The D & O Diary : Directors and Officers Liability and Insurance : The D & O Diary : Kevin LaCroix : Securities Laws, Corporate Fraud, D & O Litigation

One of the more vexing litigation problems to emerge recently has been the proliferation of multi-jurisdiction litigation, where corporate defendants are forced to litigate essentially the same claim in multiple courts at the same time. This problem is a particular issue in the context of M&A litigation, although not contained to those kinds of lawsuits. In the midst of what has become essentially a jurisdictional competition, Delaware’s courts have tried to establish themselves as the preferred and presumptive court for corporate litigation.

As discussed here, in June 2012, in a high-profile and controversial example of the efforts of Delaware courts to control litigation involving Delaware corporations, Vice Chancellor Travis Laster refused to give effect to the judgment of a California federal court dismissing a derivative suit parallel to the case pending in Delaware.

However, in a harsh rebuke to Laster, on April 4, 2013, the Delaware Supreme Court entered an opinion reversing the Chancery Court ruling and recognizing the California federal court’s prior dismissal. The Supreme Court’s opinion represents a recognition that principles of federalism and comity require Delaware’s courts to respect the preclusive effects of the California court’s judgment.

Background

In September 2010, Allergan pled guilty to a criminal misdemeanor for misbranding its Botox product and paid a total of $600 million in civil and criminal fines. Various plaintiffs’ firms filed multiple derivative suits both in federal court in California and in Delaware Chancery Court. The California cases went forward more quickly, while in Delaware, at least one of the plaintiffs sought to pursue a books and records action against the company, in order to obtain further information pertinent to the company’s board’s actions. The Delaware plaintiff used the information and documentation to amend its complaint. The California plaintiffs ultimately also obtained the same information and documentation and supplemented their complaint as well.

The defendants moved to dismiss the California action on the ground that the plaintiffs had not made a demand on the Allergan board to pursue the claims, nor had they established demand futility. The California court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The defendants then sought to have the Delaware action dismissed, arguing that the collateral estoppel effect of the California dismissal was preclusive of the demand futility issue.

In an extensive June 11, 2012 opinion (here), Vice Chancellor Laster firmly rejected the suggestion that the California court’s prior ruling compelled him to dismiss the Delaware action. He relied on two grounds in rejecting the argument that the California judgment is preclusive; first, he found that the California judgment was preclusive only as to the individual California shareholder plaintiffs, and second, he found that the California plaintiff did not adequately represent Allergan. The defendants pursued an interlocutory appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court.

The April 3, 2013 Opinion

In an April 4, 2013 opinion written by Justice Carolyn Berger for the full Court, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Chancery Court’s ruling, holding that the Vice Chancellor had erred with respect to both aspects of his ruling. The Supreme Court concluded that the California judgment was preclusive of the Delaware case and also rejected Vice Chancellor Laster’s conclusion that the California plaintiffs were inadequate representatives.

In rejecting the Chancery Court’s conclusion that the California judgment was not preclusive, the Supreme Court noted that the U.S. Constitution’s full faith and credit clause requires courts to give full force and effect to the judgments of other jurisdiction’s courts, including the judgments of federal courts. Vice Chancellor Laster’s refusal to give effect to the California judgment was based on a “mistaken premise” that the question of the effect of the California judgment was controlled by “demand futility” law controlled by Delaware legal principles.

The Supreme Court stated that “once a court of competent jurisdiction has issued a final judgment … a successive case is governed by principles of collateral estoppel, under the full faith and credit doctrine, and not by demand futility law,” adding that “in the Court of Chancery, the motion to dismiss based on collateral estoppel was about federalism, comity, and finality. It should have been addressed exclusively on that basis.’  Delaware’s “undisputed interest” in governing the internal affairs of its corporations “must yield to the stronger national interests that all state and federal courts have in respecting each other’s judgments.”

The Supreme Court also rejected the Chancery Court’s conclusion that the California plaintiffs were inadequate plaintiffs. The Supreme Court noted that Vice Chancellor Laster had “sua sponte announced and applied an irrebutable presumption that derivative plaintiffs who file their complaints without seeking books and records very shortly after the announcement of a ‘corporate trauma’ are inadequate representatives.” The Supreme Court said that “we reject the ‘fast filer’ irrebutable presumption of inadequacy.” The Court noted that “undoubtedly there will be cases where a fast filing stockholder also is an inadequate representative” but that “there is no record support for the trial court’s premise that stockholders who filed quickly, without bringing a Section 220 books and records action, are a priori acting on behalf of their law firms instead of the corporation.” The Court added that although it “understands the trial court’s concerns about fast filers,” the remedies “for the problems they create should be directed at the lawyers, not the stockholder plaintiffs or their complaints.”

Discussion

As I discussed at the time, Vice Chancellor Laster’s opinion in this case was a broadside against certain segments of the plaintiffs’ bar, who, in his view, rush to file actions in other jurisdictions’ courts, to the detriment of litigants that proceeded more deliberately by first pursuing a books and records action in Delaware court and then in due course filing an action in Delaware based on the results of the books and records search.

While Laster’s effort to create a Delaware-centric solution to the chaos of multi-jurisdiction litigation is understandable, it put the defendants in the unacceptable position not only have having to face a multi-front war,  but also having to fight the war in piecemeal fashion, rather than trying to move toward a single, comprehensive solution.

