Delaware Supreme Court Addresses Novel Controlling-Stockholder Claim and Clarifies Effect of a Fully Informed, Uncoerced Stockholder Vote

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
Contact

The Delaware Supreme Court recently issued an opinion, captioned Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC,1 that sheds further light on when a stockholder owning less than 50% of the voting power of a company may be deemed a controlling stockholder. In the opinion, the Delaware Supreme Court also clarified that the business judgment rule will be invoked as the standard of review in a post-closing damages action where a merger that is not subject to the entire fairness standard of review is approved by a fully informed, uncoerced majority of disinterested stockholders, even if the stockholder vote is required by statute. The decision affirms the Delaware Court of Chancery’s ruling in In re KKR Financial Holdings LLC Shareholder Litigation.2  

Background

The underlying Court of Chancery action arose out of the acquisition of KKR Financial Holdings LLC (KFN), a widely held, publicly traded, and externally managed specialty finance company at the time, by KKR & Co. L.P. (KKR), a widely held, publicly traded investment firm. As a result of the transaction, which was structured as a stock-for-stock merger, KFN became a wholly owned subsidiary of KKR and the stockholders of KFN received units representing limited partnership interests in KKR.3  

Leading up to and at the time of the merger, KKR owned less than 1% of the shares of KFN, but an affiliate of KKR, KKR Financial Advisors LLC, served as KFN’s external manager. As is common in the asset management industry, the manager ran the day-to-day operations of KFN pursuant to a management agreement, subject to the oversight of KFN’s board of directors. KFN had no employees, and its executive officers were all employees of the manager or its affiliates.  

From the outset of the transaction, KKR conditioned its proposal to acquire KFN on the transaction being approved by an independent KFN board committee and a majority of KFN’s common stockholders not affiliated with KKR. A special negotiating committee, consisting of six of the 12 directors on KFN’s board, was formed in response to the proposal and negotiated and approved the transaction, which was ultimately recommended to and approved by KFN’s full board (excluding two directors who held high-level positions at KKR). The merger agreement included several deal protections, including a termination fee equal to 1% of the transaction value, a no-shop provision with a fiduciary out, and a matching right that KKR could exercise in the event a competing proposal surfaced. The merger was subject to approval by the holders of a majority of KFN’s common stock; however, the merger agreement further required that the approval by KFN’s common stockholders include a majority of shares held by persons other than KKR and its affiliates.     

After the transaction was announced, and in advance of the stockholder vote, certain KFN stockholders filed an action in the Court of Chancery asserting, among other things, that the members of KFN’s board of directors breached their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty by agreeing to the merger, and that KKR breached its fiduciary duty as a (purported) controlling stockholder by causing KFN to enter into the merger at an unfair price and following an unfair process. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.  

During the pendency of the motion to dismiss, the KFN stockholders, including a majority of the outstanding common stock entitled to vote and not held by KKR or its affiliates, voted in favor of the merger, which closed thereafter. Notably, the plaintiffs did not challenge the disclosures in KFN’s proxy statement in advance of the stockholder vote and did not seek to enjoin the closing of the transaction.  

The Court of Chancery Decision

In ruling on the motion to dismiss after the closing, Chancellor Andre Bouchard addressed a core, threshold issue: whether the plaintiffs pled facts sufficient to rebut the business judgment rule and to compel application of a higher standard of review, specifically enhanced scrutiny under Revlon4 or entire fairness. The court ruled out application of Revlon, which would have examined whether the directors acted reasonably to maximize the short-term value of KFN for its stockholders, on the ground that Revlon’s enhanced scrutiny standard was “not implicated in this action because the stock-for-stock merger involved widely-held, publicly traded companies.”5 As a result, the court’s inquiry narrowed to whether the alleged facts warranted application of the entire fairness standard.  

