceptions, the Court of Chancery denied the motions, holding that Plaintiffs stated claims on many of their theories. View "Carsanaro v. Bloodhound Techs., Inc." on Justia Law

A hedge fund, TPG-Axon, which held a stake in Sandridge Energy, launched a consent solicitation to destagger SandRidge's seven-member board by amending the company's bylaws, to remove all the directors, and to install its own slate. The incumbent board, whose members, along with SandRidge, were the defendants in this action, resisted the consent solicitation and campaigned to convince SandRidge's stockholders not to give consents to TPG. Relevant here was the incumbent board's warning that if the stockholders chose to elect a new board majority, the requirement in SandRidge's note indentures that SandRidge offer to repurchase its existing debt would be triggered and cause a material economic harm. The incumbent board faced this litigation from Plaintiff, a SandRidge stockholder who supported the TPG consent solicitation, arguing that the incumbent board was breaching its fiduciary duties by failing to approve the TPG slate. The Court of Chancery enjoined the incumbent board from soliciting consent revocations or impeding TPG's consent solicitation process in any way because the board lacked any rational, concluding that the incumbent board lacked any rational, good faith justification for its failure to approve the rival slate, and therefore, the equities weighed heavily in favor of the stockholders' right to make an uncoerced choice. View "Kallick v. Sandridge Energy, Inc." on Justia Law

Edgewater Growth Capital Partners (Edgewater), a private equity firm, invested in several businesses and put them together in one company called Pendum. Soon after the merger, Pendum began to fail to comply with the covenants it made to its creditors. Eventually, a majority of the senior debt was purchased by affiliates of H.I.G. Capital (collectively, HIG). By this time, Pendum was insolvent. Pendum was eventually sold at an open auction by HIG. Edgewater filed suit, claiming that the sale process was commercially unreasonable and thus a violation of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The Court of Chancery rejected Edgewater's UCC claim and its other attacks on the sale process and, because Edgewater's claims were primarily motivated by its desire to avoid its $4 million guaranty, held that Edgewater was contractually obligated to pay HIG's attorneys' fees in defending against Edgewater's claims. View "Edgewater Growth Capital Partners LP v. H.I.G. Capital, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are holders of Savient’s 4.75% convertible senior notes due in 2018, which are unsecured and subject to the terms of an indenture. Collectively, Plaintiffs own a face value of $48,709,000, approximately 40% of the outstanding Notes. Defendants are members of Savient’s board of directors USBNA serves as trustee for the Indenture governing the Notes. Following dismal sales of its new drug, KRYSTEXXA, Savient’s Board approved a financing transaction to exchange some existing unsecured Notes for new senior secured notes with a later maturity date. Through the Exchange, Savient exchanged around $108 million in Notes, raised around $44 million in new capital, and issued additional SSDNs with a face value of approximately $63 million. Like the Notes, the SSDNs are subject to an indenture for which USBNA serves as trustee. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that Savient was insolvent and brought derivative claims alleging waste and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Exchange Transaction; alleged breach of fiduciary duty and waste claims in connection with the Board’s approval of retention awards for certain Savient executives. The chancellor dismissed the receivership claim for lack of standing and granted a declaration that an Event of Default has not occurred.View "Tang Capital Partners LP, v. Norton" on Justia Law

When the original developer of Plantations created the subdivision in 1986, it retained a 4.3-acre Recreation Area, including a pool, tennis courts, and a gym. Plantations residents and the general public use the facilities for a fee. The developer failed to reserve an express easement to the public road. Owners of the Recreation Area and customers of the health facility must use land owned by the Associations, which own and maintain Plantations’ common areas, for access. A new owner of the recreation facility was unable to reach agreement with the Associations concerning access and parking and sought to establish that an easement exists in its favor over the roads of the Associations and for use of a parking lot adjacent to the Recreation Area and that it is under no obligation to contribute to the upkeep of the property over which it claims an easement, relying on a Declaration of Covenants. The Declaration is poorly drafted and unclear. The Chancellor held that the owner has established an easement to use the private roadways of Plantations in connection with its business, but failed to demonstrate an easement for parking. The question of maintenance obligations awaits further factual development.View "Sandie, LLC v. The Plantations Owners Ass'n, Inc.,." on Justia Law

