United States: In Re Trados: Directors Dodge A Bullet

Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster's August 16 post-trial opinion in In re Trados Inc. Shareholder Litigation1 (hereinafter, "In re Trados") has attracted a significant amount of attention. Much as both the Chancery and the Delaware Supreme Court did in the Disney/Ovitz case2 of the mid-2000s, the In re Trados court portrays an extremely deficient board process in vivid and unflattering detail, while ultimately finding — perhaps reluctantly — in favor of the defendants. Disney and In re Trados differ substantially on the factual circumstances (Disney involved an employment contract with a senior executive under which extraordinary severance amounts were paid when the executive's brief tenure with the company was terminated; In re Trados, a merger in which common shareholders received no consideration) as well as the standard of review applied by the courts to the actions in dispute (Disney considered whether the actions were protected by the business judgment rule; In re Trados, whether the challenged merger could withstand "entire fairness" review). However, in addition to the similarity of the respective defendant directors escaping liability seemingly by the skin of their teeth, In re Trados like Disney provides an example of how not to manage a board process in a manner designed to avoid disruptive litigation (if not actual liability).

In re Trados: The Facts and Holdings


Trados Inc. ("Trados") was a privately held company that produced translation software. In 2000, Trados obtained funding from various venture capital ("VC") investors. The VC investors received preferred shares with liquidation preferences payable upon a change-of-control transaction, voting rights identical to common shares on an as-converted basis and other customary VC negative control rights (including the right to veto a change-in-control transaction). Additionally, certain of the VC investors received the power to designate representatives to the Trados Board of Directors (the "Board").

The VC investors collectively controlled a majority of the voting power on an as-converted basis and the power to elect the majority of directors on the Board. The Board was composed of three VC employees, two members of management and two ostensibly independent directors.

Faced with financial setbacks, in July 2004 the Board approved hiring a new CEO. Later that year, the Board approved a management incentive plan (the "MIP") that would incentivize senior executives to pursue a sale of Trados even if it yielded nothing for common shareholders. The Board also rejected an initial $40 million acquisition proposal from SDL plc as it considered the offer too low.

After commencing his employment in August 2004, the CEO advised the Board of its options: to invest additional capital in Trados and reposition its core business for growth or to focus on a potential sale or merger transaction. Although the stand-alone alternative may have permitted Trados to remain solvent, it did not appear to offer a clear opportunity for achieving any meaningful returns for the VC investors or any meaningful (if any) common equity value. Further the VC investors, who each preferred the merger alternative, declined to provide additional capital to ameliorate Trados' financial situation. Under the new CEO, Trados secured a third-party loan allowing it to slightly improve its financial situation. Nonetheless merger discussions with SDL re-commenced in November 2004.

In June 2005, Trados agreed to be acquired by SDL for $60 million in cash, of which the first $7.8 million was paid to management under the MIP and the remaining $52.2 million (less an indemnification holdback) was paid to the holders of the preferred shares, whose liquidation preference was $57.9 million. The common shareholders received nothing.

The plaintiff, who owned 5% of the common shares, sought appraisal and subsequently sued the directors both individually and on behalf of the class of common shareholders, alleging that Trados' directors had breached their fiduciary duties to the common shareholders in approving the merger.


Six of the seven members of the Board were conflicted (the three VC representatives, the two management members participating in the MIP and one "independent" director with an economic interest in the deal and close ties to one of the VC firms), so the "entire fairness" standard of review applied (i.e., fair dealing and fair price).

Despite the Board's failure to satisfy the "fair dealing" prong, the court found that the common stock was worthless at the time of the merger and had no realistic prospect of having value in the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the defendants satisfied the "fair price" prong and, on the whole, the Board met its burden under the entire fairness standard.

The Board did not breach its fiduciary duty in approving the merger even though (a) common shareholders received no consideration, and (b) the entirety of the merger consideration was used to, first, fund the MIP adopted to encourage the sale of Trados, and, second, to satisfy the liquidation preference of the preferred shares.