The Supreme Court’s opinion does not directly take on the problems arising from multi-jurisdiction litigation, but merely recognizes that basic principles of “federalism, comity and finality” required that the judgment of California court be given full force and effect. However, the Supreme Court did reject the Chancery Court’s suggestion that the plaintiffs in the California case were inadequate representatives simply because they failed to first pursue a books and records action before launching their suit. As Alison Frankel noted in an April 5, 2013 post on her On the Case blog (here), the Supreme Court Opinion “puts an end to Chancery’s recent insistence that shareholder lawyers seek corporate books and records before filing derivative complaints.”

In effect, Laster’s Chancery Court opinion seemingly embodied a belief that both that Delaware’s courts should be in charge, and that if the Delaware courts were in charge, an orderly process would replace the unseemly spectacle of multi-jurisdiction litigation. There is no doubt that the curse of multi-jurisdiction litigation imposes enormous, duplicative costs on the litigation targets. But Vice Chancellor’s Delaware-centric manifesto threatened to exacerbate the problem rather than solve it, presenting as it did the prospect for multiple conflicting rulings in different jurisdictions on identical issues.  The Supreme Court’s opinion suggests a recognition that the curse of multiple-jurisdiction litigation won’t be resolved by Delaware’s courts grabbing authority or disdaining other courts. 

In its April 4, 2013 client alert (here), the Wachtell Lipton law firm noted that the Delaware Supreme Court’s ruling “makes clear that Delaware is sensitive to the unfairness that multiple parallel lawsuits can work on corporations and their directors and is prepared to enforce scrupulously rules of interstate comity that limit this mischief.”

The Delaware Supreme Court's decision is a welcome outcome for corporate litigants. As the Wilson Sonsini law firm noted in its April 2013 client alert about the decision, the ruling "may calm the concerns of those facing multi-forum shareholder litigation that a resolution on the merits in one forum will be given preclusive effect in Delaware (and presumably other jurisdictions)."

Just the same, though defendants undoubtedly will welcome the Delaware Supreme Court’s ruling, it will not eliminate the problem of multiple-jurisdiction litigation. The unseemly scramble of competing claimants to pursue claims against companies experiencing adverse developments or involved in corporate transactions will continue. The solution to the problem of multi-jurisdiction litigation has been and remains particularly elusive.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the current global economy, many companies have operations and assets in far-flung corners of the world. These geographically dispersed arrangements have a number of implications for the concerned companies. According to a recent decision from the Delaware Court of Chancery, the arrangements may also have important implications of these companies’ outside directors, at least for those companies organized under Delaware law. These implications could include heightened responsibilities and even heightened liability exposures that may come as a surprise to some outside directors.

These issues arose at a February 6, 2013 Delaware Court of Chancery hearing before Chancellor Leo E. Strine, Jr. in a shareholders’ derivative lawsuit involving Puda Coal, a Delaware corporation with significant operations in China. As a clear from the hearing transcript (a copy of which can be found here, Hat Tip to the Delaware Corporate & Commercial Litigation Blog) the parties at the hearing conceded that one of the Chinese members of the board –and at the time of the hearing, the sole remaining board director – had, in the words of Chancellor Strine “stolen” significant assets from the company, and that the “theft” had gone undetected for an extended period of time. (Further background regarding these events can be found here.) After the misappropriation of corporate assets was discovered (apparently by an online analyst) and after the two outside company directors who were represented at the hearing were unable to get answers to their questions, the two individual directors had resigned.

The shareholders’ derivative suit had been filed before the two individuals had resigned. The two individuals moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to make the requisite demand on the company’s board, and also arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Chancellor Strine largely denied the defendants’ motions, granting the motion (with leave to amend) solely with respect to the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims. Chancellor Strine was particularly contemptuous of the defendants’ demand failure arguments, given that upon uncovering the problems at the company, the individuals did not take up the suit against the wrongdoer, but rather quit, which had the effect of leaving the alleged wrongdoer as the sole remaining director.

In rejecting the defendants’ motion in this regard, Chancellor Strine called the defendants’ arguments “astonishing” particularly since the if the motion were to be granted “control of the entire lawsuit” belongs to the remaining director’s determination. Among other things, Chancellor Strine invoked Kafka to characterize the result that the individual defendants sought in their demand failure argument.

The far more significant portion of Chancellor Strine’s discussion of the defendants’ dismissal motion has to do with his rejection of the defendants’ arguments that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim. In rejecting the defendants’ arguments, Chancellor Strine articulated a vision of responsibility for independent directors of companies with overseas operations or assets that I think might come as a shock to many outside directors; he said that

If you’re going to have a company domiciled for purposes of its relations with investors in Delaware and the assets and operations of the company are situated in China that, in order for you to meet your obligation of good faith, you better have your physical body in China an awful lot.  You better have in place a system of controls   to make sure that you know that you actually own the assets. You better have the language skills to navigate the environment in which the company is operating. You better have retained accountants and lawyers who are fit to the task of maintaining a system of controls over a public company

…

This is a very troubling case in terms that, the use of a Delaware entity in something along these lines. Independent directors who step into these situations involving essentially the fiduciary oversight of assets in other parts of the world have a duty not to be dummy directors. I’m not mixing up care in the sense of negligence with loyalty here, in the sense of our duty of loyalty. I’m talking about the loyalty issue of understanding that if assets are in Russia, if they’re in Nigeria, if they’re in the Middle East, if they’re in China, that you’re not going to be able to sit in your home in the U.S. and do a conference call four times a year and discharge your duty of loyalty. That won’t cut it.

