On April 27, 2022, the Delaware Court docket of Chancery in In re Tesla Motors Stockholder Litigation rendered a post-trial verdict discovering for Elon Musk, co-founder and CEO of Tesla Motors, Inc., on claims that Musk breached his fiduciary duties, was unjustly enriched and created company waste in reference to Tesla’s 2016 acquisition of SolarCity Company.
The high-profile litigation arises out of alleged conflicts of curiosity created by Musk’s management and possession of each corporations throughout the 2016 acquisition: a stock-for-stock merger valued at roughly $2.6 billion. On the time, Musk was the Chairman of the SolarCity board of administrators and the corporate’s largest stockholder. He was additionally serving as CEO and a director of Tesla, and owned 22% of Tesla’s inventory. Tesla elected to not kind a particular committee of unbiased administrators to barter the transaction, and as an alternative conditioned the approval on the “affirmative vote of a majority of the minority of Tesla’s disinterested stockholders” and recused Musk from sure Board discussions relating to the acquisition. Even so, plaintiff shareholders alleged that Musk brought on Tesla’s board to approve the acquisition at an unfair value, following a extremely flawed course of, so as to bail out Musk’s floundering funding in SolarCity. Plaintiffs introduced claims towards each Musk and members of Tesla’s board looking for damages and equitable cures. All defendants apart from Musk settled with plaintiffs, and Musk proceeded to trial on the claims in July and August 2021.
Within the 11-day trial, the court docket heard proof relating to the gross sales course of, Musk’s position as a Tesla shareholder, whether or not nearly all of the Tesla board was conflicted with respect to the acquisition by the use of self-interest or lack of independence, and the equity of the gross sales value. In its 132-page post-trial resolution, the court docket reviewed that proof to find out the extent of scrutiny to use to the breach of fiduciary responsibility declare — the lenient enterprise judgment rule, or the a lot stricter whole equity commonplace. The court docket finally decided that, however the “provocative questions” relating to the enterprise judgment rule that “might be debated at even probably the most trendy company regulation conferences,” to “skip to whole equity” as a result of “[w]hether by advantage of [Musk’s control], or by advantage of irreconcilable board-level conflicts, there’s a foundation for assuming that whole equity is the governing commonplace of overview.”
The court docket went on to search out the acquisition to be totally honest however sure points within the gross sales course of, primarily as a result of the worth Tesla paid for SolarCity — the “preponderant consideration in whole equity overview” — was honest. With respect to course of, the court docket discovered that any management Musk might have tried to wield in reference to the acquisition was successfully neutralized by the Tesla board’s give attention to the bona fides of the acquisition as led by an indisputably unbiased director. The court docket recognized a number of situations the place Musk was permitted to take part within the deal course of to an inappropriate diploma, together with by speaking with SolarCity’s administration in regards to the acquisition, urgent the Tesla board to think about the acquisition, directing Tesla’s CFO to organize a monetary evaluation of a possible transaction earlier than receiving board approval, taking part within the collection of deal counsel, partaking in supply discussions, and ensuring public bulletins perceived as efforts to garner stockholder assist for the acquisition.
In the end, nevertheless, the court docket was persuaded by the proof Musk offered to point out that the worth paid for SolarCity was honest. Particularly, the court docket targeted on market proof that supported the worth Tesla paid, SolarCity’s present and future money flows, and the substantial synergies that flowed to Tesla from the transaction. The court docket discovered the transaction was subsequently “totally honest” and a verdict was entered for Musk on the breach of fiduciary responsibility, unjust enrichment and waste claims accordingly.
SEC Broadcasts Growth of Crypto and Cyber-Safety Unit
On Could 3, 2022, the U.S. Securities and Change Fee (the Fee) announced that it will be considerably bolstering the unit liable for defending traders in crypto markets and from cyber-related threats by including 20 new positions. The unit, newly renamed because the Crypto Belongings and Cyber Unit, is tasked with guaranteeing traders are protected within the crypto markets by investigating and bringing enforcement actions for securities regulation violations referring to, amongst different issues, crypto asset choices, exchanges and lending, in addition to decentralized finance platforms and non-fungible tokens. The Fee states that the growth, which brings the unit to 50 devoted positions in complete, can even enhance the Fee’s capability to proceed to sort out “the omnipresent cyber-related threats to the nation’s markets.”