Practical Lessons

Among the practical lessons to be learned from In re Trados:

Fiduciary Duties Are Owed to the Common Shareholders and Not to the Preferred Shareholders. In certain ranges of company values, the interests of holders of preferred stock (who are effectively contractual claimants) and those of common shareholders (as residual claimants — "the ultimate beneficiaries of the firm's value..."3) in a potential sale of the company will be in conflict. The court reaffirmed, however, that in such circumstances the directors' fiduciary obligations continue to be owed exclusively to the corporation and the common shareholders.4

Preferred Shareholders Can Protect Themselves by Contract. The court's observations concerning the respective interests and rights of preferred and common shareholders suggest that preferred investors would be well advised to minimize the scope of board discretion (and hence decisions that are subject to fiduciary responsibility to the common) by designing comprehensive contractual provisions giving the holders of preferred the power and authority to force exit transactions (e.g., through "drag-along" rights) without the necessity of board approval.

A Conflicted Board Needs to Demonstrate a Process that Considers the Interests of Common Shareholders. If a board is composed of a majority of directors who have interests in conflict with those of the common shareholders (including in any of the various ways analyzed by the court in In re Trados and discussed below), its actions will no longer be reviewed under the deferential business judgment rule standard but instead will be subject to entire fairness review. As a consequence, a board so constituted should take extra care to address the conflicts (perhaps through the procedural safeguards discussed below) and take into consideration the interests of the common shareholders, including the question of whether pursuing a long-term independent business strategy could generate value for the common shareholders that is not being delivered through the proposed sale of the company.

Such consideration of common shareholders' interests should be reflected in minutes or other documentary evidence of board deliberations and information reviewed by the directors.

Procedural Safeguards Can Help. Delaware courts have held that certain procedural safeguards can mitigate conflicts and thereby either (at best for the directors) maintain the protections of the business judgment rule5 or (at worst) shift to plaintiffs the burden of proving that a transaction was not entirely fair. Among such safeguards are a fully empowered special committee of disinterested directors and majority of the minority shareholder approval (in a case like In re Trados, separate approval by unconflicted common shareholders).

The Nature of Director Conflicts. The In re Trados court devoted considerable space to a discussion of the conflicts faced by most of the Trados directors. In circumstances like those found in In re Trados, the conflicted directors include not only the employee designees of venture capital firms (who are likely to be fiduciaries of funds holding the preferred and thus face "the dual fiduciary problem identified in Weinberger v. UOP, Inc...."6) but also members of management on the board, to the extent their personal interests are aligned with the preferred, as well as nominally independent directors if they stand to materially personally benefit from a challenged transaction and/or have personal and business relationships with interested parties that create a sense of obligation ("owingness," in the court's parlance)7 to them. In this regard, the court found that one of the two "independent" directors, who indirectly held Trados preferred stock and had a long-standing relationship with one of the venture capital firms (including serving as CEO of another startup backed by that firm), was conflicted. The court's discussion in In re Trados of director conflicts and the "web of interrelationships that characterizes the Silicon Valley startup community"8 may well lead venture capital firms to reconsider their criteria for selecting ostensibly independent board members. More broadly, the case may cause private company shareholders to take a more public company approach to board composition.

MIP Design Considerations. In analyzing the impact of the MIP, the court viewed the plan as creating conflicts for the management directors while also "[f]or purposes of fair dealing...skew[ing] the negotiation and structure of the merger in a manner that was adverse to the common shareholders."9 The court's critical observations concerning the MIP's design and impact (effectively, taking $2.1 million in value from the common shareholders) should cause practitioners to carefully consider the design of similar incentive arrangements in companies pursuing liquidity transactions in which there are potential conflicts between the interests of preferred and common shareholders and where the likely deal values could result in a disproportionately adverse impact on the common. Even though there may not be any objectively fair allocation of MIP costs between common and preferred shareholders, at the very least the directors approving such a plan should be able to demonstrate that they took the interests of the common shareholders fully into account in the MIP's design and implementation.