…

If it’s a situation where, frankly, all the flow of information is in the language that I don’t understand, in a culture where there’s, frankly, not legal strictures or structures or ethical mores yet that may be advanced to the level where I’m comfortable? It would be very difficult if I didn’t know the language, the tools. You better be careful there. You have a duty to think.

Chancellor’s comments appear in a hearing transcript and not in written order, but as Francis Pileggi notes in a February 19, 2013 post on his Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog about the ruling in the Puda Coal case (here), in Delaware courts, transcript rulings can be cited in the briefs.

As Tariq Mundiya of the Willkie Farr law firm noted in a February 23, 2013 post about the case on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation (here), Chancellor Strine’s ruling “highlights the risks and challenges that may exist for directors of Delaware corporations with significant foreign assets or operations.”

Chancellor Strine articulates a very broad vision of independent directors’ oversight responsibilities for Delaware companies’ foreign operations or assets. The expectation that independent directors physically visit and inspect the foreign operations and also speak the local language in the foreign locations may come as something of a shock to many outside directors. These days many companies have operations in multiple companies; larger companies have operations around the world. Chancellor Strine’s expectation that outside directors must be both regularly physically present and culturally literate in the each of the locations of the company’s overseas operations may represent a vision of board responsibility that likely would exceed the expectations of many company directors.

As if that were not enough, Chancellor Strine also had words about the independent directors’ decisions to resign. As he said, “there are some circumstances in which running away does not immunize you. In fact it involves a breach of fiduciary duty.” He added that “if these directors are going to eventually testify that tat the time that they quit they believed that the chief executive officer of the company had stolen assets out from under the company, and they did not cause the company to sue or do anything, but they simply quit, I’m not sure that that’s a decision that itself is not a breach of fiduciary duty. And that’s another reason for sustaining the complaint.”

To be sure, this case involved admittedly extreme circumstances. And arguably Strine’s comments could be limited to cases in which a company’s assets or operations are exclusively concentrated in a single foreign country. But the sweeping vision of independent directors’ oversight responsibilities for their companies’ overseas operations -- premised as it is on the presumption that it is the job of the directors to try to prevent what happened here – arguably could require a complete overhaul of the way that the boards of global companies think about their directors’ responsibilities. At a minimum, the requirements for a regular physical presence and a cultural literacy in the locations where a Delaware company has operations or assets may far exceed the expectations of many independent board members. If Strine’s vision of board oversight responsibilities were to become established and come to represent the Delaware standard, it could require a substantial revision of the way that many Delaware boards and directors think about their board responsibilities.  

At a minium, I expect that Chancellor Strine's comments will launch a discussion on the question of directors' roles in overseeing a company's far-flung operations. The hot topic for directors used to be financial literacy. Perhaps the question will soon become language fluency and cultural literacy.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One feature of the recent changing mix of corporate and securities litigation has been the rise in the filing of follow-on derivative lawsuits in the wake of securities class action lawsuit filings. As Wilson Sonsini partner Boris Feldman recently noted, “like a moth drawn to a candle,” the derivative bar watches class action filings and “just cannot resist cribbing the class action complaints, even though the company’s setback does not suggest any breach of fiduciary duty.”

The rise in the number of follow-on derivative lawsuits seems to be attributable to the efforts of smaller or newer plaintiffs’ firms to try to get a piece of the action. The problem with these kinds of cases is that they just compound the defendant company’s litigation expense and threaten distraction from or even prejudice to the company’s defense in the class action suit – all as a result of a derivative action supposedly brought on the company’s behalf.

One way to try to reduce at least some of the potential evils associate with these follow-on suits would seem to be to stay the derivative suit until the securities suit has concluded. In many cases, the derivative plaintiffs agree to a stay. The question whether the court itself should order a stay of one of these follow-on suits was addressed in a January 27, 2012 Delaware Chancery Court opinion (here) in a derivative action involving SunPower Corporation.

The litigation arose after SunPower announced that it would have to restate its prior financials due to the underreporting of expenses at its Philippine manufacturing operations. Following these announcements, the company and several of its directors and officers were named as defendants in securities class action lawsuits (later consolidated) in the Northern District of California. The consolidated class action case was initially dismissed without prejudice, but the class action plaintiffs’ amended pleading survived the defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss. The court’s December 19, 2011 denial of the defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss can be found here.

Following the filing of the securities class action lawsuits, additional plaintiffs filed five derivative lawsuits in California state court, seeking indemnification from the individual defendants for any expenses the company incurs in the class actions. Those five California derivative actions were stayed by agreement.

However, yet another plaintiff filed a separate derivative action in Delaware Chancery Court, after having first exercised his rights to inspect the company’s books and records. The Delaware plaintiff contended that his access to confidential company documents has shown that the company had incurred million of dollars of costs, even before the class action lawsuits were filed, due to the accounting issues with the company’s Philippine operations.

The defendants moved to stay the Delaware plaintiffs’ action, arguing that proceeding with the derivative suit would prejudice the company’s defense in the securities suit. The defendants also argued that because the relief the Delaware derivative plaintiff seeks is largely contingent on the outcome of the securities suit, it would be premature for the derivative suit to proceed. The derivative plaintiff argued that because his filings were under seal, the defendants overstated the prejudice, He also argued that the because of the $8 million in expenses the defendants had already incurred in connection with the restatement, there were noncontingent damages ripe for adjudication.

