Justia Corporate Compliance Opinion Summaries

This dispute arose from the merger between plaintiff's start-up company, LaneScan, and VSAC. Plaintiffs complained that the Merger improperly deprived them of their Notes and that a return of capital provision was inappropriately excised from LaneScan's Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement in conjunction with the merger. For damages, plaintiffs requested a return of their original investment in LaneScan with pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and expenses. The court granted plaintiffs' request for a declaratory judgment with respect to the Notes and the Security Agreement, and it reserved decision on plaintiffs' request for an award of legal fees and expenses related to the Notes Claims, to the extent such request was based upon section 2.3 of the Notes and plaintiffs' successful showing on the declaratory judgment claim. The court ruled in favor of defendants with respect to all of plaintiffs' other claims.View "Dawson v. Pittco Capital Partners, L.P." on Justia Law

In resolving this dispute between the controlling member–manager and the minority investors of a Delaware Limited Liability Company (LLC), the Supreme Court interpreted the LLC's governing instrument as a contract that adopted the equitable standard of entire fairness in a conflict of interest transaction between the LLC and its manager. The Court held that the manager violated that contracted-for fiduciary duty by refusing to negotiate with a third-party bidder and then by causing the company to be sold to himself at an unfair price in a flawed auction that the manager himself engineered. The Court affirmed the trial court's damages award solely on contractual grounds, and affirmed the court’s award of attorneys' fees. View "Gatz Properties, LLC v. Auriga Capital Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Attorneys Jordan and Moses formed a two-member partnership in 2003 for an indefinite term and in 2006, Jordan communicated to Moses that he was contemplating ending the relationship, and later that month, stated that he was doing so. At issue was whether the Court of Appeals applied the proper legal analysis to the claim of wrongful dissolution of a partnership. Given that the Court of Appeals cited the disapproved language regarding "new prosperity" under Wilensky v. Blalock, it was unclear whether that court considered the evidence as indicative solely of Jordan's state of mind at the time he decided to dissolve the partnership, with a coincident intent to deprive Moses of some unidentified prospective business opportunity of the partnership, or whether the Court of Appeals considered the above evidence as showing that Jordan intended, through the dissolution, to retain a fee that was misappropriated from partnership funds. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings. View "Jordan v. Moses" on Justia Law

This matter involved allegations of breach of duty made by a common stockholder of a Delaware statutory trust against the trustee of that trust, as well as claims by the stockholder against those entities she alleged aided and abetted the breach. Plaintiff failed to make a pre-suit demand against defendant trustees, who she conceded were independent and disinterested when they took the actions complained of. The court found that plaintiff's claims were derivative and not direct. To survive a motion to dismiss in these circumstances under Section 3816 of the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (DSTA), 12 Del. C. 3816, a plaintiff must plead particularized facts raising a reasonable doubt that the actions of the trustees were taken honestly and in good faith. Because a careful reading of the complaint disclosed that plaintiff failed to so plead, her complaint must be dismissed.View "Protas v. Cavanagh, et al." on Justia Law

Chicago issued plaintiff, Downtown Disposal, notices for violating ordinances pertaining to dumpsters and requiring Downtown Disposal to appear at administrative hearings on various dates. When Downtown Disposal failed to appear, the department of administrative hearings entered default judgments for costs and penalties. Van Tholen, president of Downtown Disposal, moved to set aside the judgments, alleging the company did not receive notice. At a consolidated hearing, Van Tholen advised the hearing officer that for five years, Downtown Disposal had made several attempts to change its address on file with the city, but the city had not changed its records. The hearing officer rejected the argument. Van Tholen filled out and signed pro se complaints for administrative review, using preprinted forms supplied by the clerk’s office. Attorney Boonstra later filed appearances on behalf of Downtown Disposal. The trial court dismissed, holding that actions filed by nonattorneys on behalf of a corporation are null and void. The appellate court reversed and remanded. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. An attorney’s signature was not jurisdictional and its absence did not render the proceedings null and void. Application of the nullity rule would be harsh since no purpose underlying the rule was implicated and an alternative remedy was available. View "Downtown Disposal Servs. Inc. v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Gary Fordham, David Thompson, and Venture Sales, LLC appealed a chancery court order that dissolved Venture Sales pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 79-29-802 (Rev. 2009). Walter Ray Perkins owned 27.7 acres of land. Sometime in the late 90s, he was approached by Fordham and Thompson about a potential business venture involving his land. Perkins, Fordham, and Thompson eventually agreed that Fordham and Thompson would acquire the 438 acres of land that adjoined Perkins's land; the parties would combine their respective land, along with some cash, and form a venture to develop the land. Following the contributions, the operating agreement of Venture Sales was revised to reflect the arrangement. The parties signed the new operating agreement in 2000. In February 2010, Perkins filed an application for judicial dissolution of Venture Sales. Following a trial, the chancellor found that, based on the property's history, the company's inability to get funding for development, and the uncertainty regarding the economic climate in the area, it was not reasonably practicable to carry on the business of Venture Sales. The chancellor therefore ordered the company dissolved. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the chancellor's decision to order the dissolution of Venture Sales was not an abuse of discretion: substantial evidence existed supporting the chancellor's determination that it was not reasonably practicable for Venture Sales to carry on business in conformity with its operating agreement.View "Venture Sales, LLC v. Perkins" on Justia Law

