Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin ChinaCast from holding its annual shareholder meeting. Plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that the board breached its fiduciary duty of disclosure when communicating its reasons for publicly disclosing that it had removed the current director from the company's slate and no longer recommended his reelection. Plaintiffs argued that this TRO was necessary to provide ChinaCast's shareholders sufficient time to consider corrective disclosures and plaintiffs' competing slate of nominees. The court concluded that it appeared that this action essentially was a dispute between two directors who disagreed about the best way to advance the interests of ChinaCast's shareholders. That disagreement, moreover, had culminated in an impasse in their working relationship. It was not, however, the place of a company's incumbent management or the court to decide whether one candidate was preferable to another for election to the board. Rather, the corporate law emphatically vested that power in the shareholder franchise. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for a TRO was granted so that ChinaCast's shareholders received a fair opportunity to vote their preference on the future direction of the company.

Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against the acquisition of Compellant by Dell. The parties settled after significant discovery but before merits briefing or a hearing. The settlement consideration consisted of modifications to the deal protections in the merger agreement, including the rescission of a stockholder rights plan adopted in connection with the transaction, and six supplemental disclosures. Plaintiffs applied for a fee of $6 million and defendants argued for not more than $1.25 million. In addressing the fee application, and thus to estimate the value of the resulting benefits conferred by the settlement, the court relied primarily on four studies that measured market-wide rates of topping bid activity and the incremental value generated by multiple bidders. The court also evaluated the benefits conferred by the supplemental disclosures. In total, the court awarded $2.4 million.

This action involved a challenge to a decision by the board of directors of a company to call certain of its outstanding shares. The purchasers of those shares claimed that the company called the shares at a below market price in violation of the express terms of the contracts governing the shares as well as the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The company moved to dismiss the purchaser's complaint for failure to state a claim. The court found that the purchaser had alleged facts that conceivably would support a conclusion that the call price was set below fair market value and that the company acted in bad faith by setting the call price at that value. Therefore, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss.

This action involved a challenge to the decision by a purchaser to terminate a share purchase agreement and related consulting services agreement based on the purchaser's contention that certain conditions precedent to closing those agreements had not been met by the seller. Purchaser brought an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, seeking a determination that it properly terminated the share purchase and consulting services agreements and was entitled to the return of its down payment on the purchase price from escrow. The court found that the agreements between the parties unambiguously provided that the Development Fees were contingent on the commencement of actual development of the projects and that the purchaser was under no obligation to develop the projects. Therefore, the court granted purchaser's motion for partial summary judgment on that issue and held that seller was not entitled to any Development Fees as a result of purchaser's decision to terminate the transaction.

Plaintiff was terminated as a partner of Deloitte LLP and Deloitte Tax LLP after he pled guilty to a criminal charge relating to allegedly stalking and harassing an ex-lover. Plaintiff claimed that Deloitte management wrongfully placed him on unpaid leave, recognized their error by reinstating his salary, yet continued to deny him his right to participate in the partnerships' business. The court granted summary judgment against plaintiff on the claim for breach of the partnership agreement; on his wrongful disassociation claim; on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim; on the Delaware Wage Payment and Collection Act claim; and on the breach of the duty of loyalty claim. The court also held that plaintiff's final complaint seeking specific performance was rendered moot when plaintiff was involuntarily terminated. Accordingly, defendants were entitled to summary judgment on all counts of the complaint.

Plaintiff asserted wide-ranging claims against defendant and its managing member after plaintiff and defendant agreed to combine their investment management operations into a single firm. After coming to believe that defendant was engaged in fraud, plaintiff terminated the arrangement. In a formal termination agreement, plaintiff agreed to pay certain enumerated expenses and the parties granted each other expansive global releases. The court held that, on its face, the broad and unambiguous language of the General Release encompassed all of the claims asserted in the Complaint. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss was granted.

This case concerned a contractual dispute among the parties to an indemnification agreement incident to a merger. Plaintiffs asserted claims for indemnification and defendants disputed whether the Indemnification Agreement covered those claims. As to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, the court found that the Indemnification Agreement was ambiguous in certain important respects and that there were genuine issues of fact regarding the parties' intent as to the relevant indemnification clauses. Therefore, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, but granted limited relief under Rule 56(d) regarding defendants' laches argument.

This case involved a claim for breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty that stemmed from a dispute regarding assets of IFCT, a now defunct tech startup company founded by Stephen Marsh to develop potentially revolutionary micro fuel cell technology. The crux of plaintiff's argument was that the Director Defendants conducted an unfair and disloyal bidding process, whereby they favored the Echelon-backed bid and refused to follow up on or negotiate with other superior bids. As a result, IFCT missed its chance to sell its assets at the peak of their value and was forced to sell its assets at a discount in bankruptcy. Given that the Director Defendants have conceded the applicability of entire fairness review and given the fact-intensive nature of that review, the court found that the Director Defendants have not met their burden at this stage to achieve summary judgment against Encite. The court also found that material facts remained as to the liability of Echelon for aiding and abetting the alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the Director Defendants and therefore, the court denied Echelon's motion for summary judgment on that claim. The court finally found that material facts also remained regarding Echelon's third party claims, and so denied Marsh's motion for summary judgment.

This case involved a dispute over earn-out payments related to a merger between Viacom and Harmonix where plaintiff was one of the selling stockholders of Harmonix. Plaintiff sued on behalf of the selling stockholders, alleging that Viacom and Harmonix purposefully renegotiated the distribution contract with EA so as to reduce the earn-out payments payable to the Harmonix stockholders, and thus breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the Merger Agreement. The court dismissed plaintiff's claim and held that it would be inequitable for the court to imply a duty on Viacom and Harmonix's part to share with the selling stockholders the benefits of a renegotiated contract addressing EA's right to distribute Harmonix products after the expiration of the earn-out period.

This case involved the interpretation of two provisions in a merger agreement between defendant corporation and a company whose former stockholders were represented by plaintiff. The two provisions at issue dealt with contingent payments due in certain circumstances from defendant to those stockholders. The court found that the language of the merger agreement was unambiguous, and that per its provisions, defendant's obligations under the merger agreement were assumed by the acquiring company, thus avoiding the acceleration of the remaining revenue contingent payments. Therefore, the court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant.