In In re Trados Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 1512-VCL, 2013 Del. Ch. LEXIS (Del. Ch. Aug. 16, 2013), Vice Chancellor Laster of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware resolved the long-pending dispute involving the 2005 sale of Trados Inc. (“Trados”) to SDL plc for approximately $60 million. The Court held that the transaction, which benefited the preferred stockholders and certain executives of Trados but left the common stockholders with nothing, was procedurally flawed but ultimately fair to the company’s stockholders. The Court reviewed the decision of the board of directors approving the sale under the “entire fairness standard” which is the most stringent standard of review in Delaware. The decision serves as a cogent reminder to private equity and venture capital investors that they should run a proper sale process when planning a liquidity event in particular if certain constituents of the corporation will not benefit from the liquidation.Continue Reading Delaware Chancery Court Finds Merger “Entirely Fair” to Common Stockholders Despite the Merger Leaving Common Stockholders With No Consideration for Their Shares

In Dennis v. Hart, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15648 (9th Cir. July 31, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiffs’ “say-on-pay” shareholder derivative suits alleging breach of fiduciary duty were improperly removed to federal court, vacated the district court’s decisions and dismissed the parties’ cross-appeals for lack of jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit held that the federal court did not have jurisdiction to hear the action because defendants had held an advisory vote in compliance with the federal Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78n-1, and plaintiffs had only alleged state law causes of action. This holding indicates that challenges to board actions in response to “say-on-pay” votes are not enough to confer federal jurisdiction without additional, specific violations of federal law.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Vacates Dismissal and Remands Shareholder Derivative “Say-on-Pay” Suits to California State Court

In SEC v. Das, No. 12-2780, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15327 (8th Cir. July 29, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s delivery of jury instructions applying a negligence standard to alleged violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”) and Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rules 14a-9, 13b2-1 and 13b2-2. This decision indicates that it is becoming easier for corporate officers to be held liable for violations of Section 14(a), Rule 14a-9, Rule 13b2-1 and Rule 13b2-2.Continue Reading Eighth Circuit Applies Negligence Standard to SEC Enforcement Claims for Violations of Section 14(a) and Rules 14a-9, 13b2-1 and 13b2-2

On September 21, 2012, S.B. 323, the California Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (known as the RULLCA), was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown and is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2014. As described in more detail in the prior March 22, 2013 post California’s Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act, the RULLCA entirely replaces the Beverly-Killea Limited Liability Company Act and revises certain rules for formation and operation of Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) in the state of California. There is a possibility, however, that the RULLCA will be modified prior to January 1, 2014 and thus the law governing LLCs may still be subject to change and clarification prior to its effective date.

Continue Reading Potential Challenges Associated With California’s Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act Scheduled to Take Effect on January 1, 2014

Cyber security, data loss, hacking and schemes to steal personal information and assets electronically are all over the news daily. Companies are the primary targets of these actions since they accumulate information, store it and use it for their internal efforts, for their clients and in interacting with the world outside. In an effort to prevent problems before they arise, and to be in the best possible posture should their company become a victim of these damaging events, below is a list of questions that general counsel, senior management and corporate directors should be asking of themselves and their companies:Continue Reading Cybersecurity: 36 Questions Every Director Should Ask

In Sun Capital Partners III, L.P. et al. v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, No. 12-2312, 2013 WL 3814985 (1st Cir. July 24, 2013), the First Circuit held that a private equity fund could be liable for its bankrupt portfolio company’s withdrawal liability imposed under Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”) on the basis of the private equity fund constituting a “trade or business” under ERISA’s controlled group rules. By way of background, ERISA generally requires employers that withdraw from a union-sponsored pension plan (also known as a “multiemployer plan”) to pay their proportionate share of the plan’s funding obligations for vested but unfunded benefits accrued by the employer’s union employees at the time of the withdrawal. The withdrawal liability provisions under Title IV of ERISA are intended to protect remaining employers that participate in a multiemployer plan from being saddled with the underfunded pension liabilities attributable to the employees of employers that withdraw from the plan. Under ERISA’s controlled group rules, withdrawal liability imposed under Title IV of ERISA is shared jointly and severally among a contributing employer and each “trade or business” under common control with the contributing employer.Continue Reading First Circuit Finds that a Private Equity Fund Can Be Liable for the Pension Obligations of its Portfolio Company

The recent United States Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor invalidated Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which had defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The ruling greatly expands the estate planning techniques available for married same-sex couples who live in a state like California that recognizes same-sex marriage. These include:
Continue Reading United States v. Windsor Creates New Estate Planning Opportunities For Married Same-Sex Couples

The final rules for eliminating the prohibition against general solicitation and general advertising in Rule 506 and Rule 144A offerings will become effective on September 23, 2013, which is 60 days after the July 24, 2013 date they were published in the Federal Register. The rules prohibiting certain “bad actors” from participating in securities offerings conducted in reliance on Rule 506 also become effective September 23, 2013. For more information on these final rules, please see our prior blog entry here. For more information on the JOBS Act and Rule 506, please see our prior blog entry here.
Continue Reading Rules Eliminating the Prohibition on General Solicitation for Rule 506 and Rule 144A Offerings Become Effective September 23, 2013

In In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, No. 11-2998-CV, 2013 WL 3214588 (2d Cir. June 27, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the tolling rule established by the United States Supreme Court in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), which suspends the applicable statute of limitations for putative class members upon the commencement of a class action, does not apply to the three-year statute of repose contained in Section 13 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 77m. The Court also held that the “relation back” doctrine of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) does not permit putative class members to intervene in the class action as named parties to revive claims that were previously dismissed for want of jurisdiction. This decision thus holds that litigants cannot circumvent Section 13’s statute of repose for 1933 Act claims by invoking American Pipe or Rule 15(c).
Continue Reading Second Circuit Rejects the Application of American Pipe’s Tolling Rule and Rule 15(c)’s “Relation Back” Doctrine to the Three-Year Statute of Repose for Section 11 and 12(a) Claims

In Boilermakers Local 154 Retirement Fund v. Chevron Corp., C.A. No. 7220-CD, 2013 WL 3191981 (Del. Ch. June 25, 2013), the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed facial challenges to the validity of corporate bylaws that restrict the forum where corporate governance litigation may be brought. The court rejected the argument that the bylaws were statutorily invalid because they went beyond the board’s authority under the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”). The court also rejected the argument that the bylaws were contractually invalid under The Bremen v. Zapata Offshore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972), which holds that unreasonable forum selections clauses are unenforceable. This decision undoubtedly will result in the increased promulgation of such bylaws, greatly limiting (if not eliminating) the risk and cost of identical stockholder suits challenging board actions pursued in multiple jurisdictions.Continue Reading Delaware Court of Chancery Upheld Enforceability of Bylaws with Forum Selection Clauses Unilaterally Adopted by Board of Directors