Delaware

Subscribe to Delaware via RSS

A claim alleging a board’s breach of duty of oversight has long been regarded as one of the most difficult for a plaintiff to sustain. But after the Delaware Supreme Court’s 2019 opinion in Marchand v. Barnhill, breach of the duty of oversight claims (or Caremark claims, as they are sometimes called) have in recent years, as Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock put in in his recent opinion in the SolarWinds case, “bloomed like dandelions after a warm spring rain.” Some commentators questioned whether oversight breach claims were in fact as difficult to sustain as is so often said. However, in his recent opinion, the Vice Chancellor emphasized the oversight breach claims remain “one of the most difficult claims” to sustain and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the cybersecurity-related oversight breach claims asserted against the board of Solar Winds.  A copy of Vice Chancellor Glasscock’s September 6, 2022 opinion in the SolarWinds case can be found here.
Continue Reading Del. Court Dismisses Cybersecurity-Related Oversight Claim Against SolarWinds Board

In the latest SPAC-related federal court securities class action lawsuit to be filed, a plaintiff shareholder has filed a securities suit against a building management technology company – which merged with a SPAC in 2021 — that recently restated its financial statements for the reporting periods after the company became publicly traded. The complaint in the new lawsuit filed against Latch, Inc. can be found here. As also noted below, in a separate development, a different plaintiff shareholder has filed a separate SPAC-related Delaware Chancery Court action against former directors and officers of a SPAC and the SPAC’s sponsor.
Continue Reading SPAC-Related Securities Suit Filed Against Building Technology Company

The financial press is already reporting that many of the nearly 600 SPACs currently searching for merger targets may be unable to find suitable merger targets. Indeed, famous investor Bill Ackerman, unable to find a suitable merger target for his largest-ever SPAC, Pershing Square Tontine Holdings, has already thrown in the towel and liquidated the $4 billion SPAC. With hundreds of SPACs facing the end of their search period in this and the next two quarters, there are likely to be many other SPACs that choose to liquidate in the coming months.

One question I have had about this likelihood is whether or not there is a risk of litigation as SPACs redeem investors’ shares. On the one hand, litigation seemingly should be unlikely as investors are getting their money back. Where’s the harm? On the other hand, in our litigious society, the possibility of litigation always seems to be lurking whenever things don’t work out as planned. While the circumstances involved are very case-specific, a lawsuit filed last week in the Delaware Chancery Court, provides of an example of the kind of end-game squabble that could arise as more SPACs liquidate in the coming months.
Continue Reading SPAC Unable to Find Merger Target Caught Up in Pre-Liquidation Litigation

According to the latest statistics from SPACInsider, there are currently over 580 SPACs seeking merger partners. Financial media reports have already speculated that many of the searching SPACs may not find a suitable merger partner within the applicable search period. One concern from this combination of circumstances is that some SPACs may feel pressure to do whatever they have to do to complete a deal, any deal. As I have noted in prior posts, deals completed under these kinds of circumstances can later subject the SPAC managers to scrutiny and perhaps even litigation.

In a Delaware Chancery Court lawsuit brought by former public shareholders of a SPAC against the former directors and officers of the SPAC and others alleging that the SPAC officials, in their push to complete a deal, misrepresented the target company as a U.S.-based manufacturer of electric vehicles, when, the plaintiff shareholders allege, the company was in fact just a vehicle dealer that buys Chinese electric vehicles that the company rebrands as its own. As discussed below, this new lawsuit may illustrate one of the kinds of circumstances in which many of the currently searching SPACs could fall.
Continue Reading SPAC Execs Allegedly Misrepresented Target Company’s Business to Complete Deal

As I have noted before, Elon Musk is a reliable source of interesting blog fodder. His hyperkinetic fracases are so numerous that at times it is easy to lose track of the many controversies in which he is involved. Amidst all of the hoopla about his current bid to acquire Twitter, it was easy to overlook the fact that he remained mired in ongoing litigation relating Tesla’s 2016 acquisition of SolarCity. As the heart of the dispute was the fact that Musk served both as Chairman of SolarCity and as an executive of and as the largest shareholder of Tesla at the time.