Seeking to invoke the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Kahn v. Lynch Communication Systems, Inc.,6 the plaintiffs argued that entire fairness should apply because KKR was a controlling stockholder of KFN and stood on both sides of the transaction. Among other things, the plaintiffs alleged that KKR, through its affiliates, was a stockholder of KFN and dominated and controlled KFN by virtue of the management agreement. In evaluating whether KKR was a controller, the Court of Chancery reviewed the two scenarios in which a stockholder becomes a controller under Delaware law: “where the stockholder (1) owns more than 50% of the voting power of a corporation or (2) owns less than 50% of the voting power of the corporation but ‘exercises control over the business affairs of the corporation.’”7 Since KKR owned less than 1% of KFN, the question was whether KKR exercised actual control with regard to the transaction. The particular question before the court was novel because the controlling stockholder argument “really had nothing to do with the amount of voting power KKR held in KFN,” and rested on the unique management structure and reliance of KFN on KKR for its operations.8

The Court of Chancery declined to endorse such a novel argument and found that, based on the existing Delaware jurisprudence, the allegations in the complaint did not support a reasonable inference that KKR was a controlling stockholder of KFN. In particular, the court noted that the plaintiffs’ allegations that KKR’s affiliate managed the day-to-day affairs of KFN did not support a reasonable inference that KKR exercised actual control over the KFN board. There were no allegations, for example, that KKR had a contractual right to appoint any members of the KFN board, to dictate any action by the board, to veto any action of the board, or to prevent the board from hiring advisors and gathering information to be fully informed.9 In other words, there were no facts in the complaint suggesting that “KKR could prevent the KFN board from freely exercising its independent judgment in considering the proposed merger or, put differently, that KKR had the power to exact retribution by removing the KFN directors from their offices if they did not bend to KKR’s will in their consideration of the proposed merger.”10 For these reasons, the court dismissed the claim that KKR breached its fiduciary duty of loyalty in its capacity as a controlling stockholder.

The plaintiffs argued in the alternative that the business judgment rule should be rebutted, and entire fairness should apply, because a majority of the KFN board was not independent.11 The court, therefore, considered whether the plaintiffs pled facts supporting a reasonable inference that a majority of the directors who voted on the merger were beholden to a controlling person or so under the influence of a controlling person that they could not exercise discretion. Of the 10 directors who voted on the transaction (two KKR executives who were directors did not vote), the court found it reasonably conceivable that two of them would not be found independent. One director had long-standing ties to KKR and held positions at a KKR affiliate; the other director was dean of a business school that received a $100 million donation from KKR’s founder. But the plaintiffs failed to allege facts challenging the independence of the remaining eight directors who voted on the merger. As a result, the court determined that the plaintiffs had failed to rebut the business judgment rule by demonstrating that a majority of the directors were interested in the merger or not independent. For this reason, and the fact that the plaintiffs did not challenge the merger as being irrational or on the grounds of waste, they failed to state a claim that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving the merger.                   

Having determined that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that KKR was a controlling stockholder or that a majority of KFN’s board was not independent, the court nevertheless considered the effect of the stockholder vote on the merger. The Court noted that the defendants argued, and the plaintiffs did not disagree, that “the legal effect of a fully-informed stockholder vote of a transaction with a non-controlling stockholder is that the business judgment rule applies and insulates the transaction from all attacks other than on the grounds of waste, even if a majority of the board approving the transaction was not disinterested or independent.”12 Applying this principle, and finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege that the stockholder vote was not fully informed, the court concluded that “even if plaintiffs had pled facts from which it was reasonably inferable that a majority of KFN’s directors were not independent, the business judgment standard would still apply to the merger because it was approved by a majority of the shares held by disinterested stockholders of KFN in a vote that was fully informed.”13 For this independent reason, the court dismissed the claim that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving the merger.
            
The Delaware Supreme Court Decision

On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s decision.14 In particular, with respect to the controlling stockholder question, the Delaware Supreme Court adopted the Court of Chancery’s reasoning and application of existing law, and declined to recognize the novel claim. The Delaware Supreme Court noted, for example, that Chancellor Bouchard properly “focused on the reality that in cases where a party that did not have majority control of the entity’s voting stock was found to be a controlling stockholder, the Court of Chancery, consistent with instructions of this Court, looked for a combination of potent voting power and management control such that the stockholder could be deemed to have effective control of the board without actually owning a majority of stock.”15 Citing to the Court of Chancery’s analysis, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed its holding that “there were no well-plead facts from which it was reasonable to infer that KKR could prevent the KFN board from freely exercising its independent judgment in considering the proposed merger or, put differently, that KKR had the power to exact retribution by removing the KFN directors from their offices if they did not bend to KKR’s will in their consideration of the proposed merger.”16   

