On January 22, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery signaled the demise of “disclosure-only” settlements in M&A stockholder lawsuits with its decision in In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation. Arguing that the “optimal means by which disclosure claims in deal litigation” should be through adjudication rather than the settlement process, the Chancery Court cautioned that it would “continue to be increasingly vigilant in applying its independent judgment to its case-by-case assessment of the reasonableness of the ‘give’ and ‘get’” of disclosure-only settlements. The Chancery Court offered its “hope and trust that [its] sister courts will reach the same … Read more
Over the last twelve months, over fifty US publicly traded companies with a market capitalization of over $1 billion have announced plans to spin-off lines of business into independent companies. During that period, companies such as Starwood Hotels, ConAgra Foods, and Citrix Systems have announced spin-offs of one or more businesses.
Spin-offs are motivated by various reasons, but the common theme in these transactions is that the spun-off entity and the remaining corporation should perform better and achieve better market valuation on a stand-alone basis.
A spin-off is effected by reorganizing a line of business, contributing its assets and liabilities … Read more
On January 22, 2016, Chancellor Andre Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an important decision in In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation—likely hammering the final nail in the coffin of “disclosure-only” settlements with broad releases of liability in M&A stockholder lawsuits in the Court of Chancery. There could, however, be an increase in “mootness fee” applications resulting from stockholder lawsuits that are voluntarily dismissed following any supplemental disclosures defendants may voluntarily provide. Stockholder plaintiffs (and their lawyers) may use this vehicle to continue filing lawsuits challenging M&A transactions, albeit not in the same volume that has been … Read more
On November 19, 2015, in Depomed, Inc. v. Horizon Pharma plc, the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara granted Depomed’s request for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Horizon’s hostile exchange offer to acquire Depomed. The injunction was issued based on Horizon’s misuse of Depomed’s confidential information under a pre-existing confidentiality agreement. Less than one hour after the ruling was issued, Horizon withdrew its bid to acquire Depomed. The outcome highlights the importance of careful drafting of confidentiality agreements, and the need for companies to regularly monitor compliance with their obligations under pre-existing agreements.
Background: In 2013, … Read more
On July 2, 2015, in Hill International, Inc. v. Opportunity Partners L.P., No. 305, 2015, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed a Court of Chancery decision that Opportunity Partnership L.P. (the “Fund”), a stockholder in Hill International, Inc. (“Hill” or the “Company”), had complied with the Company’s advance notice bylaws and thus timely submitted two business proposals for consideration and two nominees for election at Hill’s 2015 Annual Meeting (the “Notice”). Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that it was proper to enjoin the Company from conducting any business at the Annual Meeting other than convening the Meeting for the sole … Read more
On December 19, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a ruling reversing an order of the Court of Chancery granting a preliminary injunction that would have enjoined an agreed-to merger and required a mandatory post-signing 30-day go-shop period. In C&J Energy Services, Inc. v. City of Miami General Employees’ and Sanitation Employees’ Retirement Trust, No. 655/657 (Del. Dec. 19, 2014), the Supreme Court held, among other things, that the Court of Chancery had imposed a non-existent requirement that a selling company must engage in an active market process as a matter of law.
The Transaction. The transaction that … Read more
On September 18, 2014, Gibson Dunn hosted a webcast on shareholder activism. In addition to partners Eduardo Gallardo, Beth Ising and Adam Offenhartz, Matthew Sherman from Joele Frank and Scott Winter from Innisfree M&A also participated. Topics covered include current trends in shareholder activism (including advance notice bylaws), effective shareholder communication strategies, Rule 14a-8 proposals and stockholder identification programs. An audio replay and slides are available at http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/pages/Webcast-M-A-Shareholder-Activism.aspx.… Read more
In two recent decisions written by Vice Chancellor Travis Laster, the Delaware Court of Chancery provided helpful judicial guidance on the application of the covenant of good faith in the context of related party transactions involving master limited partnerships (MLPs). In both decisions, the Court made clear that when dealing with limited partnerships, contractual terms control and that, once fiduciary duties are contractually eliminated as permitted by Delaware law, courts should not imply terms that would alter the contract or attempt to reconstruct outcomes that fiduciary duty analysis in the corporate setting would generate.
An MLP is a publicly … Read more
On May 29, 2013, Chancellor Leo E. Strine, Jr. of the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an important decision that lays the foundation for controlling stockholders to pursue going-private merger transactions with the comfort that, if certain conditions are met, such transactions will be reviewed under the deferential business judgment rule standard, rather than the exacting entire fairness standard.
In In re MFW Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 6566-CS (Del. Ch. May 29, 2013), Chancellor Strine considered a question of law that had long vexed the deal community: whether a controlling stockholder that expressly conditions a going-private merger transaction on … Read more
In two recent rulings, the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware has provided important guidance on how so-called “don’t ask, don’t waive” standstill provisions—which are designed to encourage bidders to provide their best offers during an auction—will be viewed in future litigation. While the Chancery Court has recognized that “don’t ask, don’t waive” provisions can be appropriate and valuable tools for a board, these two rulings will affect the processes boards establish when conducting an auction process.
“Don’t ask, don’t waive” provisions have become increasingly common in M&A standstill agreements as a way of incentivizing competing bidders to put … Read more