New case spotlights the work product doctrine
The work product doctrine, which is incorporated into federal discovery Rule 26(b)(3)(A), protects an attorney’s notes, memos, and any writing prepared “in anticipation of litigation” from discovery by the opposing party.
Palkon v. Maffei
Two minority shareholders challenged the conversion of two Delaware corporations into Nevada corporations with the intent to reduce potential liability for directors and officers, with the controlling shareholder casting the deciding vote. The business rule did not apply since the controller received a nonratable benefit.
Delaware Chancery Court Determines That Reducing Potential Personal Liability Exposure Through a Change in Corporate Domicile Constituted a Nonratable Benefit
Two minority shareholders challenged the conversion of two Delaware corporations into Nevada corporations with the intent to reduce potential liability for directors and officers, with the controlling shareholder casting the deciding vote. The business rule did not apply since the controller received a nonratable benefit.
Boston Ret. Sys. v. Uber Techs., Inc.
The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel production of 28 unredacted documents PricewaterhouseCoopers produced. The defendant, Uber Technologies Inc., asserted that the work product doctrine shielded the redacted portions of the documents from discovery. The court agreed and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to compel.
U.S. District Court (California) Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Documents in a Case Involving Uber
The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel production of 28 unredacted documents PricewaterhouseCoopers produced. The defendant, Uber Technologies Inc., asserted that the work product doctrine shielded the redacted portions of the documents from discovery. The court agreed and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to compel.
In re Tesla Motors Stockholder Litig.
At issue was a 2016 acquisition of Solar City Corp. by Tesla. Some Tesla shareholders claimed that Musk caused Tesla to overpay for Solar through his alleged domination and control of Tesla’s board. The primary focus of the shareholders was that Solar was insolvent at the time of the acquisition. The court applied the “entire fairness” standard. The Court of Chancery found the acquisition to be “entirely fair.” The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery decision.
Delaware Supreme Court Upholds ‘Entire Fairness’ of a Tesla Acquisition
At issue was a 2016 acquisition of Solar City Corp. by Tesla. Some Tesla shareholders claimed that Musk caused Tesla to overpay for Solar through his alleged domination and control of Tesla’s board. The primary focus of the shareholders was that Solar was insolvent at the time of the acquisition. The court applied the “entire fairness” standard. The Court of Chancery found the acquisition to be “entirely fair.” The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery decision.
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition
April 2023 Hardcover, PDF (501 pages)
Business Valuation Resources, LLC
Donnelly v. ProPharma Grp. Topco LLC
The plaintiff sued for breach of contracts relating to ProPharma’s offer to have Donnelly join the board in 2016 and for not paying him for his incentive equity shares, implemented in 2017, at fair market value. Each side engaged an experienced business valuation expert to opine as to the fair market value of the equity shares. Each side now moved to exclude the testimony of the other side’s expert. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied the motions of both sides and allowed both experts to testify.
In a Breach of Contract Suit, the U.S. District Court Denies Motions to Exclude Valuation Experts
The plaintiff sued for breach of contracts relating to ProPharma’s offer to have Donnelly join the board in 2016 and for not paying him for his incentive equity shares, implemented in 2017, at fair market value. Each side engaged an experienced business valuation expert to opine as to the fair market value of the equity shares. Each side now moved to exclude the testimony of the other side’s expert. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied the motions of both sides and allowed both experts to testify.
Jayawardena v. Daka
This case involved a shareholder dispute among four shareholders of a physician practice (Ferncreek Cardiology PA) and two real estate LLCs. There were buy-sell provisions for each of the three entities. As to Ferncreek, the buy-sell provision was essentially an increase in book value provision, as the regular account determined in “good faith.” Payment provisions were also included in the agreement. The two real estate LLCs had a buy-sell provision that provided for either a single agreed-upon appraiser or three appraisers if no agreement was made. The plaintiff made the decision to exit the practice, triggering the buy-sell provisions. The parties were not able to agree on certain provisions as they worked through the buy-sell agreements. The trial court entered partial summary judgments on some claims of both parties. This appeal dealt with these partial summary judgments and was filed by the plaintiff.
North Carolina Appeals Court Affirms Decisions on Value of Businesses Under Buy-Sell Agreements
This case involved a shareholder dispute among four shareholders of a physician practice (Ferncreek Cardiology PA) and two real estate LLCs. There were buy-sell provisions for each of the three entities. As to Ferncreek, the buy-sell provision was essentially an increase in book value provision, as the regular account determined in “good faith.” Payment provisions were also included in the agreement. The two real estate LLCs had a buy-sell provision that provided for either a single agreed-upon appraiser or three appraisers if no agreement was made. The plaintiff made the decision to exit the practice, triggering the buy-sell provisions. The parties were not able to agree on certain provisions as they worked through the buy-sell agreements. The trial court entered partial summary judgments on some claims of both parties. This appeal dealt with these partial summary judgments and was filed by the plaintiff.
Delaware Chancery Court Cites Differences in Cash-Flow Assumptions as Cause for Large Discrepancy in Value
In this appraisal action to determine fair value, petitioner Ramcell Inc. exercised its appraisal rights in asking for a statutory appraisal of the value of its 155 shares of Jackson Cellular Telephone Co. Inc. The respondent, Alltel Corp. (dba Verizon Wireless), had converted the 155 shares at a value of $2,963 per share. “Respondent’s expert opines that Jackson’s per-share value was $5,690.92 at the time of the merger. Petitioner’s expert has offered two appraisal ranges, opining that, at the high end, Jackson’s per-share value was $36,016 on the merger date.” Both parties agreed that the DCF method should be the sole method for determining the value. The Delaware Chancery Court, using that method, determined the fair value of each share at $11,464.57. The court noted that the disparity in the parties’ valuations was due to disagreements as to the inputs to the DCF model and how they should be calculated.