The Delaware Supreme Court next addressed the effect of the KFN stockholder vote and the plaintiffs’ argument on appeal that, if the entire fairness standard did not apply, Revlon’s enhanced scrutiny did. The court declined to address whether the Court of Chancery properly determined that Revlon did not apply. The court noted that the plaintiffs arguably waived this challenge because they did not fairly pursue it in the trial court, but, ultimately, the court declined to reach the issue because a determination that Revlon applied would not have changed the analysis. Once the Court of Chancery determined that the transaction was not subject to entire fairness review, its analysis of the effect of the uncoerced, informed stockholder vote dictated the outcome. In the words of the Delaware Supreme Court, adopting the Court of Chancery’s holding, “the business judgment rule is invoked as the appropriate standard of review for a post-closing damages action where a merger that is not subject to the entire fairness standard of review has been approved by a fully informed, uncoerced majority of the disinterested stockholders,” even if the stockholder vote was statutorily required and even if Revlon applied.17

In adopting that holding, the Delaware Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument on appeal that invoking the business judgment rule on the basis of a fully informed, uncoerced stockholder vote would impair the operation of Unocal18 and Revlon. Among other things, the Delaware Supreme Court noted that “Unocal and Revlon are primarily designed to give stockholders and the Court of Chancery the tool of injunctive relief to address important M&A decisions in real time, before closing,” and not to sustain post-closing damages claims.19 In addition, this principle applies only to fully informed, uncoerced stockholder votes. The business judgment rule would not be invoked, for example, if troubling facts regarding director behavior were not disclosed and would have been material to a voting stockholder.                       

Takeaways

The Delaware Supreme Court and Court of Chancery decisions provide corporations and practitioners with helpful guidance on the level of control necessary for a minority stockholder to be deemed a controller (and, therefore, a fiduciary), and on the potential cleansing effect of a fully informed, uncoerced stockholder vote. To summarize, here are a few takeaways:      

  • The test for determining that a minority stockholder is a controlling stockholder is difficult to satisfy and requires demonstrating a level of power and control over the board of directors that effectively prevents the directors from freely exercising their judgment or subjects them to threat of removal from office if the minority stockholder’s will is not carried out. When making this determination, Delaware courts will consider whether the minority stockholder possesses a combination of “potent voting power” and “management control,” or otherwise has a contractual right, that effectively allows the stockholder to control the board’s actions.
     
  • For transactions outside of the controlling-stockholder entire-fairness context,20 a fully informed, uncoerced vote of a majority of disinterested stockholders can invoke and reestablish the business judgment standard of review in a post-closing damages action challenging the transaction, even if a majority of the board of directors approving the transaction was not both disinterested and independent (and even if the entire fairness standard would have applied on that basis). 
     
  • After KKR, Revlon and Unocal enhanced-scrutiny cases are likely to continue to focus on challenging the disclosures made to stockholders and enjoining the transaction before closing. If those claims are not adequately pursued before closing, and only a post-closing damages case remains, then, under KKR, the business judgment rule would be applied instead of enhanced scrutiny if the transaction is approved by a fully informed, uncoerced majority of the disinterested stockholders. The stockholder vote would have the effect of cleansing or extinguishing the Revlon and Unocal claims, leaving a challenger to argue waste or irrationality to otherwise rebut the business judgment rule.

1 2015 WL 5772262 (Del. Oct. 2, 2015).    
 
2 101 A.3d 980 (Del. Ch. 2014).
 
3 Although the merger involved a limited liability company and a limited partnership, the parties and the courts treated the transaction, for purposes of the litigation, as if it had been between two corporations whose internal affairs were governed by the Delaware General Corporation Law and related case law. In keeping with that approach, the courts generally referred to the partnership and limited liability company interests as shares and the holders of such interests as stockholders.    

4 Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173, 182 (Del. 1986) (holding that when directors decide to sell the company in a cash-out merger their role changes from “defenders of the corporate bastion to auctioneers charged with getting the best price for the stockholders at a sale of the company”).
 
