Litigation Alert >> Double-Derivative Shareholder Actions in the Wake
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FEBRUARY 2011 LITIGATION >> ALERT DOUBLE-DERIVATIVE SHAREHOLDER ACTIONS IN THE WAKE OF STOCK-FOR-STOCK MERGERS Shareholder derivative actions can emerge as an important issue for nearly everyone involved in a company’s activities, including its executives, board members, in-house attorneys, principals and other shareholders. Under certain circumstances, this mechanism can allow a shareholder to redress harm to the corporation by bringing a lawsuit on the corporation’s behalf where the corporation’s management is prevented from doing so due to conflicts of interest. As such, the derivative action can be may bring a derivative action based an important corporate governance on conduct that took place at the THE BOTTOM LINE device to protect shareholders from acquired company before the merger. corporate waste and wrongdoing. Corporate management, in-house In the hands of opportunistic plaintiffs’ CASE BACKGROUND counsel, and stockholders should lawyers, however, the device can This case arose from derivative claims be aware of potential shareholder also be a costly drain on corporate brought in a New York federal court derivative litigation in approaching resources and a source of by former shareholders of Merrill Lynch management distraction. Also, who alleged that Merrill’s senior corporate transactions. The bear in mind that many of the rules management and board members Delaware Supreme Court’s recent that have been developed around breached fiduciary duties in connection pronouncement makes it derivative actions are applicable to with the company’s involvement in particularly important that those companies ranging from the largest underwriting collateralized debt public corporations to closely held obligations, risky mortgage-related involved with acquisitions of LLCs and partnerships. activities, and improper payment troubled or distressed companies of bonuses. When Merrill was The Delaware Supreme Court, a bear in mind any potential leading authority on corporate law, subsequently acquired by Bank of derivative litigation by shareholders has recently spoken definitively on America in a stock-for-stock merger, an issue that will be of particular these derivative claims were of the acquired company in interest to those involved in corporate extinguished based on the rule assessing and planning for the requiring a derivative plaintiff to acquisitions. Specifically, in costs and possible gains of post- Lambrecht v. O’Neal, the court has maintain stock ownership both at the merger litigation, in negotiating addressed the question of whether time of the alleged wrongdoing and and under what circumstances a throughout the course of the litigation. indemnity provisions, and in The purpose of the continuous pre-merger shareholder of an acquired determining the optimal structure company, who has become a current ownership requirement is to ensure and consideration for acquisitions. shareholder of the acquiring company that derivative plaintiffs have a true >> continues on next page by virtue of a stock-for-stock merger, Attorney Advertising FEBRUARY 2011 LITIGATION >> ALERT stake in redressing alleged harm to of whether plaintiffs in fact were CONCLUSION the company and to prevent the required to meet these additional Through its holding, Lambrecht buying and selling of derivative requirements, the federal court in effectively breathed life into the claims through the sale of stock. New York certified this question of double-derivative remedy, particularly law to the Delaware Supreme Court, The court, however, left open in the wake of stock-for-stock which agreed to address the issue. the possibility that the plaintiff mergers. This development may shareholders could re-file the action be particularly significant with regard RULING as a “double-derivative” action in their to the acquisitions of troubled or capacities as new Bank of America The Delaware Supreme Court rejected distressed companies where there shareholders, which they did. the defendants’ contention that are allegations of mismanagement A “double-derivative” action is the plaintiffs would have to show their or wrongdoing by the acquired means through which a shareholder ownership in the acquiring corporation companies’ officers and directors. of a parent corporation can seek and the acquiring corporation’s Lambrecht makes clear that derivative recovery for harm to a subsidiary. ownership of the subsidiary at the time actions by the acquired company’s of the wrongdoing, and overruled prior former shareholders based on these The defendants argued that the caselaw to the extent it held otherwise. allegations will not, as a practical plaintiffs’ double-derivative suit as The court took a practical approach to matter, be extinguished by the merger Bank of America shareholders should the issue, noting that double-derivative so long as those shareholders receive be dismissed because they still could actions are an important mechanism stock of the acquiring company as not meet the continuous ownership for corporate governance and that the part of the acquisition. requirement. Although plaintiffs now defendants’ proposed criteria “would could meet the requirement of holding effectively eviscerate the double stock at the time of the litigation, derivative action as a meaningful FOR MORE INFORMATION defendants contended that plaintiffs remedy.” One of the cornerstones of must also demonstrate that, at the the court’s reasoning was its finding James R. Levine time of the alleged wrongdoing at that, assuming the plaintiffs could Partner the acquired company, satisfy the legal requirements to bring 212.468.4985 [email protected] >> plaintiffs owned stock in the a derivative suit on behalf of Bank of acquiring company, and America, the lawsuit on behalf of Bank or the D&G attorney with whom of America against the Merrill officers you have regular contact. >> the acquiring company owned and directors was not truly a derivative stock in the acquired company. action and thus did not have to meet the continuous share ownership DAVIS & GILBERT LLP The defendants’ argument was requirement. Rather, the court T: 212.468.4800 based in part on prior precedent 1740 Broadway, New York, NY 10019 reasoned that Bank of America could that could be read to support these www.dglaw.com enforce its rights directly in its capacity requirements. Faced with the © 2011 Davis & Gilbert LLP as 100% owner of Merrill. important Delaware law question .