Delaware Chancery Court docket Denies Abstract Judgment to Liberty Broadband and Constitution Administrators on Stockholder Problem to Merger between Time Warner and Constitution
On Could 2, 2022, the Delaware Court docket of Chancery denied abstract judgment motions filed by Liberty Broadband Company and administrators of Constitution Communications, Inc., discovering there was ample proof within the file to assist plaintiff’s allegations {that a} majority of administrators have been conflicted when figuring out the phrases of the acquisition of a goal entity. The case will now proceed to trial in problems with director independence and whole equity as to transactions surrounding the merger between Constitution and Time Warner Cable, Inc.
The stockholder problem arose out of three proposed transactions: (1) two Liberty investments into Constitution that may permit Liberty to retain a helpful possession stake in Constitution; (2) a merger between Constitution and Time Warner, by which Constitution would offer $29.3 billion inventory consideration and $27.5 billion money consideration, and assume roughly $22.6 billion of Time Warner debt; and (3) Constitution’s acquisition of Vivid Home Networks, LLC from Advance/Newhouse Partnership, which might permit Advance/Newhouse to retain a helpful possession stake in Constitution. The second two transactions have been conditioned on the Constitution stockholders approving the Liberty investments. The Constitution stockholders accepted all three transactions in September 2015, and the Time Warner merger and acquisition of Vivid Home closed on Could 18, 2016.
Plaintiffs filed an amended grievance in April 2016, alleging that defendants Liberty; Constitution Administrators John Malone, Gregory Maffei, Michael Huseby, Balan Nair, Eric Zinterhofer, Craig Jacobson, Thomas Rutledge, David Merritt, Lance Conn, and John Markley; and nominal defendant Constitution, breached their fiduciary duties by: (1) approving the inventory issuances to Liberty and approving a voting proxy settlement by which Advance/Newhouse would grant Liberty a voting proxy on as much as 6% of its shares; and (2) failing to reveal all materials information vital for shareholders to solid an knowledgeable vote on the transactions.
In response, each Constitution and Liberty (together with two of Constitution’s administrators, John Malone and Gregory Maffei), filed motions to dismiss. On May 31, 2017, the court docket dominated that although Liberty didn’t management Constitution when the stockholders voted in favor of the acquisition of Vivid Home and the Time Warner merger, plaintiffs adequately alleged that the stockholder vote was structurally coerced. On July 26, 2018, the court docket dominated that plaintiffs adequately alleged the Constitution administrators lacked independence, and that discovery may proceed on plaintiffs’ declare for breach of fiduciary responsibility. After important discovery, plaintiffs filed a second amended grievance (SAC) in September 2021, and Liberty and the Constitution administrators moved for abstract judgment thereafter.
Within the SAC, plaintiffs alleged that sure administrators of Constitution — Huseby, Maffei, Malone, Nair, Rutledge, and Zinterhofer — lacked independence on the time of the transactions at difficulty, and breached their fiduciary responsibility by approving the Liberty investments. Plaintiffs alleged that Liberty aided and abetted this breach of fiduciary responsibility. The director defendants conceded that Maffei lacked independence as then-CEO of Liberty Media, which as soon as owned Liberty, and that Malone lacked independence attributable to his 47% possession of voting energy of Liberty. The SAC additionally challenged the Liberty investments, arguing that they weren’t totally honest attributable to sure favorable pricing, tax therapy and governance concerns granted to Liberty. Of their motions for abstract judgment, the defendants argued {that a} majority of Constitution’s administrators have been unbiased on the time of the vote upon the Liberty investments, and that the investments ought to thus be thought-about underneath the enterprise judgment rule. The defendants argued within the various that even when whole equity overview is suitable, the file demonstrated a good course of and value for the Liberty investments.
The court docket thought-about whether or not a majority of the Constitution board of administrators was unbiased. The court docket started with the presumption of director independence, however was required to interpret proof in favor of the occasion alleging lack of independence to find out whether or not there was a real difficulty of fabric truth. The court docket acknowledged plaintiffs’ concession that administrators Maffei and Malone weren’t unbiased, which knowledgeable its evaluation as to the remaining administrators.
The court docket decided that there have been real points of fabric truth, when contemplating all information compiled towards every director as a complete, as to the independence of a number of Constitution administrators. Regarding director Zinterhofer, the court docket cited his prior expertise partaking in joint ventures with Liberty; his position as a director of Liberty Latin America; and his relationship with director Maffei, together with the file of his common settlement with Maffei’s decision-making. For director Husbey, the court docket cited his skilled and private ties to each Malone and Maffei, together with Maffei’s position in referring Huseby for the place of CFO at Barnes & Noble. As to director Nair, the court docket thought-about that he was the Govt Vice President and CTO of Liberty International, had labored in the identical constructing as Malone and Maffei from 2007 to 2016, had publicly praised Malone on varied events, and had inquired with Maffei as as to whether the unique Vivid Home transaction was acceptable. Lastly, the court docket thought-about that the proposed transactions would lead to director in Rutledge’s promotion, elevated compensation, and a renewed employment contract as to his major supply of earnings. The court docket additionally pointed to Rutledge’s personal assertions that he thought-about Malone a “important talker” to whom he listened.