5 101 A.3d at 989. Revlon’s enhanced scrutiny standard applies (1) when a corporation initiates an active bidding process seeking to sell itself or to effect a business reorganization involving a clear breakup of the company, (2) where, in response to a bidder’s offer, a target abandons its long-term strategy and seeks an alternative transaction involving a clear breakup of the company, or (3) when approval of a transaction results in a sale or change of control. See Arnold v. Soc’y for Sav. Bancorp, Inc., 650 A.2d 1270 (Del. 1994). There is no sale or change of control, however, when control of both companies remains in a large, fluid, changeable, and changing market. See Paramount Commc’ns, Inc. v. QVC Network, Inc., 637 A.2d 34 (Del. 1994).
 
6 638 A.2d 1110 (Del. 1994) (holding that, when a controlling stockholder stands on both sides of a transaction, the entire fairness standard of review applies).
 
7 101 A.3d at 991 (citing Kahn v. Lynch Commc’n Systems, Inc., 638 A.2d at 113-14).

8 Id. at 993.
 
9 Id. at 994.
 
10 Id. at 995.
 
11 The plaintiffs did not allege that the KFN directors were interested in the merger.
 
12 Id. at 1001.
 
13 Id. at 1003.
 
14 2015 WL 5772262.
 
15 Id. at *2.
 
16 Id. at *3.
 
17 Id. at *1.
 
18 Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 493 A.2d 946 (Del. 1985) (holding that enhanced scrutiny review applies when a board unilaterally adopts defensive measures in response to a purported threat to corporate policy).
 
19 2015 WL 5772262 at *6.
 
20 Controlling-stockholder transactions are subject to particular standard-of-review considerations. For example, when a controlling stockholder stands on both sides of a negotiated merger, entire fairness review generally applies, but business judgment review can be reestablished if all of the requirements of Kahn v. M&F Worldwide Corp. are satisfied. Those requirements are that (1) the controller conditions the procession of the transaction on the approval of both a special committee and a majority of the minority stockholders, (2) the special committee is independent, (3) the special committee is empowered to freely select its own advisors and to say no definitively, (4) the special committee meets its duty of care in negotiating a fair price, (5) the vote of the minority is informed, and (6) there is no coercion of the minority. See Kahn v. M&F Worldwide Corp., 88 A.3d 635, 645 (Del. 2014) (emphasis added). When a controlling stockholder receives different consideration from the minority stockholders, but does not stand on both sides of the transaction, entire fairness review generally applies as well, unless the transaction is (1) recommended by a disinterested and independent special committee and (2) approved by stockholders in a non-waivable vote of the majority of all of the minority stockholders. See In re John Q. Hammons Hotels Inc. S’holder Litig., 2009 WL 3165613, *12 (Del. Ch. Oct. 2, 2009).

Written by:

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
Contact
more
less

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

Related Case Law

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide

JD Supra Privacy Policy

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Collection of Information

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

  • Email
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Company Name
  • Company Industry
  • Title
  • Country

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

How do we use this information?

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

  • Operate our Website and Services and publish content;
  • Distribute content to you in accordance with your preferences as well as to provide other notifications to you (for example, updates about our policies and terms);
  • Measure readership and usage of the Website and Services;
  • Communicate with you regarding your questions and requests;
  • Authenticate users and to provide for the safety and security of our Website and Services;
  • Conduct research and similar activities to improve our Website and Services; and
  • Comply with our legal and regulatory responsibilities and to enforce our rights.

How is your information shared?

  • Content and other public information (such as an author profile) is shared on our Website and Services, including via email digests and social media feeds, and is accessible to the general public.
  • If you choose to use our Website and Services to communicate directly with a company or individual, such communication may be shared accordingly.
  • Readership information is provided to publishing law firms and authors of content to give them insight into their readership and to help them to improve their content.
  • Our Website may offer you the opportunity to share information through our Website, such as through Facebook's "Like" or Twitter's "Tweet" button. We offer this functionality to help generate interest in our Website and content and to permit you to recommend content to your contacts. You should be aware that sharing through such functionality may result in information being collected by the applicable social media network and possibly being made publicly available (for example, through a search engine). Any such information collection would be subject to such third party social media network's privacy policy.
  • Your information may also be shared to parties who support our business, such as professional advisors as well as web-hosting providers, analytics providers and other information technology providers.
  • Any court, governmental authority, law enforcement agency or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation, or otherwise to protect our rights, the rights of any third party or individuals' personal safety, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or safety issues.
  • To our affiliated entities and in connection with the sale, assignment or other transfer of our company or our business.

