In Reviving Suit Over Oil and Gas Merger, Delaware Supreme Court Cites Timing of Deal Talks
The ruling, published Friday by a three-judge panel of the state high court, applied the justices' 2014 precedent in the case Kahn v. M&F Worldwide to deny business-judgment deference to the Earthstone board and reversed, in part, the Chancery Court's dismissal of the case in its entirety last July.
April 08, 2019 at 04:04 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Business Court Insider
The Delaware Supreme Court has revived part of a shareholder derivative lawsuit over Earthstone Energy Inc.'s controller-led acquisition of Texas-based Bold Energy III LLC, ruling that deal negotiations had started before a special committee could establish protections for the oil-and-gas driller's minority investors.
The ruling, published Friday by a three-judge panel of the state high court, applied the justices' 2014 precedent in the case Kahn v. M&F Worldwide to deny business-judgment deference to the Earthstone board and reversed, in part, the Chancery Court's dismissal of the case in its entirety last July.
In MFW, the Supreme Court held that mergers proposed by a controlling stockholder and its corporate subsidiary can only avoid Delaware's rigorous “entire fairness” review when conditioned from the beginning on the approval of a strong, independent special committee and the uncoerced and informed vote of a majority-of-the-minority of stockholders.
The high court later clarified that MFW's timing requirement meant those minority protections must be in place prior to any substantive economic negotiations with the target.
Earthstone investor Nicholas Olenik seized on those two rulings to challenge a tie-up between Earthstone and a cash-strapped Bold, which is controlled by EnCap Investments, a private equity firm that until recently held a majority stake in Earthstone. In his June 2017 complaint, Olenik argued that merger negotiations started eight months before Earthstone's independent directors formed a panel to evaluate the deal, resulting in an unfair deal that favored EnCap over Earthstone's public stockholders.
Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III, however, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case on business-judgment grounds, saying that the lengthy talks “never rose to the level of bargaining” and were only exploratory in nature.
On Friday, Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. noted that Slight's ruling last July came before the high court decided Synutra. Still, he said, Earthstone, EnCap and Bold had clearly held back-and-forth conversations well before Earthstone had tried to bring the process in line with MFW.
“While some of the early interactions between Earthstone and EnCap could be fairly described as preliminary discussions outside of MFW's 'from the beginning' requirement, the well-pled facts in the complaint support a pleading stage inference that the preliminary discussions transitioned to substantive economic negotiations when the parties engaged in a joint exercise to value Earthstone and Bold,” Seitz wrote on behalf of the panel.
“Based on these facts, it is reasonable to infer that these valuations set the field of play for the economic negotiations to come by fixing the range in which offers and counteroffers might be made,” he said.
He was joined in the opinion by Justices Leo E. Strine Jr. and Karen L. Valihura.
The ruling, however, revived only part of Olenik's case against the board. Seitz held that claims over an allegedly misleading proxy accompanying the merger's announcement had not cited specific information that would have affected how a reasonable investor would vote on the deal.
According to court papers, shareholders approved the merger in May 2017, with more than 99 percent voting in favor of the transaction.
An attorney for Olenik on Monday declined to comment on the ruling. Counsel for Bold, Earthstone and the company's directors did not immediately return a call seeking comment on the decision.
Olenik is represented by Jeremy S. Friedman, Spencer Oster and David F.E. Tejtel of Friedman Oster & Tejtel in New York; Ned Weinberger and Thomas Curry of Labaton Sucharow and Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer and David Sborz of Andrews & Springer, both in Wilmington. Weinburger, of Labaton, argued the appeal.
Bold, Earthstone and its board are represented by Kenneth J. Nachbar, D. McKinley Measley and Lauren Neal Bennett of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell in Wilmington; Gerard G. Pecht of Norton Rose Fulbright in Houston and Peter A. Stokes and William Patrick Courtney from the firm's Austin, Texas office.
EnCap and its related entities are represented by Rolin P. Bissell and James M. Yoch Jr. of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor in Wilmington and Michael C. Holmes, Craig E. Zieminski, Stephen S. Gilstrap, R. Kent Piacenti and Jeffrey Crough of Vinson & Elkins in Dallas.
The case, now remanded to the Court of Chancery, is captioned Olenik v. Lodzinski.
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 Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Approves CVS-Aetna Merger After Initial Skepticism
READ THE DECISION: Judge OKs AT&T-Time Warner's $85B Merger
Drinker Biddle Accused of Health Care Deal Breakup Over Alleged Disclosures Tied to Miami Indictment
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Like a Life Raft: Ben Brafman Reflects on Nearly 50 Years as a Defense Attorney
- 2HSF Partner Removed Over ‘Deeply Offensive’ Tweets
- 3Another Latham Partner Heads to Sidley in London
- 4In 'Kousisis,' the DOJ Once Again Pushes the Limits of Federal Fraud Prosecutions
- 5How Kirkland Has 'Reinvented a Meaningful Aspect' of Funds Work
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250