Ramcell, Inc. v. Alltel Corp.
In this appraisal action to determine fair value, petitioner Ramcell Inc. exercised its appraisal rights in asking for a statutory appraisal of the value of its 155 shares of Jackson Cellular Telephone Co. Inc. The respondent, Alltel Corp. (dba Verizon Wireless), had converted the 155 shares at a value of $2,963 per share. “Respondent’s expert opines that Jackson’s per-share value was $5,690.92 at the time of the merger. Petitioner’s expert has offered two appraisal ranges, opining that, at the high end, Jackson’s per-share value was $36,016 on the merger date.” Both parties agreed that the DCF method should be the sole method for determining the value. The Delaware Chancery Court, using that method, determined the fair value of each share at $11,464.57. The court noted that the disparity in the parties’ valuations was due to disagreements as to the inputs to the DCF model and how they should be calculated.
Secret witnesses may appear in overvaluation case
In a New Jersey class action, plaintiff shareholders of publicly held Ascena Retail Group alleged that the company misrepresented the value of its goodwill and trade names to inflate the stock price artificially.
In re Ascena Retail Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig.
In this securities putative class action litigation, plaintiff shareholders alleged that the defendants (Ascena) misrepresented the value of Ascena’s goodwill and trade names in order to inflate Ascena’s stock price artificially. In June 2017, Ascena announced an impairment charge to those assets of $1.3 billion “causing Ascena's already-declining share price to fall precipitously. Ascena ultimately declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy in July 2020.” The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to plead material misrepresentation or scienter or both. The court granted the motion to dismiss but allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint.
New Jersey U.S. District Court Dismisses Plaintiffs’ Complaint That Public Company Defendant Overvalued Its Goodwill
In this securities putative class action litigation, plaintiff shareholders alleged that the defendants (Ascena) misrepresented the value of Ascena’s goodwill and trade names in order to inflate Ascena’s stock price artificially. In June 2017, Ascena announced an impairment charge to those assets of $1.3 billion “causing Ascena's already-declining share price to fall precipitously. Ascena ultimately declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy in July 2020.” The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to plead material misrepresentation or scienter or both. The court granted the motion to dismiss but allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint.
SEC v. Bluepoint Inv. Counsel
This case dealt with a suit by the SEC against the defendants for alleged violations of the Securities Act. The ruling digested here was a short ruling on motions in limine. The key motion considered here was a motion to exclude evidence of Amiran’s value not known by GTIF (a plaintiff’s entity) when valuations were prepared. The court denied the motion to exclude the SEC’s expert on the basis that she used information that was known or knowable. The court noted that her assumptions can be challenged on cross-examination.
U.S. District Court Rules on Known or Knowable Issue and Allows Testimony of SEC Valuation Expert—Can Be Challenged on Cross-Examination
This case dealt with a suit by the SEC against the defendants for alleged violations of the Securities Act. The ruling digested here was a short ruling on motions in limine. The key motion considered here was a motion to exclude evidence of Amiran’s value not known by GTIF (a plaintiff’s entity) when valuations were prepared. The court denied the motion to exclude the SEC’s expert on the basis that she used information that was known or knowable. The court noted that her assumptions can be challenged on cross-examination.
In Re Cellular Tel. P’ship Litig.
In this coordinated action involving 13 partnerships that were involved in freeze-out transactions by AT&T of minority shareholders, AT&T breached its fiduciary duties and effectuated the freeze-out through an unfair process and by paying an unfair price. The freeze-out was subject to the entire fairness standard of review. AT&T bore the burden of proving that the freeze-out was entirely fair to the minority partners. AT&T failed in that proof and thereby sought to capture future value for itself. AT&T did not employ any procedures that insured fairness to the minority partners. The lead partner of the valuation firm had a long-standing relationship with AT&T, and internal AT&T personnel influenced the outcome of the valuation. The court determined the fair value of the interest as a remedy to the situation.
Delaware Chancery Court Rejects Partnership Valuation in a Freeze-Out as Unfair to Minority Partners
In this coordinated action involving 13 partnerships that were involved in freeze-out transactions by AT&T of minority shareholders, AT&T breached its fiduciary duties and effectuated the freeze-out through an unfair process and by paying an unfair price. The freeze-out was subject to the entire fairness standard of review. AT&T bore the burden of proving that the freeze-out was entirely fair to the minority partners. AT&T failed in that proof and thereby sought to capture future value for itself. AT&T did not employ any procedures that insured fairness to the minority partners. The lead partner of the valuation firm had a long-standing relationship with AT&T, and internal AT&T personnel influenced the outcome of the valuation. The court determined the fair value of the interest as a remedy to the situation.
In re Multiplan Corp. Stockholders Litig.
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.
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.
New case to address goodwill impairment dispute
Goodwill impairment does not appear often in litigation, but a court case in Tennessee will go forward after a judge ruled not to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims.
Cheng v. Coastal Lb Assocs.
This case concerned the purchase of minority interests in a California limited liability company under the Corporate Code concerning the purchase of these interests in lieu of a liquidation of the company. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order confirming the purchase of these interests at a discounted fair market value.