In granting the defendants’ motion for a stay, Vice Chancellor Donald F. Parsons, Jr. concentrated on the overlap between the factual allegations in the class action lawsuit and in the derivative lawsuit. Both actions accused the individual defendants of having knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing or having ignored red flags. But, Parsons noted, the derivative plaintiff “makes these arguments on behalf of the corporation while the Securities Class Action plaintiffs make them against SunPower.”

Parsons said that “it is not practical for two actors … to pursue divergent strategies in two simultaneous actions on behalf of the same entity.” As a result, “simultaneous prosecution of both actions” would be “unduly complicated, inefficient and unnecessary.” The prosecution of the derivative suit would involve “taking actions designed to refute the merits of the Company’s defense of the Securities Action and vice versa.” This creates a “significant risk that the prosecution of [the derivative suit] will prejudice SunPower.” Parsons notes there is also a significant risk of inconsistent rulings.

Parsons also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the derivative suit was ripe for adjudication because at least a portion of the claimed damages are not contingent. Because the fill extent of the alleged damages cannot be known until the class action is resolved, “the wisdom as a practical matter of treating the indemnification claims as unripe until the liability for which the indemnification is sought is determined is plain.” Because the derivative claims cannot be adjudicated in full, the sensible ordering of events is for the class action to go first.

Accordingly, Parsons ordered the derivative suit to be stayed indefinitely, allowing the plaintiff to seek to have the stay lifted upon the earlier of the final dismissal of the securities class action or December 31, 2012.

Discussion

As discussed in a January 27, 2012 memorandum from the Morrison Foerster law firm (here), Vice Chancellor Parsons ruling provides “the clearest articulation to date of the danger follow-on derivative actions poste to corporations on whose behalf they are supposedly brought.” The ruling, according to the memo, “should prove a valuable guide to courts” trying to manage simultaneous derivative and class action litigation in the future.

The larger context for the problems Vice Chancellor Parson addressed is the increasing proliferation of conflicting litigation surrounding any type of corporate event. The phenomenon of multiple class action lawsuit filings following a stock drop has long been part of the corporate and litigation scene. These kinds of cases are more easily consolidated and managed. What has changed is increasing numbers of follow on derivative lawsuits, often, as here, filed in multiple jurisdictions, and which are not so easily consolidated or coordinated.

Just to quantify this problem and to proviide a little bit of historical context, in its 2011 securities class action litigation report, NERA Economic Consulting reported that the number of settled securities class action cases that were accompanied by parallel derivataive lawsuits has grown dramatically in recent years. NERA reports that prior to 2002 (when the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted) the number of settled cases that were accompanied by a parallel derivative action ranged between 11 and 22 percent a year. However, from 2007 through the first half of 2011, the range was from 56 to 65 percent.

The threat of prejudicing the defense of the securities class action lawsuit is only one of the problems associated with the increase in follow-on derivative litigation. The proliferation of multiple simultaneous suits in multiple jurisdictions imposes a costly and vexatious burden on the companies involved. The SunPower case provides a good illustration of these problems. The Delaware derivative plaintiffs alleges that the company “is largely self-insured so that expense, settlements or damages in excess of $5 million in these actions will not be recoverable” under insurance. The costs associated with the derivative plaintiffs’ action simply add to this burden. As NERA noted in its year-end securities litigation report, in commenting on the phenomenon of folllow-on derivative lawsuits, "to the extent [the individual defendants] have indemnification agreements or continue to hold board or management positions, derivative litigation may prove expensive for the issuer." 

Unfortunately for the company, the derivative action has merely been stayed, not dismissed, which raises the question of what will happen in the future. The likelihood is that the class action lawsuit will settle at some point. (Yes there is a chance that it will be resolved on summary judgment, and an even smaller chance that it will be resolved at trial, but the greatest likelihood is that it will be settled.) Given the apparent limited amount of insurance available, the class action settlement will likely be modest. And if the case settles, the stipulation undoubtedly will include the usual defense disclaimers of liability or wrongdoing.

At that point, the stayed derivative litigation will finally be ripe. But at that point, the remaining insurance will almost certainly be gone. The derivative plaintiffs, without the benefit of any factual findings in the class action suit, will have to try to establish liability, forcing the individual defendants to incur additional defense expenses (which almost certainly would be advanced to the defendants under the company’s indemnification provisions), all to try to extract some payment out of the personal assets of the individual defendants. Given these factors, it seems highly probable that any ultimate recovery in the derivative suit – and therefore any benefit to the company – would be slight. But in the meantime, the company and its senior management are forced to endure the burden and expense of continued, redundant litigation.

There may be (infrequent) occasions where this kind of liltigation-about-litigation is not burdensome, vexatious and wasteful. Nevertheless, it is very hard to observe the expansion of this kind of follow-on derivative litigation with anything but alarm. If, as seems likely at least for now, this kind of litigation is going to continue to increase, it is going to be increasingly important for courts to develop rules of the road, if for no other reason to make sure that these suits do not further harm the very companies on whose behalf they supposedly are brought. That is the reason I think Vice Chancellor Parsons ruling is important, because it represents a practical recognition that the courts are going to have to police things to prevent the whole process from getting out of control.

I know that the plaintiffs’ attorneys behind these cases will argue that the cases are necessary to protect companies from the expenses the corporate defendants are forced to incur when alleged management misconduct leads to shareholder litigation. Other observers might perhaps more accuratey characterize these cases as nothing more than a vehicle by which the plaintiffs' firm involved is seeking to extract a fee.  I would argue that a better way to address the cost of litigation problem is through a prudent risk management approach including a comprehensive program of D&O insurance. If the company has an appropriate D&O insurance program in place, the class action litigation costs would not fall on the company, and there would be no even theoretical need for (or indeed any justification for) these types of follow-on lawsuits in most circumstances.