This action arose out of the merger of Answers with A-Team, a wholly-owned subsidiary of AFCV, which in turn, was a portfolio company of the private equity firm Summit (collectively, with A-Team and AFCV, the Buyout Group). Plaintiffs, owners of Answers' stock, filed a purported class action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated public stockholders of Answers. The court concluded that the complaint adequately alleged that all of the members of the Board breached their fiduciary duties. Therefore, the motions to dismiss the First Cause of Action were denied, except as to the disclosure claim that plaintiffs have abandoned. The court also concluded that plaintiffs have adequately pled that the Buyout Group aided and abetted a breach of the Board's fiduciary duty. Therefore, the motions to dismiss the Second Cause of Action were denied. View "In re Answers Corp. Shareholders Litigation" on Justia Law

Peacock Timber Transport, Inc. ("Peacock"), appealed the grant of summary judgment entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court in favor of B.P. Holdings, LLC, William Blount, Derek Parrish, Diamond Homes, LLC, and Sunbelt Environmental, LLC ("the defendants"). Blount and Parrish are partners in Blount Parrish & Company ("BPC"), an investment firm that specializes in public financing. In 2001 Blount formed Diamond Homes to take over unfulfilled contracts that had been entered into by a now bankrupt company, Dencraft Furniture Company; Blount and Parrish owned Diamond Homes in equal portions. In relation to a bond issue closed by BPC, B.P. Holdings had acquired an interest in Dencraft before its bankruptcy. In their efforts to make Diamond Homes succeed, Blount and Parrish had personally guaranteed substantial debt taken on by Dencraft and by Diamond Homes. Diamond Homes eventually "closed down with very few assets, mostly unused raw materials, and several hundred thousand in debt, some of which was guaranteed by [Blount] and/or [Parrish]." Peacock obtained a judgment against B.P. Holdings. Although Blount was a defendant in Peacock's action and although judgment in that action was entered against B.P. Holdings, the judgment stated that "[s]aid verdict was also returned in favor of ... Blount." Parrish was not a party to Peacock's 2003 action. $1,120,000 was deposited in B.P. Holdings' account as compensation for work BPC and others had performed on behalf of Jefferson County in closing a bond issue -- at that time, B.P. Holdings had not yet satisfied the 2003 judgment. The amount of the fee earned by BPC for the Jefferson County transaction was used to pay other consultants; B.P. Holdings did not earn any portion of the $1,120,000 but, according to Parrish's affidavit testimony, was used as a conduit to receive the money and to transfer the money to the appropriate parties. Blount's deposition testimony indicated that he was aware of the 2003 judgment at the time of the transfer but that he "believe[d] [that] the judgment [had been] appealed. So [he] [did not] know if that judgment was a live judgment or not." Peacock then sued B.P. Holdings, Blount, and Parrish seeking to have the transfer set aside as fraudulent. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and remanded the case for the circuit court to determine whether Peacock was entitled to avoid the transfer under the AFTA and whether the corporate veil of B.P. Holdings should be pierced, thereby holding Blount and Parrish personally liable for the transfer. View "Peacock Timber Transport, Inc. v. B.P. Holding, LLC, et al. " on Justia Law

This case involved a challenge to certain issuances of preferred units and convertible debt by a start-up medical products company. The founder, former CEO, and current common member of the company challenged the issuances, claiming they were self-interested transactions designed to benefit the company's directors and venture capital sponsors by unfairly diluting its common members. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts. The court found that plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference that defendants' actions in approving the challenged issuances were grossly negligent or reckless. Therefore, the court granted summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff's duty of care claims. As for the duty of loyalty claims, the court found that defendants failed to establish that the transactions were not self-interested or that they warranted protection under the safe harbor provisions of the company's operating agreement. Therefore, the court denied summary judgment on these claims. Finally, because the court found the operating agreement ambiguous on the issue of whether defendants were permitted to authorize additional common units or new series of units without approval by a majority of the common members, the court denied summary judgment on plaintiff's breach of contract claim under Count VI.View "Zimmerman v. Crothall and Adhezion Biomedical LLC" on Justia Law

This was a class action brought on behalf of the common unit holders of a publicly-traded Delaware limited partnership. In March 2011, the partnership agreed to be acquired by an unaffiliated third party at a premium to its common units' trading price. The merger agreement, which governed the transaction, also provided for a separate payment to the general partner to acquire certain partnership interests it held exclusively. The court concluded that defendants' approval of the merger agreement could not constitute a breach of any contractual or fiduciary duty, regardless of whether the conflict committee's approval was effective. The court also found that the disclosures authorized by defendants were not materially misleading. Therefore, plaintiffs could not succeed on their claims under any reasonable conceivable set of circumstances and defendants' motion to dismiss was granted.View "In re K-Sea Transportation Partners L.P. Unitholders Litigation" on Justia Law