As a result of the court docket discovered that there was ample proof, for the needs of abstract judgment, to point out {that a} majority of the Constitution board of administrators weren’t unbiased, the court docket decided that the enterprise judgment commonplace of overview was unavailable. The court docket additional discovered that Liberty had not proven that the transaction was totally honest as a matter of regulation. As a substitute, the court docket decided that there have been real points of fabric truth to be decided at trial, together with whether or not the Liberty investments have been vital as a prerequisite to the opposite transactions and the quantity of leverage Time Warner would have tolerated within the mixed firm earlier than accepting a merger supply. The court docket additionally left for trial different theories asserted by plaintiffs, together with whether or not the transactions have been accepted by Constitution’s full board of administrators, whether or not fraud on the board occurred within the context of a monetary advisor, and whether or not a set of board resolutions from 2013 conclusively established a scarcity of independence as to sure administrators. The court docket additional denied Liberty’s movement for abstract judgment, as the reason for motion towards Liberty Broadband is for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary responsibility and rises and falls with the director defendants’ movement. The plaintiffs’ allegations as to lack of director dependence and lack of whole equity as to Liberty Broadband investments will proceed to trial.
Delaware Choose Guidelines that Cryptocurrency Compensation Ought to be Handled as a Safety in Contract Breach Case
On April 14, 2022, in Diamond Fortress Applied sciences Inc., and Charles Hatcher II v. EverID, Inc., Delaware Superior Court docket Choose Wallace granted plaintiffs Diamond Fortress Applied sciences, Inc. and its CEO Charles Hatcher, II’s movement for default judgment, holding that compensation promised in cryptocurrency by defendant EverID, Inc. ought to be handled as a safety for valuation functions. Utilizing CoinMarketCap because the valuation device, the court docket awarded $20,100,000 plus pre- and post-judgment curiosity to Diamond Fortress and $5,025,000 plus pre- and post-judgment curiosity to Hatcher.
In September 2018, Diamond Fortress and EverID finalized a license settlement, by which EverID would combine Diamond Fortress’s proprietary ONYX biometric software program into its cryptocurrency platform. Beneath the settlement, Diamond Fortress can be paid in EverID’s personal cryptocurrency, ID Tokens, for EverID’s unique use of the ONYX software program and would obtain 10,000,000 ID Tokens, 25% of which might be distributed upon the Preliminary Coin Providing (ICO) or closing Token Distribution Occasion (TDE) and 75% in 20 equal quarterly distributions thereafter. EverID additionally entered into an advisor settlement with Diamond Fortress’s CEO, Charles Hatcher, II, by which it will distribute 2,500,000 ID Tokens to Hatcher with the identical distribution construction in alternate for Hatcher’s consulting providers as to integration of the ONYX software program. Following EverID’s failure to distribute any ID Tokens to Diamond Fortress or Hatcher following its February 8, 2021 ICO or thereafter, plaintiffs filed swimsuit towards EverID for breach of contract on Could 4, 2021 and, after receiving no response, moved for default judgment on July 16, 2021.
The court docket decided that EverID had repudiated the contracts and subsequently was in complete breach of each agreements, however invited further briefing as to the computation of damages. The court docket, noting that the difficulty of calculating damages for consideration denominated in cryptocurrency was “novel,” defined that the shortage of regulatory authority relating to cryptocurrency has led to a scarcity of consensus on whether or not cryptocurrency ought to be handled as a safety, commodity, property, or foreign money, however acknowledged that the SEC had determined that cryptocurrencies are securities topic to the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Change Act of 1934. The court docket additionally pointed to proposed Congressional laws, the Digital Asset Market Structure and Investor Protection Act, for the proposition {that a} cryptocurrency’s traits at a given time greatest decide whether or not it’s topic to securities regulation.
Subsequent, the court docket turned to software of the three-part take a look at articulated in S.E.C. v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946), which is routinely used to find out whether or not a digital asset is an funding contract, and subsequently topic to the securities legal guidelines: (1) whether or not an funding of cash was a part of the related transaction; (2) whether or not a standard enterprise exists the place the investor’s success depends upon the efforts and success of these looking for the funding of third events; and (3) whether or not the investor entered right into a transaction with the expectation of income primarily based upon the efforts of others.