Delaware Law Issues

In addition to the observations above, we also present some additional observations regarding the court's legal reasoning in In re Trados:

  • Entire Fairness Without Fair Dealing? The court took pains to apply a "unitary definition of fairness" under which it balanced the fair dealing and fair price analyses rather than requiring the satisfaction of both "prongs." As a result, the defendants were able to successfully prove the "entire fairness" of the transaction in effect solely on the basis of "fair price."10 Although Delaware courts have emphasized that entire fairness review requires a holistic, non-bifurcated analysis of whether the transaction is the "product of both fair dealing and fair price",11 and in the past have concluded that a transaction was entirely fair despite "imperfections" in the process,12 we are not aware of another case in which a Delaware court has concluded that the defendants satisfied entire fairness despite what appeared to be an almost total absence of fair dealing.13
  • No Fair Dealing But No Breach of Fiduciary Duty. It also is interesting that the court concluded that, because of the fair price, there was no breach of fiduciary duty. In analyzing the facts of the case, one could readily instead conclude (contrary to the In re Trados court's holding) that there were ample breaches of fiduciary duty — of care, loyalty and perhaps (whether as an independent obligation or as a component of the duty of loyalty) good faith — but that there were no damages proven by the plaintiffs (given that the court held that the common stock was worth zero) and that accordingly there was no liability. Moreover, the weight of authority in Delaware is that proof of a breach of fiduciary duty is a necessary condition for rebutting the presumptive protection of the business judgment rule,14 although such a rebuttal does not establish substantive liability per se.
  • Absence of Damages Rather than No Breach? Other Delaware courts have held in the past that entire fairness was not satisfied — and consequently a fiduciary breach giving rise to substantive liability was proven — on the basis of the fair dealing prong of the standard even where the price was fair.15 Rather than holding as in In re Trados that a fair price precluded a finding that a transaction was not entirely fair, they found a breach but concluded that there were no actual damages. Consistent with the equitable powers of the Delaware Chancery Court discussed below, such courts may have awarded only nominal damages or none at all, but in any event the absence of actual damages did not lead the courts to conclude that no breach had occurred.
  • Was an Equitable Remedy Available? As a court of equity, the Delaware Chancery Court is empowered to formulate such remedies as it may deem appropriate in the event of fiduciary breach. Although the court in In re Trados concluded that the plaintiff in effect suffered a $2.1 million loss as a consequence of the adoption and design of the MIP that aligned senior executives' interests with those of the preferred shareholders, it noted that the plaintiff had not pursued a separate claim that the MIP was unfair in reallocating merger proceeds from the common shareholders to management.16 Given that the court's opinion clearly suggests that such a diversion of merger consideration claim could well have been successful if properly pleaded, one could argue that it would have been appropriate and within the court's equitable powers to nonetheless order restitution of $2.1 million to the common shareholders. Or, analyzing the facts differently, the court could have concluded that the appropriate value of the common stock for purposes of applying the fair price prong should have been computed without giving effect to the economic impact of the defendants' breach (in approving the MIP).
  • The opinion in In re Trados concludes with an order to the parties to present briefs in connection with the plaintiff's application for the shifting of its fees to the defendants. (A hearing on this issue has been scheduled for October 2013.) The court's discussion of the relevant facts and the bad faith exception to the "American Rule" (which, subject to fairly narrow exceptions, requires each party generally to bear its own legal fees and expenses) led it to conclude that "[t]here is good reason to think that fees might be shifted."17

It appears that the plaintiff may receive a consolation prize after all.


