X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
A multimillion-dollar merger involving Monsterbook.com is developing into a monster of a problem for Jones Day. On Monday, Los Angeles’ 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that a former shareholder in the now-defunct online directory company had made a viable claim that Jones Day may have committed fraud that cost him $3.45 million in stock. Jones Day represented Transmedia Asia Pacific Inc. in acquiring Monsterbook.com, in which Frank Vega was a 23 percent shareholder. To pull off the deal, Jones Day — then known as Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue — secured $10 million in investment financing from a third party between the merger offer date of March 8, 2000, and the closing on April 13. The financing transaction, however, included so-called “toxic” stock provisions, in which investors received convertible preferred stock that diluted the shares of other Transmedia stockholders. As the court noted, “toxic” stock financing is a “desperate and last resort of financing for a struggling company,” ending up in bankruptcy 95 percent of the time. Vega, who was represented by Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe in the deal, accuses Jones Day of hiding the existence of the “toxic” stock provisions to induce him into giving up his valuable Monsterbook.com stock for Transmedia’s worthless shares. Vega claims Jones Day knew that a full disclosure of the terms of financing would have “killed the acquisition,” and that the firm told Vega, Monsterbook.com and Heller Ehrman that the $10 million financing was “standard” and “nothing unusual.” In opposing Vega’s suit, Jones Day’s lawyers argued that as counsel for an adverse party in the deal, they had no duty to disclose the terms of a third-party investment contract. The appeal court disagreed. “While an attorney’s professional duty of care extends only to his own client and intended beneficiaries of his legal work, the limitations on liability for negligence do not apply to liability for fraud,” Justice Paul Boland wrote. “Accordingly, a lawyer communicating on behalf of a client with a non-client may not knowingly make a false statement of material fact to the non-client.” Justices Candace Cooper and Laurence Rubin concurred. The justices also chastised Jones Day for arguing that the information about the “toxic” stock provisions was readily available in public disclosures filed with the proper authorities in Delaware, papers to which Vega had filed a consent form. The justices sent the case back to the Los Angeles County Superior Court for further proceedings. Neither La Jolla lawyer Manuel Ramos, who represented Vega, nor Jones Day’s attorney, James Fogelman, a partner at L.A.’s Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, could be reached for comment. The case is Vega v. Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, B170659.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.