Special committees in Delaware have an important role for cleansing various kinds of conflicted transactions, everything from negotiating controlling shareholder deals to vetting derivative lawsuits.  There is no rule regarding committee size; the Board can populate a committee with as many or as few people as it wants.

That said, Delaware caselaw suggests that courts will be somewhat suspicious of special committees consisting of only one member.  That member must be “’like Caesar’s wife… above reproach.” Gesoff v. IIC Industries, 902 A.2d 1130 (Del. Ch. 2006).  In Gesoff, VC Lamb stated that a single member special committee would get “a higher level of scrutiny,” and noted that in that case, the special committee member deferred too much to a controlling shareholder – something that might not have happened if a “moderating influence,” via a second member, had been available.

Since then, however, a couple of decisions have blessed the actions of single-member special committees.

And then came the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in In re Match Group Derivative Litigation, which held that – at least when a corporation attempts to cleanse a controlling shareholder transaction – all special committee members, and not just a majority of…

In November 2021, Hertz authorized a buyback of its stock.  The effect of the buyback to was transform CK Amarillo from a 39% stockholder – who also had board seats – into a 56% stockholder.

Public stockholders of Hertz sued, alleging that the Hertz directors violated their fiduciary duties by transferring control of Hertz to CK Amarillo, without requiring that CK Amarillo pay a control premium.

One critical question was: Is this claim direct or derivative?

Normally, claims arising out of stock buybacks are derivative claims.  And normally, when a stockholder continues to hold shares in the entity, and nothing has changed about those share characteristics, and the stockholder was not asked to vote on anything, claims arising out of corporate action are derivative.  And just recently, the Delaware Supreme Court decided Brookfield Asset Management, Inc. v. Rosson, 261 A.3d 1251 (Del. 2021), where it held that if a company sells new shares to a controlling stockholder on the cheap, the claim is derivative, not direct – overruling Gentile v. Rossette, 906 A.2d 91 99 (Del. 2006), which held the claim is both.

But, as I argued in my paper, The Three Faces of Control, …

This is my second blog post this week because I am procrastinating.

Anyway, a while back I blogged about Kellner v. AIM Immunotech, where VC Will invalidated certain advance notice bylaws that had been amended in the middle of a heated proxy contest.  The difficulty was that the case was heard on an expedited basis, in advance of the shareholder meeting, so that Will could determine if the dissident’s nominees could stand for election.  And the dissident was … not great.  The campaign had been orchestrated by a convicted felon who tried to hide his involvement, and the dissident had submitted some false information in response to the bylaw requests.  At the same time, though, the bylaws had been adopted as a blocking mechanism, and some were unintelligible.  

In that context, Will held that four of the amended bylaws failed enhanced scrutiny, but two could stand.  She concluded that the board had acted with a proper purpose – to obtain information so that it could fairly evaluate a director-nominee – but that several of the onerous bylaw amendments were disproportionate to the threat posed.  With respect to one bylaw, which was unreasonably broad, Will blue penciled it back to…

In 2022, I published an article about discrimination against women capital providers.  The thesis was that oppression and discrimination against women as investors is an unrecognized category; employment law, of course, recognizes discrimination against women employees, and family law recognizes that women may be financially disadvantaged within relationships and tries to make allowances for that.   But business law does not have a vocabulary to recognize how invidious discrimination and interpersonal dynamics may work against women, and that’s a problem, in part because business law is often called upon to fill in the gaps in situations that employment and family law don’t cover.

In my article, one of the examples I used was Horne v. Aune, 121 P.3d 1227 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005), in which a man and a woman – in a romantic relationship – bought a house together.  They intended merely to live in the house, but they formalized their ownership in a partnership agreement.  When the relationship terminated – because the man was charged criminally after shoving the woman and assaulting her son – the court relied on general partnership principles to determine how to dispose of the property, without considering the broader context of the…

I am perpetually, endlessly amused by how courts navigate the tension between the presumption of market efficiency inherent in the fraud on the market doctrine, and the actual reality that markets may be generally efficient, but there are all kinds of blips and imperfections.  The Supreme Court acknowledged as much in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., but it still creates difficulties for the doctrine.

Case in point:  Fagen et al. v. Enviva, which was just decided in the District of Maryland.  Plaintiffs accused Enviva of greenwashing by, among other things, falsely claiming that its wood pellets were sourced from “low value” wood, such as tree trimmings and underbrush, rather than whole trees.  When the truth was revealed – partially through a short attack, and then through exposure on a conservation website – Enviva’s stock price dropped.

Enviva defended against the claim by pointing to various public filings where it admitted that its low value wood included some whole trees deemed unsuitable for sawmilling, such as small ones, or ones with defects.  Which of course sounds very reasonable, except there’s the pesky stock price drop that accompanied the disclosure.  So, on a motion to dismiss, the…

Lotta handwringing today about the demise of Chevron, and I can’t begin to predict the ultimate fallout, but from the narrow perspective of securities, it doesn’t feel like it’s played much of a role in some time. 

Case in point: The Fifth Circuit’s recent decision striking down SEC rules governing private investment funds.

As the court notes, for a long time, private investment companies and their advisers were exempt from Investment Company Act/Investment Advisors Act regulation.  However, in 2010, Dodd Frank amended the IAA to require that even private fund advisers register with the SEC, and make and disseminate reports according to SEC rule.  The reports required must include, among other things, information on “valuation policies and practices of the fund;… side arrangements or side letters, whereby certain investors in a fund obtain more favorable rights or entitlements than other investors.”

As part of those amendments, Dodd-Frank made another statutory change.  Prior to Dodd-Frank, there existed 15 U.S.C. §80b-11, titled “Rules, regulations, and orders of Commission,” which broadly gave the SEC the power to “make, issue, amend, and rescind such rules and regulations and such orders as are necessary or appropriate to the exercise of the functions…

Some variations on a theme this week.

First, the Delaware legislature has now passed the amendments to the DGCL, which means that as of August 1, it will be legal for a company like Tesla, say, to contract with a shareholder like Elon Musk, say, to give him power to veto or demand specific AI initiatives, regardless of his particular financial stake in the company.  By contrast, at least as I read Texas law, such a contract would not be possible for Texas-organized entities, because Texas only permits agreements to restrict board discretion in nonpublic corporations.

Do you suppose this means Tesla will reincorporate back to Delaware?

Second, the Senate raked Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun over the coals this week.  Sen. Josh Hawley said: “I think you’re focused on exactly what you were hired to do.  You’re trying to squeeze every piece of profit out of this company. You’re strip mining it.”  He also posted to Twitter, “Boeing’s planes are falling out of the sky in pieces, but the CEO makes $33 million a year. What exactly is he getting paid to do?”  Meanwhile, at the hearing, Sen. Richard Blumenthal said, “Boeing needs to stop thinking…