The dispute went to a ten-day bench trial in 2021, and on April 27, 2022, Delaware Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III issued a lengthy opinion ruling in Musk’s favor on all issues. A copy of the opinion can be found here. As discussed below, the sprawling, 132-page opinion contains a number of interesting observations and insights and also has important implications.
Continue Reading Elon Musk Prevails in Trial Over Tesla’s Acquisition of SolarCity

Bryan W. Petrilla

On March 16, 2022, the Delaware Supreme Court issued an important decision on the “relatedness” issue in the First Solar case, as I discussed in a prior post on this site, here. In the following guest post, Bryan W. Petrilla, Esq., a partner in the Stewart Smith law firm in Philadelphia, takes a look at the First Solar decision and considers its implication. I would like to thank Bryan for allowing me to publish his article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Here is Bryan’s article.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Must Claims be “Fundamentally Identical” to be “Related”? The Delaware Supreme Court Weighs In  

In January of this year, when the Delaware Chancery Court sustained the Delaware state court direct action filed against the directors and officers of the SPAC that had acquired MultiPlan Corp., I speculated that the Court’s ruling would encourage other disgruntled SPAC investors to bring similar Delaware direct actions against SPAC management.

Consistent with my speculation, on March 18, 2022, a plaintiff shareholder filed a direct action for breach of fiduciary duty against certain former directors of officers of Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation, a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), that in July 2021 merged with Hyzon Motors USA to form Hyzon Motors Inc. The claim is brought on behalf of SPAC investors who were entitled to redeem their shares at the time of the merger.  The plaintiff claims that the defendants’ misrepresentations about the merger deprived the plaintiff class of their right to make an informed redemption decision. The claims asserted on behalf of the investors are not only very similar to the allegations previously raised in the MultiPlan litigation, but the new complaint expressly quotes the dismissal motion denial ruling in the MultiPlan ruling. As discussed below, this latest lawsuit may indicate a likely future direction for SPAC related litigation. A copy of the complaint in the new Delaware state court direct action can be found here.
Continue Reading Investors Bring SPAC-Related Direct Fiduciary Breach Action Relating to Hyzon Motors Merger

In an interesting decision that explores the standard to be used in determining whether an earlier claim and a later claim are interrelated, the Delaware Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court ruling that a later filed opt-out action is related to a securities lawsuit earlier filed against First Solar, and therefore that the opt-out action is not covered under the D&O insurance program in place at the time the opt-out action was filed. Interestingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court even though the appellate court held that the lower court had erroneously applied a “fundamentally identical” standard to the relatedness question rather than the relatedness standard defined by the policies. The Delaware Supreme Court’s March 16, 2022 opinion can be found here.
Continue Reading Del. Supreme Court: Opt-Out Action “Related” to Securities Class Action, Precluding Coverage

As I noted in a prior post (here), Delaware’s legislature recently enacted a new legislation to permit Delaware corporations to put captive insurance in place as an alternative to traditional D&O insurance. In the following guest post, Richard Porter, Head of Financial Lines, Chubb Bermuda, Jarrod Schlesinger, Head of Public Company Management Liability, Chubb N.A. Financial Lines, and Dan Bailey, Member of Bailey Cavalieri LLC, take a look at the Delaware captive legislation and raise a number of concerns about the new law. A version of this article was previously published by Chubb on its website and can be accessed here. I would like to thank the authors for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ article.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Proceed with Caution: Concerns About Delaware’s New Captive Statute

Within the D&O marketplace, the SPAC and De-SPAC space has been difficult over the last 18 to 24 months. Pricing for D&O insurance for SPACs and De-SPACs has been extraordinarily high. In addition, the insurers are only willing to provide coverage at all with extraordinarily high self-insured retentions (SIRs). These difficult marketplace conditions have caused many buyers to consider possible insurance alternatives, such as Side-A only insurance programs. The high SIRs also raise practical questions about how the elevated retentions will be funded in the event of the claim. The possible alternative insurance structures and the questions about funding the elevated retentions in turn raise a host of complicated issues about indemnification and advancement, particularly concerning the obligations of the go-forward De-SPAC company to provide indemnification and advancement for post-merger claims against former directors and officers of the SPAC.

Anyone who has had to try to think about these complicated indemnification and advancement issues will want to review the recent Delaware Chancery Court decision in action brought by a former SPAC officer and director, Marlene Krauss, to try to enforce her advancement rights against the post-merger De-SPAC company, 180 Life Sciences Corp. In a detailed opinion, Vice Chancellor Will basically held that Krauss was entitled to advancement except with respect to claims brought against Krauss for conduct in her capacities other than as a director or officer of the SPAC. Although D&O insurance is not addressed in the Opinion, the Vice Chancellor’s rulings arguably have important insurance implications, for example, with respect to the availability of Side A coverage and the funding of SIRs. The Vice Chancellor’s March 7, 2022 Opinion can be found here.
Continue Reading Thinking About SPACs, De-SPACs, and Indemnification and Advancement