At least from the allegations Vice Chancellor Parsons recites in his opinion, it appears that this company carried only nominal amounts of D&O insurance. The amount and extent of litigation in which this company has become involved underscores the fact that in this day and age, well-advised firms should carry more than minimal amounts of insurance. Indeed, this case shows that in a changing litigation environment, traditional notions of limits adequacy may no longer be sufficient. The possibility that companies may have to be prepared to fund a multi-front defense suggests that companies may need more insurance than in the past in order to be fully protected.

A Dated Debate: We generally refer to the year 1901 as “nineteen-oh-one.” Similarly, 1909 is “nineteen-oh-nine.” But we refer to 1910 as “nineteen-ten” not “nineteen-and-ten.” My point here is that conversational conventions eventually tend toward to simplest and most economical expression.

In our current century, 2001 is referred to as “two thousand and one.” 2009 is referred to as “two thousand nine.” I suspect the convention will shift as the century progresses. For example, when we finally reach 2020 (if we do in fact make it that far), I feel quite certain the year will be referred to as “twenty-twenty” and not as “two thousand twenty.” Similarly, 2021 will be “twenty-twenty-one,” not “two thousand twenty one.”

Which brings me to the current year, 2012. Why do we refer to it as “two thousand twelve” rather than “twenty twelve”? I am not sure why, but “twenty twelve” is not in widespead usage. I feel quite certain that eventually we will all shift to the “twenty – “ formulation, just as a century ago, usage shifted to the “nineteen –“ custom.

Maybe it won’t be until 2020, but the “twenty –“nomenclature will eventually be the conversational way to refer to years during the current century. It may be too late now to change the way we refer to the current year, but it still may be possible to make some progress on this now.

As part of our forward-looking mission here at The D&O Diary, we would like to propose that we all get an early start on the rest of the century. Specifically, and with next year still a good eleven months off, we would like to respectfully suggest that everyone make a mutual commitment to refer to next year as “twenty-thirteen” rather than as “two thousand thirteen.” Why wait until 2020 to get on with the future?

I am sure many of you are wondering why I am so concerned about this. Here at The D&O Diary, we consider it part of our job to worry about these things so you don’t have to. Now remember, its “twenty thirteen,” not “two thousand thirteen.” O.K., everybody back to work.

There’s Nothing Quite Like a Real Book: Ironically, I first saw this video on my iPad. Ironically, it is a video about the magic of books. Irony notwithstanding, it is still a pretty cool video.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an interesting October 14, 2011 post-trial opinion, Delaware Chancellor Leo Strine entered a $1.263 billion award in the Southern Peru Copper Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation. The lawsuit relates to Southern Peru’s April 2005 acquisition of Minerva México, a Mexican mining company, from Groupo México, Southern Peru’s controlling shareholder. Chancellor Strine concluded that as a result of a “manifestly unfair transaction,” Southern Peru overpaid for Minerva Mexico. A copy of Chancellor Strine’s 106-page opinion can be found here.

Background

Southern Peru is a NYSE company. (After the events involved in this lawsuit, Southern Peru changed its name to Southern Copper Corporation. Its shares trade on the NYSE under the symbol “SCCO.”) Groupo México is the controlling shareholder of Southern Peru. In 2004, Groupo México owned 54.17% of Southern Peru’s outstanding stock and 63% of the voting power. In February 2004, Groupo México proposed that Southern Peru buy its 99.15% share stake in Minerva in exchange for 72.3 shares of newly-issued Southern Peru stock. At market price of Southern Peru’s stock then, the proposed deal had an “indicative” value of $3.05 billion.

The Southern Peru board appointed a special committee to assess the proposed transaction. The special committee in turn hired numerous outside experts, including Goldman Sachs, to assist the committee in assessing the transaction. As Chancellor Strine later concluded, when it became clear that Minerva’s value was substantially less than the value of proposed amount of Southern Peru stock, “the special committee and its financial advisor instead took strenuous efforts to justify a transaction at the level originally demanded by the controller.”

As a result, “the controller got what it originally demanded: $3.1 billion in real value in exchange for something worth much, much less -- hundreds of millions of millions of dollars less.” Even worse, the special committee agreed to a fixed exchange ratio. Because Southern Peru’s stock price rose between the date the parties entered the deal and the date the deal closed, the actual value of the transaction was $3.75 billion. Even though the special committee had the ability to rescind the deal, the special committee did not seek to update the fairness opinion or otherwise alter the transaction. The upshot was that “a focused, aggressive controller extracted a deal that was far better than market, and got real, market-tested value of over $3 billion for something no member of the special committee, none of its advisors, and no trial expert was willing to say was worth that amount of actual cash.”

Shareholders then filed a derivative lawsuit alleging that the transaction was unfair to Southern Peru and its minority shareholders. By the time of trial, the defendants remaining in the case were Group México and its eight affiliate directors who were on the Southern Peru board at the time of the transaction. The plaintiffs argued that the 67.2 million shares of Southern Peru stock that Groupo México received in the transaction were worth substantially more that the 99.15% interest in Minerva that Southern Peru received. 

The October 14 Opinion

Following trial, Chancellor Strine concluded that “the process by which the Merger was negotiated and approved was not fair and did not result in the payment of a fair price.” He found that “from inception, the Special Committee fell victim to a controlled mindset and allowed Groupo México to dictate its terms and structure of the Merger.”

