Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Long accepted in Delaware (and in courts throughout the country), “disclosure-only” settlements were common in lawsuits brought by stockholders of a corporation sold in an M&A transaction. These lawsuits alleged that directors of the seller breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the sale price and process, and through allegedly deficient proxy materials provided to stockholders in connection with their vote on the deal. In disclosure-only settlements, the seller would agree to provide additional disclosures in advance of the stockholder vote on the transaction. As part of these settlements, all defendants typically would obtain the benefit of a broad release of liability of all claims and potential claims (not limited to disclosure claims), and the plaintiff lawyers would typically obtain a fee for obtaining a benefit for the putative class of stockholders in the form of the additional disclosures (whether helpful to stockholders or not). Many M&A participants came to view these fees as a customary “deal tax” required to be paid by the buyer as part of the transaction price.
Criticism of disclosure-only settlements from the Chancery Court has been building for years, beginning perhaps with then-Chancellor Leo E. Strine Jr.'s rejection of a proposed disclosure-only settlement in the In re Transatlantic Holdings Shareholders Litigation , C.A. 6574-CS (Feb. 28, 2013), case in 2013. More recently, decisions in Acevedo v. Aeroflex Holding, C.A. No. 9730-VCL, In re Riverbed Technology Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 10484-VCG (Del. Ch. Sept. 17, 2015), In re Susser Holdings Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 9613-VCG (Del. Ch. Sept. 15, 2015), In re Aruba Networks Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 10765-VCL (Transcript Ruling, Oct. 9, 2015), and In re Silicon Image Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 10601-VCG, reflected the Chancery Court's deep skepticism of disclosure-only settlements.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
In recent years, there has been a growing number of dry cleaners claiming to be "organic," "green," or "eco-friendly." While that may be true with respect to some, many dry cleaners continue to use a cleaning method involving the use of a solvent called perchloroethylene, commonly known as perc. And, there seems to be an increasing number of lawsuits stemming from environmental problems associated with historic dry cleaning operations utilizing this chemical.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.