In Barbey v. Cerego, Inc., the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed a post-trial judgment denying relief to the plaintiffs in a Section 225 action, despite what the court called the “unusual and troubling circumstances of [the] case.” The Supreme Court’s decision illustrates the limitations of Section 225 proceedings. The underlying Court of Chancery decision shows that voiding board actions may in some cases have no practical effect, even when a board acts in the context of entity-altering corporate transactions.
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/11/MN-18360_Updated-Enhanced-Scrutiny-Blog-imagery_833x606_26.jpg606833Robin E. Wechkinhttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngRobin E. Wechkin2024-07-08 09:08:422024-07-03 10:09:30Director Wins In Claim of Improper Removal – But Still Loses
Sidley is pleased to share the June 2024 issue of Sidley Perspectives on M&A and Corporate Governance, a quarterly newsletter designed to keep you current on what we consider to be the most important legal developments involving M&A and corporate governance matters.
Now and then this blog publishes compendiums of bedrock decisions and key principles of which M&A and Corporate Governance practitioners, and their clients, should be aware. This post takes the opportunity to highlight five relatively recent and important decisions that have shaped Delaware legal practice and discourse involving venture capital investment. Counsel representing investors and other players in emerging growth companies should familiarize themselves with this digest.
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/09/MN-18360_Updated-Enhanced-Scrutiny-Blog-imagery_833x606_29.jpg606833James Heyworthhttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngJames Heyworth2024-06-27 09:01:232024-11-14 13:48:46Five Delaware Cases All Venture Capital Players Should Know
In 2022, the Delaware Court of Chancery decided In re MultiPlan Corp. S’holders Litig., 268 A.3d 784 (Del. Ch. 2022) (“Multiplan”), a landmark case setting the legal framework for assessing claims that the directors of a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (“SPAC”) breached their fiduciary duties in connection with “de-SPAC” mergers. Given the popularity of de-SPAC mergers, in which the SPAC merges with a private target company and takes it public, the Delaware courts have been faced with a series of cases initiated by public stockholders who did not redeem their shares at the time of the merger but became unhappy when the post-merger public companies underperformed. The focus of those cases is the redemption right: whether stockholders in the SPAC were properly informed when they made the critical decision at the time of the merger to either redeem their shares or remain invested in the newly public company.
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Jim Ducayethttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngJim Ducayet2024-06-06 09:02:052024-06-06 09:35:31Even After Multiplan, Pleading Standards Still Have Teeth in SPAC Cases
In a recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit outlined a mechanism by which shareholders can object to mootness fees paid to plaintiffs’ attorneys in merger objection suits. See Alcarez v. Akorn, Inc., 99 F.4th 368 (7th Cir. 2024). By allowing a shareholder to intervene and inviting the district court to scrutinize the propriety of the suit, the Seventh Circuit took a further step in its battle against the frivolous strike suits that have plagued M&A transactions for many years.
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Yolanda C. Garciahttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngYolanda C. Garcia2024-05-28 09:02:252024-05-28 09:33:09“No Better than a Racket”: Seventh Circuit Cracks Down on Merger Objection Strike Suits
What happens when you buy somebody else’s problems? A new policy from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is encouraging companies to disclose the misconduct of the companies they buy. The DOJ says it won’t prosecute businesses that voluntarily report wrongdoing found during the mergers and acquisitions process.
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/05/MN-23012_Self-Reporting_MA_podcast_640x400.jpg400641Samir A. Gandhihttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngSamir A. Gandhi2024-05-21 09:05:202024-05-21 09:33:54Buyer Beware: What to Know About the DOJ’s Policy on Self-Reporting in M&A
In a recent decision by Vice Chancellor Glasscock of the Delaware Court of Chancery, Handler v. Centerview Partners Holdings, L.P., the Vice Chancellor considered whether a partnership agreement existed based on a purported oral agreement. The Court of Chancery’s decision provides useful guidance to practitioners and reaffirms that, while Delaware law permits oral agreements, including partnership agreements, that agreement must include all material, essential terms – an agreement to agree is insufficient.
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Sophia A. Blakehttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngSophia A. Blake2024-05-14 09:02:392024-05-14 09:37:18You May Think You Are a Partner, But… Chancery Opinion Reaffirms That Any Agreement, Written or Oral, Must Include All Material Terms
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
Director Wins In Claim of Improper Removal – But Still Loses
In Barbey v. Cerego, Inc., the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed a post-trial judgment denying relief to the plaintiffs in a Section 225 action, despite what the court called the “unusual and troubling circumstances of [the] case.” The Supreme Court’s decision illustrates the limitations of Section 225 proceedings. The underlying Court of Chancery decision shows that voiding board actions may in some cases have no practical effect, even when a board acts in the context of entity-altering corporate transactions.