Strine also concluded that the committee was “not ideally served by its financial advisors,” Goldman Sachs, which having concluded that the value of what Southern Peru would receive in the transaction was substantially less than the value of stock Groupo México was to receive, “helped its client rationalize the one strategic option available within the controlled mindset that pervaded the Special Committee’s process.” But, as Strine found, “Goldman and the Special Committee could not generate any responsible estimate of the value of Minerva that approached the value of what Southern Peru was asked to hand over.”

Strine found that as a result, the transaction was “unfair” to Southern Peru, because the special committee’s “cramped perspective” resulted in a “strange deal dynamic,” in which “a majority shareholder kept its eye on the ball – actual value benchmarked to cash – and a Special Committee lost sight of market reality in an attempt to rationalize doing a deal of the kind the majority stockholder proposed.” As a result of this “game of controlled mindset twister,” the committee “agreed to give away over $3 billion worth of actual cash value in exchange for something worth demonstrably less, and to do so on terms that by consummation made the value gap even worse, without using any of its contractual leverage to stop the deal or renegotiate its terms.” Because the deal was “unfair,” Strine concluded that “the defendants breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty.”

Since the time of the merger, Southern Peru’s share price has continued to climb. For that reason, and because of “the plaintiff’s delay in litigating the case,” Strine concluded that a rescission-based approach would be “inequitable.” Instead, Strine, utilizing a “panoply of equitable remedies,” crafted “a damage award that approximates the differences between the price that the Special Committee would have approved had the Merger been entirely fair (i.e., absent a breach of fiduciary duties) and the price that the Special Committee actually agreed to pay.” Strine noted that given the differences in values involved, the record arguably could support a damages award of $2 billion or more.”

However, taking into account the “imponderables” involved in many of the valuations, Strine took an approach he characterized as “more conservative.” His approach basically consisted of coming up with a value for Minerva based on an average of three possible valuation methodologies. This method came up with a valuation for Minerva of $2.409 billion. The 67.2 million shares Groupo México received were worth $3.672 billion.

Based on the difference between these two figures, Strine entered an award of $1.263 billion. Strine also awarded interest, without compounding, at the statutory rate from the merger date, and also from the date of judgment until payment. He also awarded plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, to come out of the award, in an amount he directed the parties to agree upon. Strine added that Groupo México could satisfy the judgment by agreeing to return to Southern Peru the number of shares necessary to satisfy the award.

Discussion

The addition of pre- and post-judgment interest could as much as another $100 million to the value of this award, meaning that the total value of this award is arguably as much as $1.36 billion (and counting). But as massive as this amount is, it does not represent the largest amount awarded in a shareholder derivative suit. As far as I am aware, that distinction belongs to the $2.876 billion awarded in the shareholder derivative lawsuit filed against former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, about which refer here. (Actually, the total amount of the damages in Scrushy case was $3.115 billion. It was only the application of $239 million credit for judgments entered against other defendants that brought the number down to the $2.876 billion.) The Southern Peru award does likely represent the largest award in a derivative suit in Delaware Chancery Court.

In light of the dollars involved, Groupo México has a strong incentive to appeal, although the accumulation of post-judgment interest could provide a reason to carefully assess the likelihood of success on appeal.

If it comes down to payment of the award, it looks to me like Groupo México’s best option would be to return the number of Southern Peru shares required to satisfy the award. The shares have dramatically escalated since the transaction closed (at current market valuations, and allowing for stock splits, the shares appear to be worth more then ten times what they were in April 2005). Paying the award with an inflated currency would appear to allow Groupo México to retain substantial benefits of this transaction.

There are at least a couple of important things to be drawn from the outcome of this case. First, this case represents a very substantial refutation to the many commentators who regularly complain that derivative litigation in Delaware courts provide shareholders’ with a toothless remedy. This case shows that the Delaware derivative litigation definitely can have bite.

Second, this case has some very important implications for board’s duties when considering a transaction proposed by a controlling shareholder. In particular, Chancellor Strine seemed particularly concerned that the special committee considered only the deal that the controlling shareholder proposed, suggesting that in these circumstances, boards and the committees must consider all alternatives and not just the one proposed by the controlling shareholder. More broadly, the board and its committee have a duty to consider more than just trying to figure out a way to complete the transaction that the controlling shareholder has proposed.

In view of the massive size of the award, the presence or absence of D&O insurance to pay part of the cost of this award is unlikely to be a material consideration. Were Groupo México to try to get its D&O insurer to pay a part of this award, it would face at lest a couple of likely objections from its carrier(s). First the carrier would contend that its policy provides coverage if at all for Groupo México itself only for “securities claims,” a term that is usually defined with reference to the insured company’s own securities. Since this transaction involved Southern Peru’s securities not Groupo México’s, the carrier would contend that there is no coverage for the award against Groupo México, because the award did not arise out a securities claim.

The carrier would likely also contend that in any event, because of the rescissionary nature of the award, there is no coverage under the policy, nor is there coverage under the policy for the return of amount for which the insured is not legally entitled.

This latter argument would likely also take care of any contentions by the individual defendants that they are entitled to coverage. An interesting issue though is the question of which company’s policy is the relevant policy. Though the individual defendants were affiliated with Groupo México, they were sued in their capacities as directors of Southern Peru. Accordingly, it would look as though the relevant policy for them to seek to access would be Southern Peru’s (although they might have also potentially have outside directorship liability coverage under Groupo México’s policy on an excess basis, a likelihood that is probably remote because that coverage is usually restricted to service on nonprofit boards).

