United States: After In re Trulia: Increased Scrutiny For The Give And The Get In Disclosure Settlements

It used to be that boards of public companies being acquired would routinely face one or (likely) more lawsuits alleging the directors breached their fiduciary duties because they had agreed to sell too cheaply or engaged in a flawed sales process. These lawsuits were often resolved through relatively straightforward settlements, in which the company agreed to make supplemental disclosures in exchange for dismissal of the lawsuit, a release of all potential claims, and payment of a fee to plaintiffs' counsel. At the same time, companies funneled deal litigation into the Delaware Court of Chancery through forum selection bylaws requiring that intra-corporate litigation be brought in the company's state of incorporation (typically Delaware) or headquarters in an effort to reduce the costs of multi-forum deal litigation.

Until recently, the Court of Chancery routinely approved such settlements. But the times they are a'changin.

Last year, the Court of Chancery began scrutinizing these types of settlements and rejecting them where it found the claims lacked merit or the releases were too generous. In July 2015, Vice Chancellor Laster refused to approve a settlement in Acevedo v. Aeroflex Holding Corp. Settlement Hr'g and Req. for Att'ys' Fees and the Ct.'s Rulings at 74, Acevedo v. Aeroflex Holding Corp. et al., C.A. No. 7930-VCL (Del. Ch. argued Jul. 8, 2015). In his ruling, Vice Chancellor noted that in the past the Court of Chancery approved these settlements out of sympathy for defendants, who absent settlement would likely face costly litigation even in non-meritorious cases. Id. at 63-64. But "with easy money to be had, M&A litigation proliferated" and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees climbed. Id. at 64. Moreover, shareholders were not receiving any quantifiable benefit and were releasing claims that shareholders' attorneys could never (because of the limited discovery performed and vast breadth of so-called "intergalactic" releases) have investigated closely. Id. at 63-65. In the final analysis, Vice Chancellor Laster measured the give (i.e., disclosures and other relief) against the get (i.e., a broad class-wide release), found they did not square, and rejected the settlement. Id. at 73. In the following months, other members of the Court of Chancery expressed similar reservations about this type of settlement. See, e.g., Telephonic Bench Ruling on Settlement Hr'g at 7-8, In re Intermune, Inc. S'holder Litig., C.A. No. 10086-VCN (Del. Ch. argued Dec. 29, 2015) (Noble, V.C.); Mem. Op. at 6-11, In re Riverbed Tech., Inc. S'holders Litig., C.A. No. 10484-VCG (Del. Ch. Sept. 17, 2015) (Glasscock, V.C.).

These decisions introduced considerable doubt as to what types of settlements might pass muster and, as a result, deal litigation declined dramatically. According to a review of filings by The Wall Street Journal, just 34% of sales of Delaware companies for more than $100 million from October through December 2015 faced lawsuits—down from 78% for the first nine months of 2015, and 95% for 2014. 

The tide truly changed, however, in January when Chancellor Bouchard issued a lengthy opinion that not only echoed the concerns voiced by the other members of the Court of Chancery, but created a framework against which parties can test the adequacy of future proposed settlements. In In re Trulia Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 10020-CB, 2016 WL 325008 (Del. Ch. Jan. 22, 2016), Chancellor Bouchard was presented with a disclosure settlement arising from the merger between Trulia and Zillow, two online real estate websites. In the suit, plaintiffs (as is typical) alleged the directors had breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating the deal. Id. at *2. 

Initially, this merger suit proceeded as many others before it. Soon (less than one day) after the Court of Chancery consolidated the cases and appointed lead counsel, plaintiffs and defendants agreed to an expedited discovery schedule. Id. Approximately one month later and after just two depositions, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, agreeing in principle to settle the litigation for certain disclosures to supplement those contained in the proxy. Id. at *3. Several months later, after confirmatory discovery, the parties finalized the settlement agreement. Id.

The case diverged from the usual script, however, after a settlement fairness hearing in September 2015. Despite not receiving any objections to the settlement, Chancellor Bouchard declined to approve it and, instead, took the decision under advisement. He also requested additional briefing from the parties regarding whether the disclosures must meet the legal standard of materiality in order to constitute an adequate benefit to support a settlement. Id. at *4. 

In January 2016, Chancellor Bouchard issued his ruling and held not only that disclosures supporting a settlement must be material, but also that there must be no question as to their materiality. See id. at *10. Specifically, he stated that in the future such settlements will be met with "disfavor . . . unless the supplemental disclosures address a plainly material misrepresentation or omission, and the subject matter of the proposed release is narrowly circumscribed to encompass nothing more than disclosure claims and fiduciary duty claims concerning the sale process, if the record shows that such claims have been investigated sufficiently." Id. Disclosures that are "plainly material . . . should not be a close call," and, if they are, the Court of Chancery may appoint amicus curiae to assist it in evaluating the alleged benefits of the supplemental disclosures given the "non-adversarial nature of the typical disclosure settlement hearing." Id. Chancellor Bouchard concluded by exhorting sister states, which may very well see an increase in filings of the type of deal litigation that Delaware had seen in the past and is now no longer favorably inclined to consider, to follow a similar approach to such litigation in the future. Id. at *11.

