Since the 1974 landmark decision in Donohue v. Rodd, Massachusetts courts have held that majority stockholders in close corporations owe minority stockholders a fiduciary duty akin to that owed in a partnership. This type of duty has been relied up to protect minority shareholders from squeeze-out or freeze-out scenarios. It has also been used as an offensive tactic to argue for implied rights of shareholders that are not expressly provided in the corporate documents, such as the articles of organization, bylaws or shareholder agreements.

In Merriam, et. al. v. Demoulas Supermarkets, Inc., the Supreme Judicial Court refused to extend the duties provided under Donohue v. Rodd to restrict stock transfers that were not expressly restricted under the Corporation’s governing documents.

While a fiduciary duty may exist, the Court encouraged shareholders of close corporations to enter into a shareholder agreement or specify in the corporate bylaws “rights, protections, and procedures that define the scope of their fiduciary duty in foreseeable situations.” The Court held that good faith compliance with the specific terms will not implicate that fiduciary duty. “A claim for breach of fiduciary duty may arise only where the agreement does not entirely govern the shareholder’s actions.”

In this case the plaintiffs attempted to use the concept of fiduciary duty in a creative way to prevent the transfer of stock because the corporation was an S corporation and the transfer could blow the S election. After reviewing the shareholder agreement and bylaws, the Court held that the challenged actions fell within the scope of those agreements – which did not restrict such a transfer – and that the fiduciary duty was not implicated in this case.

The court also rejected the argument that the fiduciary duty could be used to create an implied right of first offer or co-sale rights on a transfer to a third party. Transfer restrictions are to be construed narrowly in Massachusetts, and the Court reasoned that had the parties intended to create such rights and restrictions, they would have stated so expressly in their shareholder agreement.

Certainly, this decision does not present any major news to most corporate practitioners. While it is nice to know that shareholder agreements are still given weight in Massachusetts, the key takeaway is the importance of having such an agreement in the first place. Close corporations, particularly those with employee shareholders, should be strongly encouraged to enter into detailed shareholder agreements to provide for situations dealing with transfers, rights of first refusal, preemptive rights and potential divorce and dissolution. Majority stockholders may feel some reluctance to spend money and time on such a document, when the protection is often for their fellow stockholders. However, as shown by this decision, not having such an agreement will subject everyone to the vague principles of applicable fiduciary duties, which could have wide-ranging and negative implications.

If you have any questions about this topic, please feel free to email us.

Tags: acquisition, articles of organization, bylaws, change of ownership, close corporations, corporate law, donohue v. rodd, et. al. v. Demoulas Supermarkets, fiduciary duty, freeze-out, good faith, implied right, Inc., M&A, majority stockholders, massachusetts supreme judicial court, Merriam, minority stockholders, partnership, S-corporation, shareholder agreements, squeeze-out, stock transfers

Last month the Delaware Chancery Court allayed the concerns of corporate transactional lawyers by ruling under Delaware law that a reverse triangular merger (RTM) does not constitute a transfer or assignment by operation of law. The decision, Meso Scale Diagnostics, v. Roche Diagnostics, C.A. No. 5589-VCP (Del. Ch. 2013), involved a restriction on assignments and transfers in a license agreement, which the Court held as a matter of law was not triggered by the RTM.

In brief, a reverse triangular merger structure involves a merger of a selling company (Target) with a subsidiary of the buyer company (Buyer), which is often a special purpose entity created just for the transaction. The transaction is referred to as a “reverse” type of merger because the acquired entity here ends up being the surviving entity in the merger and becomes a subsidiary of the Buyer. This structure is desirable because it resembles a stock acquisition in its final result, but has the added advantages of (1) requiring less than unanimous approval from the Target’s stockholders and (2) allows for more flexibility than a stock swap under the tax laws relating to what are called “tax free” reorganizations.

For years, corporate lawyers have taken the position that a RTM does not trigger anti-assignment provisions in contracts. That’s because in this structure, just like in a stock acquisition, no contracts are being assigned or transferred per se. The acquired entity remains in place and the only change is that its stockholders before the deal have been replaced with a single stockholder, which is either the Buyer or one of its subsidiaries. However, starting with a somewhat obscure 1991 California court decision involving Oracle, there has been a growing national trend of courts calling this line of reasoning into question. The Oracle court reasoned that a change of stock ownership in a target was a change of its legal form, which resulted in an impermissible transfer of intellectual property rights. Most recently, an earlier Chancery Court decision in 2011 in this same case created ambiguity under Delaware law – previously thought to be safe territory by most Delaware practitioners – by refusing to dismiss the case based on the stock acquisition cases cited by the defendants.

The recent Meso Scale holdings resolve these issues. The Chancery Court rejected the Oracle decision as persuasive authority on this issue. The Court reasoned that the California court’s holding that a RTM constitutes an assignment by operation of law conflicts with Delaware’s jurisprudence regarding stock acquisitions. This is because Delaware courts have consistently found over time that when a corporation lawfully acquires the ownership of another corporation and with it the corporation’s stock, this change of ownership does not imply any assignment of the contractual rights of the corporation whose securities the buying corporation purchased. Therefore, the Court of Chancery held that because both stock acquisitions and RTMs are changes in legal ownership, and not in the underlying interest of that entity, they should produce parallel legal results.

The lessons from this case are two-fold:

1.   For contracts governed by Delaware law, parties can continue to rely on stock acquisitions and RTMs as a structure where third party consents should not be required to a “transfer” or “assignment” type of contractual clause. For contracts governed outside Delaware, such as in California, the doubt still remains, so it may be prudent to get the third party consent for those contracts just in case.