The individuals’ prospects for obtaining coverage for the award under the Southern Peru policy would depend as an initial matter on their ability to overcome the carrier’s likely objections that there is no coverage under its policy for rescissionary damages. Those objections may well be insurmountable, but assuming for the sake of argument that that obstacle could be circumvented, the question would then be whether the policy’s Side A coverage would kick in, as providing coverage for nonindemifiable loss.

Given the size of the award and the hurdles the defendants would have to overcome in order to establish coverage, these insurance questions could all be more theoretical than real.

In any event, the eye-popping amount of the award here makes this case a noteworthy, and Chancellor Strine’s analysis makes these circumstances interesting. I suspect this decision will occasion a great deal of discussion, particularly around the duties boards’ face when forced to assess transactions that will benefit a controlling shareholder.

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing me with a copy of this opinion. 

Alison Frankel has a very interesting October 17, 2011 commentary on this case on her blog on Thomson Reuters News & Insight (here). Professor Davidoff also has an interesting commentary about the case on the Dealbook blog (here).

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to news reports, on June 1, 2011, Alpha Natural Resources completed its $7.1 billion acquisition of Massey Energy Company. The deal went forward despite last minute efforts by groups of Massey shareholders proceeding in West Virginia and Delaware courts to try to enjoin the transaction on the grounds that the merger did not properly value the pending derivative claims against the company’s board, resulting in Alpha being able to acquire Massey without taking into account the fair economic value of the derivative claims.

The courts in both West Virginia and Delaware rejected the preliminary injunction motions. Delaware Vice Chancellor Leo E. Strine Jr.’s  81-page May 31, 2011 opinion (here) refusing to enjoin the merger makes for some extraordinarily interesting reading, as Susan Beck notes in her June 1, 2011 Am Law Litigation Daily article about the decision (here).

All of these events relate back to the April 5, 2010 disaster in Massey’s Upper Big Branch Mine in Montcoal, West Virginia, in which 29 miners were killed. In the wake of the disaster, the company’s share price declined, and the company struggled to deal with the fallout and scrutiny from the tragedy. These events set up a lengthy process that resulted in Alpha’s agreement to acquire Massey. During this process, Massey forced out its long-standing CEO, Don Blankenship.

Another thing that happened in the wake of the disaster (“inevitably,” Vice Chancellor Strine noted) is that Massey shareholders filed derivative suits seeking to ensure that to the extent Massey was harmed by the obligation to pay fines, judgments to the deceased miners’ families and lost cash flow from the damaged mine, the companies directors and officers should be held responsible for failing to make sure that Massey complied with mine safety regulations.

In addition to damages, the derivative plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against the merger, arguing among other things that the merger was an attempt by the board to evade its responsibilities for the harm to the company by means of a sale to Alpha.

In his May 31 opinion, Vice Chancellor Strine denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that it is “highly doubtful” that the shareholders would be able to show that Massey’s board had sought to sell the company “solely, or even in a material way” to escape liability for the shareholder claims. He also said that to delay the deal would “threaten more harm to Massey shareholders than its potential benefits to them,” reasoning that Massey’s shareholders ought to be able to vote for against the merger on their own.

There are a host of interesting things about Vice Chancellor Strine’s highly readable 81-page opinion. Among them, in no particular order, are the following.

First, Vice Chancellor notes that it is “undisputed” “regrettable” “concerning” and “might even be characterized as a breach of the duty of care” that in connection with its consideration of the proposed Alpha merger the Massey board “failed to address the value” of the derivative claims, as the duties of a board in negotiating the sale of company are to consider and get full consideration for “all of the corporation’s material assets.” However, he added, that “does not much help the plaintiffs obtain an injunction,” as the record “does not support the inference that the Derivative Claims are material in comparison to the overall value of Massey as an entity.”

Second, as part of reaching the preceding conclusion, Vice Chancellor Strine noted that “the record does not persuade me that the Merger would, after trial, likely prove to be economically unfair to the Massey shareholders,” citing a number of considerations. In particular, with respect to the question whether or not the failure to separately negotiate value for the derivative claims harmed Massey shareholders, Strine noted numerous difficulties the claims face,  including the difficulty of showing that the defendants “acted with a wrongful state of mind, particularly given the exculpatory provision in Massey’s charter”; the possibility that “insurance proceeds may not be available to pay any judgment”; the questionable ability of even the wealthy board members to satisfy any judgment; and the fact that most of the individual defendants are independent directors whose “motivation to tolerate unsafe practices for the sake of profits would be tempered.” The value of the derivative claims might represent at most an opportunity for the company to recoup some of the costs for the disaster – and for that reason “it is unlikely that Alpha viewed these Claims as an asset at all, but merely as having some potential to reduce the gravity of the Disaster Fall-Out Alpha was inheriting.”

Third, though the Massey board itself might have been unclear on what the merger’s completion would mean for the derivative claims, Stine himself is very clear that the claims survive the merger (given his determination that the merger was not motivated primarily to avert the derivative suit liability). But with the merger’s completion, Alpha, as Massey’s successor in interest, controls the claims, putting the derivative plaintiffs in the position of having to prove demand excusal, and thus “receive leave to proceed in a double derivative action on behalf of Alpha” – an outcome Strine says “is not one an objective mind ought to consider probable” given that Alpha’s board has no exposure to the claims but “myriad of rational business reasons why Alpha may later decide that prosecuting these Claims does or does not make sense for Alpha.”