In a derivative action on behalf of Hewlett-Packard Company, plaintiff accused certain HP directors of committing waste and breaching the duty of care in connection with the August 2010 termination of then-CEO, Hurd. Plaintiff contends that Hurd was not entitled to, and did not deserve, any severance upon his termination but that the directors granted Hurd a severance package estimated to be worth $40 million or more. Plaintiff also challenged the lack of a long term CEO succession plan as a breach of the directors’ duty of care. The chancellor dismissed. Under Rule 23.1, a stockholder must either make a demand on the board to instigate the legal action that the stockholder seeks to bring on the corporation’s behalf or allege with particularity why such a demand is excused. Plaintiff did not to make a presuit demand and did not adequately allege a basis to excuse presuit demand.View "Zucker v. Andreessen" on Justia Law

GRT and Marathon are engaged in attempting to convert methane gas into fuel. They entered into interrelated agreements, including a Securities Purchase Agreement (Marathon purchased $25 million of GRT’s stock), mutual licensing agreements, and a Cooperative Development Agreement, governing collaboration to develop gas-to-fuels technology. Marathon built a multi-million dollar “Demonstration Facility” to test the technology on a large scale and a smaller research facility (Pilot Unit). Under the Development Agreement, GRT obtained access the Demonstration Facility and the ability to modify the Facility, to expire on December 31, 2012. The Facility began operations in 2008. Marathon executed a run campaign and shared data with GRT. In November 2009, Marathon decided to permanently close the Facility because of operational difficulties. Marathon followed procedures prescribed by the Agreement, gave notice, and extended GRT the right to acquire the Facility. GRT did not exercise that right. Although the Facility is currently closed, the Pilot Unit is operational, and both parties continue to test there. GRT claimed breach of contract. The chancellor found that the Development Agreement is not ambiguous and does not impose an affirmative duty on Marathon to operate the Facility through December, 2012, but provides GRT protection in other ways that would be internally inconsistent with such an affirmative duty.View "GRT, Inc. v. Marathon GTF Tech., Ltd." on Justia Law

NuVasive alleges that Lanx improperly persuaded NuVasive employees and a NuVasive consultant to leave NuVasive and work for Lanx instead, in breach of agreements that the employees had with NuVasive, to misappropriate NuVasive’s trade secrets and other proprietary information. Both are medical corporations. NuVasive claimed unfair competition, tortious interference with contractual relations, tortious interference with prospective contractual relations, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Lanx argued that the former NuVasive employees were necessary and indispensable parties to the action because NuVasive’s claims are predicated upon their acts. The chancellor declined to dismiss. While the former employees’ interests are not adequately protected by Lanx, the chancellor reasoned that a remedy could be crafted to avoid prejudice to their interests. The former employees were not indispensable to the misappropriation claim.View "Nuvasive, Inc. v. Lanx, Inc." on Justia Law

CFG produced to defendants 5,000 pages of pleadings and court filings from an action pending in Maryland and later produced 238,000 pages worth of its own documents that it had already produced in the Maryland action. CFG produced all of the documents as Highly Confidential, so that only four of the attorneys representing defendants could review the documents. Defendants moved to vacate the designation. The court determined that defense attorneys may review the documents if they certify that during the pendency of this case they will neither be involved in the New York Litigation, nor represent any client in a matter involving the purchase or sale (including financing) of any nursing home or adult assisted living center. The Court declined to de-designate any of the documents as Highly Confidential; CFG, through its counsel, is to review, within 30 days of the date of this letter opinion, all of the Discovery Documents that refer to Beverly, and determine whether those documents are entitled to be designated Highly Confidential. View "Grunstein v. Silva" on Justia Law

After agreeing to purchase a new townhouse, the Smiths leased it back to the builder, Ryan Homes, to use for six months as a model home. Ryan Homes converted the garage into a sales office. When the Smiths took possession, they used the converted garage as additional living space. The developer sought a mandatory injunction forcing the Smiths and Ryan Homes to convert the space back to a functional garage. The chancellor ruled in favor of defendants. The recorded subdivision plan and declaration of restrictions do not prohibit conversion of a garage to living space. The partition wall of the garage conversion is not sufficiently visible to the public to trigger an architectural review requirement and fears about parking problems are overly speculative.View "Reybold Venture Grp. XI-A, LLC. v. Smith" on Justia Law