(more…)
Robin E. Wechkin
Seattle
rwechkin@sidley.com
Sidley Perspectives on M&A and Corporate Governance
Sidley is pleased to share the June 2024 issue of Sidley Perspectives on M&A and Corporate Governance, a quarterly newsletter designed to keep you current on what we consider to be the most important legal developments involving M&A and corporate governance matters.
(more…)
Enhanced Scrutiny Contributors
delawarelit@sidley.com
Five Delaware Cases All Venture Capital Players Should Know
Now and then this blog publishes compendiums of bedrock decisions and key principles of which M&A and Corporate Governance practitioners, and their clients, should be aware. This post takes the opportunity to highlight five relatively recent and important decisions that have shaped Delaware legal practice and discourse involving venture capital investment. Counsel representing investors and other players in emerging growth companies should familiarize themselves with this digest.
(more…)
James Heyworth
New York
jheyworth@sidley.com
Rob R. Carlson
Palo Alto
rob.carlson@sidley.com
Vincent J. Margiotta
New York
vmargiotta@sidley.com
Even After Multiplan, Pleading Standards Still Have Teeth in SPAC Cases
In 2022, the Delaware Court of Chancery decided In re MultiPlan Corp. S’holders Litig., 268 A.3d 784 (Del. Ch. 2022) (“Multiplan”), a landmark case setting the legal framework for assessing claims that the directors of a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (“SPAC”) breached their fiduciary duties in connection with “de-SPAC” mergers. Given the popularity of de-SPAC mergers, in which the SPAC merges with a private target company and takes it public, the Delaware courts have been faced with a series of cases initiated by public stockholders who did not redeem their shares at the time of the merger but became unhappy when the post-merger public companies underperformed. The focus of those cases is the redemption right: whether stockholders in the SPAC were properly informed when they made the critical decision at the time of the merger to either redeem their shares or remain invested in the newly public company.
(more…)
Jim Ducayet
Chicago
jducayet@sidley.com
Heather Benzmiller Sultanian
Chicago
hsultanian@sidley.com
Thomas H. Collier
Chicago
tcollier@sidley.com
“No Better than a Racket”: Seventh Circuit Cracks Down on Merger Objection Strike Suits
In a recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit outlined a mechanism by which shareholders can object to mootness fees paid to plaintiffs’ attorneys in merger objection suits. See Alcarez v. Akorn, Inc., 99 F.4th 368 (7th Cir. 2024). By allowing a shareholder to intervene and inviting the district court to scrutinize the propriety of the suit, the Seventh Circuit took a further step in its battle against the frivolous strike suits that have plagued M&A transactions for many years.
(more…)
Yolanda C. Garcia
Dallas
ygarcia@sidley.com
Erica Mellon
Dallas
emellon@sidley.com
Buyer Beware: What to Know About the DOJ’s Policy on Self-Reporting in M&A
What happens when you buy somebody else’s problems? A new policy from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is encouraging companies to disclose the misconduct of the companies they buy. The DOJ says it won’t prosecute businesses that voluntarily report wrongdoing found during the mergers and acquisitions process.
(more…)
Samir A. Gandhi
New York
sgandhi@sidley.com
Kenneth A. Polite Jr.
Washington, D.C., New York
kpolite@sidley.com
You May Think You Are a Partner, But… Chancery Opinion Reaffirms That Any Agreement, Written or Oral, Must Include All Material Terms
In a recent decision by Vice Chancellor Glasscock of the Delaware Court of Chancery, Handler v. Centerview Partners Holdings, L.P., the Vice Chancellor considered whether a partnership agreement existed based on a purported oral agreement. The Court of Chancery’s decision provides useful guidance to practitioners and reaffirms that, while Delaware law permits oral agreements, including partnership agreements, that agreement must include all material, essential terms – an agreement to agree is insufficient.
(more…)
Sophia A. Blake
New York
sblake@sidley.com
Andrew W. Stern
New York
astern@sidley.com
Categories
Archives
Meet the Team
Andrew W. Stern
astern@sidley.com
Charlotte K. Newell
cnewell@sidley.com
Elizabeth Y. Austin
laustin@sidley.com
Jaime A. Bartlett
jbartlett@sidley.com
Jim Ducayet
jducayet@sidley.com
Yolanda C. Garcia
ygarcia@sidley.com
James Heyworth
jheyworth@sidley.com
Alex J. Kaplan
ajkaplan@sidley.com
Jodi E. Lopez
jlopez@sidley.com
Jon Muenz
jmuenz@sidley.com
Ian M. Ross
iross@sidley.com
Hille R. Sheppard
hsheppard@sidley.com
Heather Benzmiller Sultanian
hsultanian@sidley.com
Robert S. Velevis
rvelevis@sidley.com
Robin E. Wechkin
rwechkin@sidley.com