2.   For Delaware-governed contracts, parties that want the right to consent to a RTM (or other similar transaction) should include a “change of control” provision in their contracts. While this is common in more complex agreements, such as financing agreements and real estate leases, commercial agreements such as software license agreements and customer and vendor contracts generally do not go to this level of drafting.

If you have any questions about this topic, please feel free to email us.

Tags: acquisition, assignment, assignment by operation of law, change of ownership, change of stock, change of stock ownership, contract, corporate law, Delaware Chancery Court, delaware law, duty to defend, duty to indemnify, operation of law, reverse triangular merger, RTM, stock, stock acquisition, transfer, transfer by operation of law, transfer of intellectual property rights, transfer of rights

Drafting Tips from Recent Delaware Chancery Court Decision in Viacom “RockBand” Debacle

The most recent decision in the saga between Viacom and Harmonix – the maker of “RockBand” – awards $12 million to the seller stockholders of Harmonix for amounts held in escrow to back up their indemnity to Viacom. Even though four separate claims for infringement of intellectual property were brought against Harmonix after the closing, and the Harmonix executives admitted that they were aware of the other patents that led to the claims, the Court found that the seller did not breach its representations and warranties in the merger agreement and that Viacom did not have a right to an indemnity against the escrow. As one can imagine, this case brings up some interesting drafting issues worth considering before your next M&A deal.

In September 2006 Viacom bought Harmonix for a cash payment of $175 million plus an earn-out based on Harmonix’s earnings for 2007 and 2008. The deal included a $12 million 18-month escrow to indemnify Viacom for losses from breaches by Harmonix of its representations and warranties. At the time of the deal, GuitarHero had already been released, but other products such as RockBand were still in the works. Since intellectual property was likely a key asset in the transaction, there were a number of representations by Harmonix relating to its intellectual property. As discussed below, those reps were qualified in various ways, and those qualifications made the difference in this decision.

After the closing, four different sets of patent, trademark and copyright infringement claims were brought against the acquired business. While some of those claims had been raised prior to the closing and disclosed to Viacom, others were not. Viacom took on the claims, spending almost $30 million in legal fees, and then sought to set off its losses against the escrow, claiming a right under the indemnification provisions in the merger agreement. The Delaware Chancery Court disagreed.

Viacom argued that the seller stockholders had a duty to defend pending the determination of whether there was a duty to indemnify. Distinguishing a number of earlier decisions, the Court strictly construed the indemnification clause in the merger agreement to read that there was no separate no duty to defend unless there was an underlying duty to indemnify. The duty to defend arises from specific contract language and guarantees coverage independent of the outcome of the legal conflict it covers; the duty covers the cost of defending the claim regardless of the claim’s merit. However, indemnification involves the guarantee by the party to cover any judgment against the other party. Viacom wanted its legal fees independent of the outcome of the legal conflicts, but it was only indemnified against judgments in those cases (if at all). So, from a buyer’s perspective, one drafting consideration would be to clearly separate a duty to defend as one of the remedies in the agreement, potentially limiting that obligation to specific claims or litigations that may have been known or foreseen at the time of the closing.

Here, a right to indemnity arose only from breaches of representations and warranties of the merger agreement. It is important to note that had there been a separate indemnification obligation for third party claims arising from any intellectual property of Harmonix, or relating to business conduct prior to the closing, the outcome of this case may have been very different.

To determine whether there was a breach, the Court focused on two types of reps relating to the intellectual property. The first represented that the Company had sufficient rights to all intellectual property as necessary for the “current use” of its products. Because the claims for which Viacom sought indemnity related to the commercial version of RockBand, which was only in prototype stage at the time of the deal, the Court found that there was no breach.

It is worth noting that there could have been a claim here if the language specifically included the underlying intellectual property in the prototypes or other works in process, as integrated into the final work product. Also, while there was a broader representation regarding rights in “Company Developed Software”, that particular term also did not expressly include RockBand.

The other representations at issue related to potential infringement and were qualified by knowledge.While the Court agreed that management did have knowledge of the other parties’ patents, the crucial distinction here is that Viacom could not show that management had knowledge that they Harmonix’ products were infringing on those patents. That said, it is a bit surprising that there was no special indemnity for claims arising from that known third party intellectual property.

While it is easy to critique with 20/20 hindsight, the scenario represented in this decision is not uncommon and presents a good case study. Hundreds of startups each year are acquired for their talent and nascent technology, and buyers often take over product direction after the closing. Particularly with the explosion in patent troll litigation, often brought after the announcement of an acquisition (or investment) to target the buyer’s deeper pockets, the risk of infringement litigation that relates back to the pre-closing period is significant. In that situation, as here, sellers should look to limit their liability to current technology and known infringement, shifting the freedom to operate and infringement risks on the buyer. On the other hand, buyers would be well-advised to look for broader indemnification obligations with longer survival periods (and lots of exceptions and exclusions for key material reps), with an express duty to defend, for any third party infringement claims relating to the sellers’ products that existed at the time of the transaction, whether in a final production or prototype stage.

If you have any questions about this topic, please feel free to email us.

Tags: acquisition, corporate law, Delaware Chancery Court, delaware law, duty to defend, duty to indemnify, escrow, Harmonix, holdback, indemnity, M&A, merger, patent troll, RockBand, Viacom