Making use of the Howey components, the court docket held that the ID Token cryptocurrency was a safety. First, the court docket held that the plaintiffs had made an “funding of cash” underneath Howey by granting EverID an unique license to their ONYX software program, and supplied EverID with associated skilled providers, whereas in flip electing to be paid in eventual ID Token distributions, figuring out that the worth of the ID Tokens would fluctuate over time. Second, the court docket discovered that plaintiff engaged in a standard enterprise as a result of plaintiffs’ capability to earn ID Tokens relied on the profitable launch of EverID’s product utilizing the plaintiffs’ know-how. Third, the court docket discovered that the plaintiffs had entered into the transaction with an “expectation of income” as a result of they granted EverID the unique ONYX license with the cheap perception that the plaintiffs would make a revenue as results of EverID’s success, regardless of the dangers concerned. The court docket additionally thought-about that the events’ license agreements made clear that ID Token distributions have been topic to regulatory compliance underneath Rule 144 of the Securities Act of 1933, discovering that this demonstrated that the events supposed to deal with the ID Tokens issued at every distribution as a safety.
As soon as discovering that the ID token is a safety, the court docket turned to the right technique for figuring out damages, accounting for the phrases of the events’ agreements in addition to the inherent volatility of cryptocurrency. The court docket utilized the “New York rule,” adopted in Delaware, which measures damages by the upper of both the inventory’s worth on the time of conversion, or the best intermediate worth between discover of the conversion and an inexpensive time thereafter throughout which the inventory may have been changed. The court docket relied upon the posted values on CoinMarketCap, discovering that it was a “dependable cryptocurrency valuation device” primarily based upon accessible precedent. The court docket decided that every ID Token was price $2.01, which represented the best money worth of the ID Tokens between the date of plaintiffs’ closing communications to the defendant relating to the breach and three months thereafter. That money worth of $2.01 per token was multiplied by the overall variety of ID Tokens promised in every plaintiff’s contract to calculate the injury awards of $20,100,000 to Diamond Fortress and $5,025,000 to CEO Charles Hatcher, II. The court docket additionally awarded pre-judgement on the statutory charge accruing from March 4, 2021, the day the plaintiffs have been “completely entitled to the token distributions” and post-judgment curiosity, accruing from the date of the Opinion and Order.
Twitter Stockholder Recordsdata Go well with to Delay Musk Takeover
On Could 6, 2022, a stockholder of Twitter filed a putative class motion grievance within the Delaware Court docket of Chancery looking for to stop Elon Musk’s $44 billion acquisition of the corporate from closing on its present timeline. The grievance, filed by Orlando Police Pension Fund, seeks a declaratory judgment that Musk is an “ stockholder” underneath Delaware regulation, which can govern the circumstances underneath which the transaction can go ahead.
The grievance is introduced underneath Part 203 of the Delaware Common Company Legislation, which prevents a shareholder and its associates from partaking in a young or alternate supply for a interval of three years after shopping for greater than 15% of the corporate’s inventory except sure standards are met, together with that the transaction is accepted by an affirmative vote of at the least 662/3% of the excellent voting inventory not owned by stated shareholder.
Musk started buying Twitter shares in January 2022 and personally owned roughly 9.6% of Twitter’s excellent voting inventory when the Board accepted the proposed takeover. However the truth that Musk’s private holdings have been under the edge, the grievance alleges that Musk’s preparations and understandings with two different important helpful homeowners of Twitter’s excellent voting inventory — Morgan Stanley and Twitter co-founder, former CEO, and director Jack Dorsey — render Musk an “ shareholder” inside the that means Part 203. The grievance alleges that Morgan Stanley has served as Musk’s long-time monetary advisor, and is alleged to have performed a big position in financing Musk’s bid for Twitter in alternate for substantial funding banking charges. The grievance additionally alleges that Dorsey “instigated Musk’s pursuit” of the takeover and has supported Musk publicly in method ample to recommend the 2 have an “understanding” that Dorsey will “assist Musk’s takeover bid and vote his shares in Musk’s favor.” The grievance claims that, taken collectively with Morgan Stanley and Dorsey’s possession, Musk is an “ stockholder” inside the that means of Part 203, and is subsequently topic to its statutory protections.
Plaintiff seeks a “immediate trial” on its claims to “make sure the vote of Twitter stockholders on the Proposed Takeover” — the date for which has not but been set — is “correctly knowledgeable.” Musk has since introduced that the proposed transaction is “on maintain” pending additional investigation about spam and faux consumer accounts.
[View source.]
