In re Multiplan Corp. Stockholders Litig.

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
January 3, 2022
7389 Business Services, NEC
securities litigation
impairment, breach of fiduciary duty, disclosure, entire fairness, controlling shareholder, redemption, standard of review, warrants, shareholders, Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)

In re Multiplan Corp. Stockholders Litig.
2022 Del. Ch. LEXIS 1; 2022 WL 24060
US
State Court
Delaware
Court of Chancery
Lori Will, Vice Chancellor

Summary

This case dealt with a motion to dismiss the claims of the plaintiffs (by the defendants) in a stockholder suit against a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC). The claims were primarily that the plaintiffs’ claims were derivative, which failed to plead demand futility and that the business judgment rule applied. Many of the parties’ arguments centered around unique characteristics of a SPAC. In concluding that the entire fairness standard of review applied, the Delaware Chancery Court noted that “the fact that a reasonably conceivable impairment of public stockholders’ redemption rights—in the form of materially misleading disclosures—has been pleaded in this case.” The case was to go forward against all but two defendants.
In re Multiplan Corp. Stockholders Litig.
PDF, Size: 405 KB

See Also

Delaware Chancery Court Allows Breach of Fiduciary Suit to Move Forward on a SPAC

This case dealt with a motion to dismiss the claims of the plaintiffs (by the defendants) in a stockholder suit against a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC). The claims were primarily that the plaintiffs’ claims were derivative, which failed to plead demand futility and that the business judgment rule applied. Many of the parties’ arguments centered around unique characteristics of a SPAC. In concluding that the entire fairness standard of review applied, the Delaware Chancery Court noted that “the fact that a reasonably conceivable impairment of public stockholders’ redemption rights—in the form of materially misleading disclosures—has been pleaded in this case.” The case was to go forward against all but two defendants.