Nevertheless, Strine also notes that it is not a foregone conclusion that Alpha would not itself decide to pursue claims against the former fiduciaries of Massey. The fact is, as Strine notes, “Alpha will have to make a difficult business calculation about the extent to which it goes after Massey’s former management,” and its board will have to answer to Alpha’s own shareholders on their decision whether or not to pursue such claims. As Strine notes, “it is not clear why Alpha would not seek to offset the costs to itself of those violations by suing previous management if by doing so it had a realistic chance of obtaining some meaningful recovery.” That does not necessarily mean that Alpha will be able to effect a recovery commensurate with this costs (See the “second” item above and the “seventh” item below).

Fourth, Strine has some choice words to say about the Cravath law firm, which is not only acting as the board’s counsel in the derivative lawsuit, but also counseled the board on how it ought to consider the derivative suit in connection with the proposed merger. Strine characterized the law firm as being an “awkward source for advice” on this issue, and given the Cravath firm’s recommendation that the board not consider the existence of the derivative claims at all, “one cannot conclude that the Massey Board was presented with a reasoned analysis of the 'value' of the Derivative Claims." Strine also faulted Cravath for insufficiently explaining to the board what a survival of derivative claims means in the context of a merger. (Susan Beck’s Am Law Litigation Daily article linked above has more on this particular topic.)

Fifth, using language that is both noteworthy and striking, Strine went out of his way to excoriate former Massey CEO Don Blankenship, quoting descriptions of him as “autocratic” and describing him as having an “adversarial relationship” with the UAW and a “combative approach” to the federal mining regulator. He noted that Massey’s managers and employees understood that “if you wished to stay or get ahead at Massey under Blankenship, then the priority of profits over safety is one not to be questioned.” He also noted that in 2009, after President Obama’s election and a change in leadership at the mining regulator, and after Massey had sustained a number of losses in legal proceedings, Blankenship’s attitude toward regulators “deteriorated very sharply.”

Sixth, Strine makes it clear that he believes the real victims here are the deceased coal miners and their families – and in that regard, Strine is not prepared to let the shareholders off the hook. As he points out in a biting 1,071-word footnote (number 185), Massey’s shareholders not only had an annual opportunity to elect directors, but they “continued to invest in a company they say was well known to treat its workers and the environment poorly.” Indeed, “to the extent Massey kept costs lower and exposed miners to excess dangers, Massey’s stockholders enjoyed the short-term benefits in the form of higher profits.” The very practices of which the plaintiff shareholders now complain might rationally have been expected to act as a “goad” to shareholders to “give more weight to legal compliance and risk management in making investment decisions.” In the end, Strine notes, the “most sympathetic victims here were not shareholders, they were Massey’s workers and the families” and other constituencies who suffered while the company prospered and shareholders benefitted.

Seventh, readers of this blog will be interested in some parenthetical comments Strine has to make about D&O insurance. In noting the difficulties Alpha would have in collecting on any judgment entered in the derivative case, he notes that even if the derivative claims were to settle for the full amount of the D&O insurance, the total amount of coverage available is $95 million – not a “trifle,” but also not material in the context a merger valued over $ 7 billion. Also, Strine notes, showing that he has a keen appreciation for the D&O insurance market’s dark reality, “anyone who has dealt with coverage questions and insurance carriers would also tell you that a scenario in which the D&O insurers in the ‘tower’ would easily pay out anywhere near the full amount of the policy in a quick and low-cost way to Alpha is more the stuff of dreams than of real life.”

Eighth , it may not be entirely relevant to Vice Chancellor Strine’s decision or to the fact that the Alpha acquisition went forward as planned, but it is probably worth noting that among Massey’s former independent directors is another individual whose name has been in the news for entirely different reasons this week – that is, among the independent Massey directors named as defendants in the derivative litigation is Ohio State University President E. Gordon Gee. According to Wikipedia, Gee served on Massey’s board from 2000 until 2009 (that is, he resigned before the Big Branch Mines disaster, but during many of the prior safety and environmental problems the company faced.)

Now that the merger has been completed, the ball shifts to Alpha’s board to consider whether or not to pursue direct claims against the former Massey directors and officers. While Alpha might as Strine notes have substantial business reasons for wanting to close the book on the past and moving forward, the fact is that Alpha also inherited the wrongful death and regulatory claims that were pending against Massey. As much as Alpha might want to move on for business reasons, that may not be an available option.

To the extent Alpha must pay settlements, fines, and judgments, it will have to consider whether or not to pursue claims against the former Massey fiduciaries to try to recoup these costs. And in making that determination, the Alpha board will also have to consider its fiduciary duties to its own shareholders (some of whom now are former Massey shareholders.) I don’t know where any of this ultimately will lead, but the insurers in that $95 million insurance tower (whoever they may be, I have no idea) may find it prudent to wait a while before deciding whether or not to take down their reserves on this particular claim.

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing me with a copy of Judge Strine’s opinion.

Yeah, I Really Hate it When the Guy in Front of Me Reclines His Seat Back, Too: On a May 29, 2011 United Airlines flight from Washington Dulles Airport to Ghana, one of the passengers decided to lower his seat back – which set in process a sequence of events that started with a scuffle on the plane and ended with Air Force F-16 fighter jets being scrambled. Because no one could make this up, you really have to read the Washington Post story (here) for yourself.

Just something to think about next time before reclining your seat back, O.K.?

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link