Delaware Court of Chancery Finds Board Did Not Breach Fiduciary Duties in Merger Where Common Shareholders Received Nothing


In a lengthy opinion following trial, Delaware Court of Chancery Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster found the decision by the directors of a venture capital-backed company to approve a $60 million merger was fair, even though process was unfair and common shareholders received nothing in the merger. The court found that the company's stock had no value before the merger and thus the common shareholders got "the substantial equivalent in value of what they had before" — nothing.

Several years before the merger, venture capital firms had invested in the company, receiving preferred stock and several seats on the board of directors. When the increase in the company's revenue was not sufficient for the venture capital firms, they sought an exit. The board adopted a Management Incentive Plan (MIP) that provided for the payment of compensation to the management upon a sale of the company, even if the common shareholders received nothing. In the merger, the preferred shareholders received the bulk of the consideration and management got $7.8 million under the MIP.

After the merger, a shareholder filed an appraisal action that was later consolidated with a class action alleging breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty against the company's directors. The motion to dismiss was initially denied and a bench trial followed. Vice Chancellor Laster, applying the entire fairness standard of review, had no trouble in concluding that the directors had followed a process that was not fair to the common shareholders. However, that did not result in a finding of breach of fiduciary duty because while the process was unfair, the price was fair.

Some points to consider from this opinion are:

  • When a board is controlled by preferred shareholders, a conflict can arise between preferred shareholders and common shareholders. In such situations, the most rigorous review standard, the "entire fairness" standard, applies.
  • A conflicted board should consider using procedural protections for the common shareholders, such as a special committee of directors that is independent from the preferred shareholders or a fairness opinion from a bank engaged by the special committee.
  • A company is not required to continue operations to try and maximize value for the common shareholders.
  • Even if the process is unfair, directors can escape liability if they ensure that the price given — even if nothing at all — is fair (and can be supported as such in hindsight). Of course, directors are well-advised to attempt to satisfy both the fair process and the fair price prongs.

To view a copy of the opinion for In re Trados Inc. S'holder Litig., Del. Ch., Consol. C.A. No. 1512-VCL (Aug. 16, 2013), go to:

DISCLAIMER: 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.

© Holland & Knight LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Holland & Knight LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.