How We Protect Your Information

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at privacy@jdsupra.com.

Children's Information

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Links to Other Websites

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Information for EU and Swiss Residents

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

  • Our Legal Basis for Processing: Generally, we rely on our legitimate interests in order to process your personal information. For example, we rely on this legal ground if we use your personal information to manage your Registration Data and administer our relationship with you; to deliver our Website and Services; understand and improve our Website and Services; report reader analytics to our authors; to personalize your experience on our Website and Services; and where necessary to protect or defend our or another's rights or property, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, safety or privacy issues. Please see Article 6(1)(f) of the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") In addition, there may be other situations where other grounds for processing may exist, such as where processing is a result of legal requirements (GDPR Article 6(1)(c)) or for reasons of public interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(e)). Please see the "Your Rights" section of this Privacy Policy immediately below for more information about how you may request that we limit or refrain from processing your personal information.
  • Your Rights
    • Right of Access/Portability: You can ask to review details about the information we hold about you and how that information has been used and disclosed. Note that we may request to verify your identification before fulfilling your request. You can also request that your personal information is provided to you in a commonly used electronic format so that you can share it with other organizations.
    • Right to Correct Information: You may ask that we make corrections to any information we hold, if you believe such correction to be necessary.
    • Right to Restrict Our Processing or Erasure of Information: You also have the right in certain circumstances to ask us to restrict processing of your personal information or to erase your personal information. Where you have consented to our use of your personal information, you can withdraw your consent at any time.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

  • Timeframe for retaining your personal information: We will retain your personal information in a form that identifies you only for as long as it serves the purpose(s) for which it was initially collected as stated in this Privacy Policy, or subsequently authorized. We may continue processing your personal information for longer periods, but only for the time and to the extent such processing reasonably serves the purposes of archiving in the public interest, journalism, literature and art, scientific or historical research and statistical analysis, and subject to the protection of this Privacy Policy. For example, if you are an author, your personal information may continue to be published in connection with your article indefinitely. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize it, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.
  • Onward Transfer to Third Parties: As noted in the "How We Share Your Data" Section above, JD Supra may share your information with third parties. When JD Supra discloses your personal information to third parties, we have ensured that such third parties have either certified under the EU-U.S. or Swiss Privacy Shield Framework and will process all personal data received from EU member states/Switzerland in reliance on the applicable Privacy Shield Framework or that they have been subjected to strict contractual provisions in their contract with us to guarantee an adequate level of data protection for your data.

California Privacy Rights

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

Access/Correct/Update/Delete Personal Information

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com. We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

JD Supra Cookie Guide

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

How We Use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

  1. Improve the user experience on our Website and Services;
  2. Store the authorization token that users receive when they login to the private areas of our Website. This token is specific to a user's login session and requires a valid username and password to obtain. It is required to access the user's profile information, subscriptions, and analytics;
  3. Track anonymous site usage; and
  4. Permit connectivity with social media networks to permit content sharing.

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

  • "Session cookies" - These cookies only last as long as your online session, and disappear from your computer or device when you close your browser (like Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Safari).
  • "Persistent cookies" - These cookies stay on your computer or device after your browser has been closed and last for a time specified in the cookie. We use persistent cookies when we need to know who you are for more than one browsing session. For example, we use them to remember your preferences for the next time you visit.
  • "Web Beacons/Pixels" - Some of our web pages and emails may also contain small electronic images known as web beacons, clear GIFs or single-pixel GIFs. These images are placed on a web page or email and typically work in conjunction with cookies to collect data. We use these images to identify our users and user behavior, such as counting the number of users who have visited a web page or acted upon one of our email digests.

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

  • HubSpot - For more information about HubSpot cookies, please visit legal.hubspot.com/privacy-policy.
  • New Relic - For more information on New Relic cookies, please visit www.newrelic.com/privacy.
  • Google Analytics - For more information on Google Analytics cookies, visit www.google.com/policies. To opt-out of being tracked by Google Analytics across all websites visit http://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout. This will allow you to download and install a Google Analytics cookie-free web browser.

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

Controlling and Deleting Cookies

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit http://www.aboutcookies.org which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

Updates to This Policy

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.