Justia Securities Law Opinion Summaries

This case involved the interpretation of two provisions in a merger agreement between defendant corporation and a company whose former stockholders were represented by plaintiff. The two provisions at issue dealt with contingent payments due in certain circumstances from defendant to those stockholders. The court found that the language of the merger agreement was unambiguous, and that per its provisions, defendant's obligations under the merger agreement were assumed by the acquiring company, thus avoiding the acceleration of the remaining revenue contingent payments. Therefore, the court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant.View "Coughlan v. NXP B.V." on Justia Law

Plaintiff contended that holders of common stock of Wesco were entitled to appraisal rights under Section 262 of the General Corporation Law, 8 Del. 262, in connection with a forward triangular merger among Wesco, its parent, and an acquisition subsidiary. The parties cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the availability of appraisal rights. The court held that because Wesco common stockholders were not required to accept consideration other than stock listed on a national securities exchange and cash in lieu of fractional shares, they were not entitled to appraisal rights. Accordingly, summary judgment on this issue was entered in favor of defendants.View "Krieger v. Wesco Financial Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant Money & More Inc. (M&M) allegedly maintained and operated a Ponzi scheme. Pursuant to a petition filed by the State, the district court issued a temporary restraining order freezing Defendants' assets and later entered a preliminary injunction. Several hundred individuals and dozens of corporations that made fraudulent investments formed Money & More Investors LLC (MMI) and assigned to it their rights, interests, and claims against Defendants, who included the individuals comprising M&M. After reaching a settlement agreement with Defendants, MMI filed a motion to intervene in the State's preservation action. The district court granted MMI both intervention as of right under Utah R. Civ. P. 24(a) and, in the alternative, permissive intervention under Utah R. Civ. P. 24(b). The Supreme Court affirmed the grant of intervention as of right, holding that MMI met all the elements of rule 24(a) where (1) MMI's motion to intervene was timely; (2) MMI had a direct interest relating to the property; (3) MMI sufficiently established that the original parties to the suit would inadequately represent MMI's interests; and (4) MMI would be bound by the judgment.View "State v. Bosh" on Justia Law

Liberty commenced this action against the Trustee under the Indenture, seeking injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that the proposed Capital Splitoff would not constitute a disposition of "substantially all" of Liberty's assets in violation of the Indenture. The Court of Chancery concluded, after a trial, that the four transactions at issue should not be aggregated, and entered judgment for Liberty. The Court of Chancery concluded that the proposed splitoff was not "sufficiently connected" to the prior transactions to warrant aggregation for purposes of the Successor Obligor Provision. The court agreed with the judgment of the Court of Chancery and affirmed.View "The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v. Liberty Media Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant AIA Services Corporation entered into a stock redemption agreement with Appellant Reed Taylor to purchase all of his shares in AIA Services for a $1.5 million down payment promissory note and a $6 million promissory note, plus other consideration. When AIA failed to pay the $1.5 million when it became due, Appellant and AIA agreed to modify the stock redemption agreement. AIA was a still unable to make payments under the new terms. Appellant then filed suit to recover the amounts owed on the two promissory notes. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of AIA and dismissed six of Appellant's causes of action after finding the revised stock redemption agreement was unenforceable. On appeal, Appellant argued the redemption agreement complied with state law and was still enforceable. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's holding that the agreement was illegal and unenforceable and affirmed the court's dismissal of Appellant's six causes of action.View "Reed J. Taylor v. AIA Services " on Justia Law

CML, a junior secured creditor of JetDirect, sued JetDirect's present and former officers directly and derivatively for breaching their fiduciary duties. The Vice Chancellor dismissed all four of CML's claims. The court affirmed the judgment because CML, as a JetDirector creditor, lacked standing to sue derivatively on JetDirect's behalf.View "CML V, LLC, et al. v. Bax, et al." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a dispute between a hedge fund manager and the hedge fund's seed investor. The central issue was contractual and involved whether the hedge fund manager could use the Gate Provision in the Partnership Agreement to lock up the seed investor. The court held that the hedge fund manager's refusal to honor the withdrawal request and return the seed investor's capital in full was a violation of the Seeder Agreement and a breach of contract. The court held that, in the alternative, even if the Gates were potentially applicable, it was a breach of fiduciary duty for the hedge fund manager to use the Gates solely for a selfish reason. Therefore, the court ordered the immediate return to the seed investor of all of its capital and awarded interest to compensate it for the delay. The court also disposed of several other claims raised by the hedge fund manager and the seed investor.View "Paige Capital Mgmt., LLC, et al. v. Lerner Master Fund, LLC et al." on Justia Law

