Category: Deal Litigation
Keeping Up With M&A Case Law – Spotlight on Recent Delaware Decisions
The mergers & acquisitions market may wax and wane, but one thing in M&A is consistent from year to year: The Delaware courts issue opinions that impact M&A dealmaking. And this year is certainly no exception – Delaware courts continue to have plenty to say about M&A. While certainly not […]
Delaware Advance Notice Decisions Highlight Move Toward Enhanced Scrutiny of Board Actions, Even Where Conflicts Exist
Like US constitutional law, Delaware courts apply a tiered standard of judicial review to actions taken by the board of directors of corporations: Business judgment deference (rational basis). Enhanced scrutiny under Unocal and Revlon (intermediate scrutiny). The compelling justification standard articulated in Blasius (strict scrutiny). In the constitutional arena, the […]
Delaware (Again!) Requires Upward Adjustment to Deal Price in Appraisal Proceeding Despite Objectively Fair Sales Process
A recent Court of Chancery decision adds yet another wrinkle to the appraisal landscape and the potential for appraisal arbitrage. In BCIM Strategic Value Master Fund LP v. HFF, Inc. (Del. Ch. Feb. 2, 2022), the court found that—despite a sufficiently robust sales process that supported ascribing heavy weight to […]
Keeping Up with Delaware Appraisal Jurisprudence Since Aruba: Deal Price Reigns Supreme, But Will Recent Decision Lead to More Arbitrage?
In a string of seminal decisions from 2017 through 2019 (DFC Global, Dell and Aruba), the Delaware Supreme Court re-shaped appraisal jurisprudence, in each case by overturning the Court of Chancery for failing to give adequate weight to deal price as the most reliable indicator of fair value. In the […]
Have Your Cake, and Closing Too: Invoking Prevention Doctrine, Delaware Chancery Court Grants Seller’s Request for Specific Performance in COVID-Related M&A Dispute
Chancellor McCormick’s opinion in Snow Phipps Group, LLC, et al. v. KCake Acquisition, Inc., et al. (Del. Ch. April 30, 2021) is 125 pages long, but she helpfully digests the holding in a single sentence on page 3: “Chalking up a victory for deal certainty, this post-trial decision resolves all […]
Delaware Puts the Conduct of Business Covenant on Center Stage in COVID-Related M&A Dispute
In the months following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a slew of parties filed lawsuits in US courts relating to M&A transactions that were signed prior to March 2020 and that buyers were seeking to terminate as a result of the pandemic. In these lawsuits, buyers commonly alleged one […]
Pandemic-Related Deal Litigation Highlights Buyer Leverage in Transactions Requiring Debt Financing
In a May blog post we discussed several initial observations regarding the dozens of M&A transactions that were signed prior to March 2020 and that were in jeopardy as a result of COVID-19. Since that post, the Delaware Chancery Court has had the opportunity to consider some preliminary issues relating […]
Long-Term Focus: Preparing for Activism + Takeovers Amid COVID-19 Risks
Last week we cautioned that market volatility resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic could lead to increasing levels of shareholder activism and unsolicited takeover offers. Although the pandemic has raised countless new risks, companies remain vulnerable to activism attacks that focus on short-term objectives and opportunistic takeover bids stemming from the […]
How much disclosure of deal dirty laundry is necessary in order to fully inform a Corwin/Volcano cleansing vote?
In Elizabeth Morrison v. Ray Berry et. al., (dated July 9, 2018), the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Delaware Chancery Court’s dismissal of deal litigation based on obtaining a cleansing vote under Corwin/Volcano because the defendants failed to show “as required under Corwin” that the vote was fully informed. The […]
Ninth Circuit Rules Tender Offer Disclosure Challenges Do Not Require Proof of Intent to Deceive
On April 20, 2018, the Ninth Circuit ruled that shareholder claims for false or misleading tender offer disclosures under Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 require a mere showing of negligence, rather than fraudulent intent (scienter). This holding departs from longstanding rulings by five other federal appeals […]