Applying this new standard to the settlement at hand, Chancellor Bouchard rejected it because the disclosures, which were limited to supplementing the opinion of Trulia's financial advisor, did not meet the "plainly material" test. Specifically, he found the disclosures added only "additional minutiae" regarding: (1) certain synergy numbers in Trulia's financial advisor's "value creation" analysis; (2) selected comparable transaction multiples; (3) selected public trading multiples; and (4) implied terminal EBITDA multiples for a discounted cash flow analysis. Id. at *11, *15. He emphasized that shareholders must receive only "a fair summary" of the advisor's work and dismissed the supplemental disclosures as "extraneous details," which "[did] not contribute to a fair summary and [did] not add value for stockholders." See id. at *11-12, *18. 

Although it may be premature to declare complete victory over the filing of "deal tax" litigation, Chancellor Bouchard's approach in In re Trulia may foreshadow the end to what some snidely referred to as "deal insurance" settlements. Indeed, recent trends suggest the number of suits should continue to fall. But suits outside Delaware and more meritorious suits in Delaware—for example, alleging undisclosed banker conflicts, undisclosed management projections, undisclosed employment discussions between management and the acquirer, or facts triggering an entire fairness standard of review—will remain and may satisfy the "plainly material" standard. In re Trulia also noted some alternatives to disclosure-only settlements. Id. at *9. Below we discuss some of these alternatives and potential strategies for opposing merger-related lawsuits.

Potential Approaches to Deal Litigation

With disclosure-only settlements facing a hostile reception in Delaware, plaintiffs may pursue deal litigation in other states. Below are some approaches to defending these suits. 

  • Adopt exclusive forum bylaws: Exclusive forum bylaw provisions (which generally can be adopted without shareholder approval) can funnel deal litigation to Delaware, where the Court of Chancery will likely examine the suit more closely. Defendants can then move to dismiss cases filed elsewhere.
     
  • Oppose expedited discovery/treatment: The Court of Chancery frequently refuses expedited treatment when a deal is well disclosed and followed a good process. Companies can pursue that approach outside Delaware. Without expedited treatment or after a well-grounded motion to dismiss, plaintiffs may fold their cards and voluntarily dismiss. 
     
  • Stay Delaware litigation in favor of another state: Alternatively, companies could take their chances outside Delaware, where courts may more willingly approve disclosure-only settlements. However, without the benefit of the Court of Chancery's expertise, another court may be more likely to allow a case to proceed to expedited discovery, may struggle with a preliminary injunction motion, and may be less likely to dismiss even a non-meritorious case.  

If the parties choose to settle in Delaware, the options may now be more limited: 

  • Negotiate more narrowly tailored releases: Instead of agreeing to "intergalactic" releases, plaintiffs may now release only disclosure or fiduciary duty claims concerning the sales process. The Court of Chancery has said it would approve such settlements because they would not foreclose other future, potentially meritorious claims.
     
  • Settle only after more extensive discovery and potentially a preliminary injunction hearing: Plaintiffs may seek more extensive discovery, instead of the typical expedited discovery that the Court of Chancery has criticized, or may push forward and seek a preliminary injunction. Such efforts may give the Court of Chancery comfort that plaintiffs' counsel has investigated, and the parties have vigorously explored, the existence of potentially meritorious claims before settling. 
     
  • Voluntarily dismiss and pay mootness fee: Another alternative (endorsed by Chancellor Bouchard as "[t]he preferred scenario") is for plaintiffs to dismiss the case voluntarily after defendants make agreed-upon disclosures. Plaintiffs' counsel will then seek a so-called mootness fee, and the Court of Chancery will likely require some form of notice informing shareholders of the dismissal before considering the fee. This approach, however, does not include a release of claims. 

It is not entirely clear how the Court of Chancery will apply the new "plainly material" disclosure standard or whether disclosure-only settlements remain viable. It is clear, however, that although fewer merger suits will be filed, those filed will be subject to more rigorous litigation and may proceed post-closing. See, e.g., Rulings of the Ct. from Telephonic Oral Arg. on Pl.'s Mot. for Expedited Proceedings at 4, Johnson v. Driscoll, et al., C.A. No. 11721-VCL (Del. Ch. argued Feb. 3, 2016) (denying motion for expedition and noting issues of materiality are better decided on motion to dismiss post-closing); Oral Arg. on Pls.' Mot. for Expedited Proceedings and Rulings of the Ct. at 48-50, In re Keurig Green Mountain Inc. S'holders Litig., C.A. No. 11815-CB (Del. Ch. argued Feb. 2, 2016) (granting motion for expedition on limited issues and noting that "[i]t would be best for defendants either to litigate out the disclosure claim or moot it in a way that is satisfactory to the plaintiffs"). 

Early in the deal process, companies should seek advice on how best to reduce the risk of deal litigation and, if it arises, how best to navigate the realities of deal litigation during these changing times.

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.

Authors
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
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