Defendants Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Company, L.P. (KKR), KKR Associates, KKR Partners II, and Crimson Associates, L.P., as well as several individuals, petitioned the Supreme Court for the writ of mandamus to direct a circuit court to vacate its order that denied their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint because it lacked personal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs in this action were 46 individuals, partnerships, corporations, foundations, trusts and retirement and pension funds located throughout the country that invested in certain promissory notes issued as part of a leveraged recapitalization of Bruno's Inc., a supermarket-grocery business with its headquarters in Alabama. Plaintiffs contended that despite a negative due-diligence report from its forensic accountant, KKR decided to proceed with its acquisition of Bruno's. In order to achieve the recapitalization, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants made material, fraudulent misrepresentations to the Plaintiffs' investment money manger that induced them into purchasing the notes. Based on the torts allegedly committed by the individual defendants, the Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendants' motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court denied Defendants' application for the writ of mandamus, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "27001 Partnership v. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P." on Justia Law

This case arose when Commerzbank agreed to acquire Dresdner Bank in September 2008. As part of the deal, Commerzbank also acquired Dresdner Bank's trust preferred structures, and holders of Dresdner's trust preferred securities received distributions in both 2009 and 2010. Plaintiff claimed that paying those distributions "pushed," or required Commerzbank to make distributions on, a class of its owned preferred securities in which plaintiff had an interest, and, by the complaint, plaintiff asked the court to enforce that alleged obligation. Plaintiff also sought specific performance of a support agreement that was argued to require the elevation of the liquidation preference of Commerzbank's trust preferred securities in response to a restructuring of one class of the Dresdner securities. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court held, among other things, that because the DresCap Trust Certificates did not qualify as either Parity Securities, defendants were entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law regarding plaintiff's claim under the Pusher Provision. The court also held that because DresCap Trust Certificates did not qualify as either Parity Securities or Junior Securities, Section 6 of the Support Undertaking was not triggered by amendment of the DresCap Trust IV Certificates. Accordingly, defendants were entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law regarding plaintiff's claim that the amendment of the DresCap Trust IV Certificates required defendants to amend the Trusted Preferred Securities.View "The Bank of New York Mellon v. Commerzbank Capital Funding Trust II, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs James Adams, Stanley Dye and Ed Holcombe were all shareholders in Altrust Financial Services, Inc. They sued Altrust, the Peoples Bank of Alabama (collectively, Altrust) and Dixon Hughes, LLC, Altrust's public-accounting firm, for violating the Alabama Securities Act. Altrust is a holding company that fully owns, controls and directs the operations of the Bank. Altrust and the Bank share common officers and directors and issue consolidated financial statements. Shareholders voted to reorganize the company in 2008 from a publicly held company to a privately held company. The move would have freed the company of certain reporting obligations imposed by the federal Securities Exchange Act and allowed the company to elect Subchapter S status for tax purposes. Relying on information in a proxy statement, Plaintiffs elected not to sell their shares of Altrust stock and instead voted for reorganization. Plaintiffs alleged that the proxy statement and financial reports contained material misrepresentations and omissions that induced them to ultimately sign shareholder agreements that made them shareholders in the newly reorganized Altrust. Plaintiffs contended that if (in their view) instances of mismanagement, self-dealing, interested-party transactions and "skewing" of company liabilities had been fully disclosed, they would have elected to sell their shares rather than remain as shareholders. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Plaintiffs' allegations were not specific to them but to all shareholders, and as such, they did not have standing to assert a direct action against the company. Because Plaintiffs did not have standing to assert claims against Altrust, they also lacked standing to assert professional negligence claims against the accounting firm. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Altrust Financial Services, Inc. v. Adams" on Justia Law