1 In re Trados Inc. S'holder Litig., C.A. No. 1512-VCL, slip op. (Del. Ch. Aug 16, 2013)

2 In re The Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litig., 907 A.2d 693 (Del. Ch. 2005)

3 In re Trados, C.A. No. 1512-VCL, slip op. at 40

4 The court nevertheless acknowledged that preferred shareholders are owed fiduciary duties "...when they do not invoke their special contractual rights and rely on a right shared equally with the common stock." Id. at 38

5 See, In re MFW S'holders Litig., C.A. No. 6566-CS, slip op. at 7 (Del. Ch. May 29, 2013)

6 In re Trados, slip op. at 51 (referencing Weinberger v. UOP, Inc., 457 A.2d 701, 710 (Del. 1983))

7 Id. at 50

8 Id. at 66

9 Id. at 78

10 "Although the defendants did not adopt any protective provisions, failed to consider the common stockholders, and sought to exit without recognizing the conflicts of interest presented by the Merger, they nevertheless proved that the transaction was fair." Id. at 107

11 Cede & Co. v. Technicolor Inc., 634 A.2d 345, 361 (Del. 1993), modified on other grounds, 636 A.2d 956 (Del. 1994)

12 Emerald Partners v. Berlin, 840 A.2d 641 (Del. 2003) (unpublished opinion, text available at 2003 Del. LEXIS 42, at *100 n.94 and 2003 WL 23019210, at *28 n.94) (Del. Dec. 23, 2003) ("In short, the process imperfection identified here was not of sufficient gravity to preclude a finding of fair dealing in this merger.")

13 "The evidence pertinent to fair dealing weighed decidedly in favor of the plaintiff. Indeed, there was no contemporaneous evidence suggesting that the directors set out to deal with the common shareholders in a procedurally fair manner." In re Trados, slip op. at 70

14 See, e.g. In re Walt Disney, 906 A.2d at 52; Ryan v. Gifford, 918 A.2d 341, 357 (Del. 2007) ("a showing that the board breached either its fiduciary duty of due care of its fiduciary duty of loyalty in connection with a challenged transaction may rebut this presumption"); see also Emerald Partners 787 A.2d at 91 ("[t]o rebut the presumptive applicability of the business judgment rule, a shareholder plaintiff has the burden of proving that the board of directors, in reaching its challenged decision, violated any one of its triad of fiduciary duties: due care, loyalty or good faith"), Williams v. Geier, 671 A.2d 1368, 1378 (Del. 1996) ("[o]nly by demonstrating that the Board breached its fiduciary duties may the presumption of the business judgment rule be rebutted"); Cinerama, Inc. v. Technicolor, Inc., 663 A.2d 1156, 1163-64 (Del. 1995) ("a shareholder plaintiff challenging a board decision has the initial burden of rebutting the presumption of the business judgment rule"); id. at 1164 ("to rebut the presumption, a shareholder plaintiff assumes the burden of providing evidence that the board of directors, in reaching its challenged decision, breached any one of its triad of fiduciary duties: good faith, loyalty or due care"); id. ("the breach of any one of the board's fiduciary duties" overcomes the business judgment rule presumption) (emphasis deleted); Cede & Co, 634 A.2d at 361; Spiegel v. Buntrock, 571 A.2d 767, 774 (Del. 1990); Citron v. Fairchild Camera & Instrument Corp., 569 A.2d 53, 64 (Del. 1989); Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805, 812 (Del. 1984); In re Gen. Motors (Hughes) S'holders Litig., 2005 Del. Ch. LEXIS 65, at *31, 2005 WL 1089021, at *8 (Del. Ch. May 4, 2005), aff'd, 897 A.2d 162 (Del. 2006).

15 See, e.g. Oliver v. Boston University, 2006 Del. Ch. LEXIS 75, 2006 WL 1064169 (Del. Ch. Apr. 14, 2006), motion for reargument denied, 2006 Del. Ch. LEXIS 210, 2006 WL 3742598 (Del. Ch. Dec. 8, 2006)

16 Cf. Carsanaro v. Bloodhound Tech., Inc., 65 A.3d 618 (Del. Ch. 2013), in which the court upheld the right of a shareholder to bring a direct claim alleging improper diversion of merger consideration to insiders, even if the total merger price is fair. However the court was careful to point out that the funds allegedly diverted to management were a substantial part (18.87%) of the total price paid for the company.

17 In re Trados, slip op. at 113

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions