United States: Financial Advisor Held Liable For Aiding And Abetting Target Board’s Breach Of Fiduciary Duties

Court Focuses on Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

The Delaware Court of Chancery recently held a financial advisor liable for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty by the board of directors of Rural/Metro Corporation in agreeing to sell Rural to a private equity firm.1 Damages payable by the financial advisor will be determined in the next phase of the proceedings.

The court focused on the financial advisor's conflicts of interest and its failure to disclose the conflicts to the board. The conflicts related principally to the advisor's desire to participate in the financing of the sale of Rural and in the financing of the sale of a competitor company in a contemporaneous process. The court also noted that, although the interests of the financial advisor and the board initially may have been aligned in seeking a sale of Rural, as the sale process continued the financial advisor may have been interested in simply closing a deal while the board was interested in seeking additional consideration.

The opinion, like many (if not all) fiduciary duty opinions, is highly contextual and fact-specific, but provides lessons for boards and advisors in constructing sale processes.

Background

Rural was a publicly-traded Delaware corporation. In December 2010, the financial advisor approached two Rural directors regarding the sale process for Emergency Medical Services Corporation, the parent of Rural's only national competitor, that was then commencing, and suggested the possibility of some form of combination between Rural and EMS, including through an acquisition by Rural of the competitor in partnership with a private equity firm. The Rural board re-activated a special committee to consider and recommend alternatives for Rural.

The financial advisor, in its initial pitch to the special committee, focused on a potential sale of Rural, in parallel with the EMS process, and said that it might seek to provide staple financing to potential bidders for Rural. However, it did not disclose that it also planned to use an engagement by Rural to seek to provide financing to bidders for EMS as well. The financing fees the financial advisor thus hoped to gain, at up to $55 million, could be more than 10 times the sell-side advisory fee it would earn from a sale of Rural. The special committee engaged the financial advisor and hired another investment bank, that would not provide staple financing, as a "secondary" financial advisor.

As Rural's sale process progressed, however, bidders for EMS indicated that they were precluded by confidentiality and timing constraints from simultaneously bidding for Rural. In March 2011, Warburg Pincus LLC, a private equity firm that had dropped out of the bidding for EMS, submitted a fully-financed bid to acquire Rural. The financial advisor nonetheless continued to seek a role in Warburg's financing for the acquisition of Rural, sharing with Warburg information regarding the board's positions and delaying delivery of any fairness analysis to the board because the advisor did not intend to provide a fairness opinion if the advisor could participate in Warburg's financing.

The Fairness Presentation. The financial advisor provided the board with a valuation analysis for the first time less than two hours before the board met to approve the Warburg bid.

The court reviewed the financial advisor's internal work on the analyses and compared the analyses to the analyses in the financial advisor's initial pitch to Rural. The court found that the fairness presentation "conflicted with the [financial advisor's] earlier advice, contravened the premises underlying the board's business plan for Rural, and contained outright falsehoods." "Most notably," the financial advisor used projections that gave no value to Rural's acquisitions and did not add back one-time expenses, which was inconsistent with the advisor's pitch book and other materials; the financial advisor said that the projections were consistent with those of Wall Street research analysts, but the court found that not to be the case. The court also noted that the advisor used an older, lower multiple transaction to which it had given only limited importance in the pitch. The court concluded that the financial advisor had "worked to lower the analyses" so as to make the Warburg bid "look[] more attractive."

On the day of the presentation, the financial advisor continued to have conversations with Warburg in an attempt to be included in Warburg's financing.

The Litigation. Following the announcement of the merger, stockholders brought litigation. Prior to closing, the parties entered into an MOU, based upon additional disclosures provided by Rural, but after the closing the court rejected the settlement and a new lead plaintiff and counsel took over. The board and the second financial advisor settled for $6.6 million and $5 million, respectively, but the financial advisor continued on to trial.

Court's Analysis

Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty in the Sale Process. The plaintiffs claimed that the financial advisor aided and abetted breaches by the directors of their fiduciary duties in timing and designing the process for soliciting bids and in providing disclosure of the merger to stockholders.

Enhanced Scrutiny When Selling a Company. Because the board was selling Rural, the court reviewed their actions under the (in)famous Revlon "enhanced scrutiny" standard, which requires directors to show that they "act[ed] reasonably to seek the transaction offering the best value reasonably available," which could include remaining independent. To do so, the directors must show the reasonableness of both their decisionmaking process, including the information on which they based their decision, and their action, "in light of the circumstances then existing."

The court also noted that the board was obligated to provide "active and direct" oversight in the sale process, to become reasonably informed about the company's alternatives, and to "act reasonably to learn about actual and potential conflicts" of its advisors as well as the company's directors and management.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty. The court determined that some of the board's actions fell outside of the range of reasonableness.

  • Running a sales process in parallel with the EMS sales process was unreasonable, since, among other things, the board did not consider the potential disadvantages of such a schedule, including that the EMS bid process would impose confidentiality and other practical restrictions that would limit the ability of bidders for EMS to participate in the Rural bid process. While such a decision might ordinarily be part of reasonable decision-making, given the undisclosed conflicts of interest it had to be viewed more skeptically. The court also noted that the decision to begin the process had not been made by an authorized company decisionmaker, since at that time the special committee's mandate was only to make recommendations.
  • Approving the Warburg bid was unreasonable, primarily because the board lacked a reasonable informational basis. The court noted that the board failed to oversee the financial advisor during the final negotiations, when the financial advisor may have been influenced more by its own interests than by a desire to obtain the best deal for Rural, and was unaware of the financial advisor's continued efforts to solicit buy-side financing; that the board did not receive any valuation information until shortly before the final board meeting to approve the transaction; and that the board was unaware that the fairness analyses it did receive had been "manipulated" by the financial advisor to make Warburg's bid appear more attractive. The court concluded that the financial advisor "took advantage of the informational vacuum it created to prime the directors" to support the proffered deal.

Knowing Participation in Breach. The court found that the financial advisor knowingly participated in the board's breaches of fiduciary duty by inducing those breaches. The financial advisor "created the unreasonable process and informational gaps" that led to the board's breaches. More specifically, the financial advisor knew that the board was uninformed about a number of matters when making critical decisions. The financial advisor never disclosed its intention to use the Rural advisory role to capture a financing role in the acquisition of EMS, and, "[m]ost egregiously," did not disclose its continued interest in pursuing buy-side financing for Warburg and "last minute" lobbying plans. The financial advisor also knew that the board was uninformed about the company's valuation, which was caused by the financial advisor's delay in providing valuation material and its misleading fairness analyses. The fact that the financial advisor was unsuccessful in obtaining the financing mandate did not counteract its actions.

Causally Related Damages. The court found that the financial advisor's self-interested actions proximately caused the board's breach of fiduciary duty and damaged the Rural stockholders by causing the company to be sold below its fair value. The court noted that the premium of the sales price over the pre-transaction market price did not ensure that the merger price was the best value reasonably available.

Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Disclosure. The court determined that the financial advisor's manipulated valuation analysis, which was included in Rural's proxy statement, was materially misleading. Also, the financial advisor's failure to disclose its interest in obtaining a buy-side financing role prevented stockholders from being informed about the advisor's conflict of interest.

Observations

  • Directors Can Violate Their Fiduciary Duties Even When They Are "Misled" by Their Advisors. The court found that the financial advisor's undisclosed conflicts of interest led to breaches by the directors of their fiduciary duties, even though the directors were unaware of the conflicts and in fact were "misled" by the financial advisor. The court emphasized the obligation of directors to actively and directly supervise a sale process, including taking steps to understand and limit the scope and impact of a financial advisor's conflicts.
  • Exculpatory Provisions Are Not Bulletproof. As in most corporations, the directors were protected by a 102(b)(7) exculpatory provision in Rural's charter. The court nonetheless found that the directors faced potential exposure, although the directors settled the litigation so the court did not address their actual liability. In any event, such exculpatory provisions do not benefit financial advisors or other third parties
  • Financial Advisors Are Gatekeepers. The court characterized the financial advisor as "highly compensated" and a "gatekeeper" for the board. The court noted that the prospect of aiding and abetting liability should serve to incentivize financial advisors to advise boards "in a manner that helps ensure that the directors carry out their fiduciary duties when exploring strategic alternatives and conducting a sales process."
  • Boards Should Investigate, and Advisors Should Disclose, Actual and Potential Conflicts. The court repeatedly pointed to the financial advisor's failure to disclose its interest in obtaining buy-side financing fees for the Rural sale and the EMS sale and to the impact of these conflicts and the financial advisor's actions on the board's decisions. Financial advisors should inform the board of potential conflicts during the engagement to allow the board to be adequately informed when making decisions.
  • Scrutiny of the Preparation of Fairness Analyses is Increasing. The court scrutinized the steps taken by the financial advisor in preparing its fairness analyses, including steps taken internally before the analyses were delivered to the board and differences between presentations. Banks should keep in mind that all steps in the development of their analyses may be subject to scrutiny. They may be justified in making changes and judgments, but their actions may be reviewed with hindsight and potentially with the assumption that the changes were made for a self-interested purpose. Boards should consider taking an active approach in obtaining valuation information and other material from their advisors.
  • Fairness Opinion Committee Processes also May be Scrutinized. The court criticized the "ad hoc" nature of the financial advisor's fairness opinion committee, which was comprised of bankers who "happen[ed] to be available" at the time of review rather than "of senior bankers who oversee the opinion process and review opinions to ensure their quality and consistency" as in other investment banks.
  • The Effect of Engagement Letter Language May be Limited. The court found that the general acknowledgement in the financial advisor's engagement letter, to the effect that the advisor might extend acquisition financing and other products to other companies, did not constitute a non-reliance disclaimer that would preclude a claim against the advisor for failure to disclose its specific conflicts of interest. Financial advisors should consider disclosing, and boards should seek to understand and then, if accepted, provide oversight of, actual and potential conflicts more specifically, keeping in mind that such conflicts may change as the process evolves. As noted by the court, it is only by disclosing a conflict that an advisor can obtain a meaningful waiver from the company.
  • Courts Continue to be Skeptical of Staple Financing. The court did not rule out staple financing, but asked why the staple was allowed when the financial advisor also told the board that financing was readily available from other sources. The fact that the financial advisor ultimately did not participate in the financing was irrelevant, given the impact on the bank's incentives and the steps it took to pursue the financing. Boards should consider whether there are benefits to the company and its shareholders prior to allowing a financial advisor to pursue staple and other buy-side financing.
  • A Preliminary Settlement Before Closing Does Not Necessarily End the Matter. The parties may agree to a settlement of litigation, but until approved by a court the settlement may not be effective. Here, the parties agreed to a settlement, but the court found that the disclosures obtained by the plaintiffs were insufficient to support the settlement. The litigation thus continued after the closing.

Footnote

1. In re Rural Metro Corp. Stockholders Lit., Del. Ch. March 7, 2014.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

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.

Authors
Jeffery Bell
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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