Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

M&A Litigation in Delaware

By Brian M. Lutz and Vivek Gopalan
April 01, 2016

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.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

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.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Blockchain Domains: New Developments for Brand Owners Image

Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.