The EU Taxonomy Regulation, which entered into force on 12 July 2020, introduces an EU-wide taxonomy (or combined glossary and classification system) of environmentally sustainable activities, as well as new disclosure requirements for certain financial services firms and large public interest entities.

In short, the Taxonomy Regulation is intended to provide certain businesses and investors

The 2020 ‘perfect storm’ of global economic fallout caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, renewed global political focus on the Black Lives Matter movement and the workers of the gig economy, plus the pall of smoke from unprecedented wildfires on five continents, is reinvigorating scrutiny from consumers, regulators and employees on ecological and social sustainability considerations,

In an important decision for M&A professionals and other board advisors, the Delaware Court of Chancery addressed a stockholder plaintiff’s claims that the target board’s financial advisor and law firm, as well as the private equity buyer, aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty by the target board in connection with a take-private merger.  See Morrison v. Berry, C.A. No. 12808-VCG (Del. Ch. June 1, 2020).  While the claim against the financial advisor was allowed to proceed, the claims against the law firm and buyer were dismissed.  These diverging results provide early guidance as to when the Delaware courts will (and when they will not) dismiss aiding and abetting claims.  In many cases, the determining factor will be whether the complaint pleads facts raising a reasonably conceivable inference that the advisor, buyer, or other third party knew the board was engaging in a breach of its fiduciary duty.  This has important implications for the way board advisors and M&A buyers should approach a situation in which they become aware that the board of a target company is unaware of some material fact that could conceivably affect its ability to fulfill its fiduciary duties.
Continue Reading Knowledge Is Key: Recent Decision Addresses Aiding and Abetting Claims Against Board Advisors And Buyer

The Delaware Court of Chancery yesterday found an activist investor aided and abetted a target board’s breaches of fiduciary duty, most significantly by concealing from the target board (and from the stockholders who were asked to tender into the transaction) material facts bearing on a potential conflict of interest between the activist investor and the target’s remaining stockholders. See In re PLX Technology Inc. S’holders Litig., C.A. No. 9880-VCL (Del. Ch. Oct. 16, 2018). This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of full disclosure of material facts in cases involving potential conflicts (and not just of the potential conflicts themselves, but also of the ways in which such potential conflicts manifest themselves)—both at the board level and at the stockholder level. As this decision also demonstrates, in addition to the more familiar allegations of financial advisor conflicts, the court may find potential conflicts exist where an activist investor in the target with short-term interests that could be perceived to diverge from the interests of other stockholders is involved in merger negotiations.
Continue Reading Delaware Decision Provides Further Lessons for Directors, Activist Investors, and Financial Advisors in Negotiating Mergers

Last month, in Vento v. Curry,[1] the Delaware Chancery Court preliminarily enjoined the Consolidated Communication Holding (“Consolidated”) shareholder vote[2] on the company’s all-stock acquisition of FairPoint Communications (“FairPoint”) due to Consolidated’s failure to adequately disclose the compensation its financial advisor would receive for participating in the acquisition financing. The court’s ruling ultimately had very little impact on the transaction – Consolidated subsequently disclosed that its financial advisor would receive $7 million in financing fees and the Consolidated shareholders overwhelmingly approved the transaction without any delay.[3]  Vento nonetheless provides important guidance for principals and financial advisors in evaluating whether disclosure of a financial advisor’s transaction-related compensation is required when seeking shareholder approval of an M&A transaction.   
Continue Reading Assessing Financial Advisor Compensation Disclosure Following Vento v. Curry

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision this week in Salman v. United States, No. 15-268, 580 U.S. __ (Dec. 6, 2016), clarified what constitutes a “personal benefit” for purposes of insider trading liability.  In its first merits ruling in an insider trading case in two decades, the Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s holding that the personal benefit requirement may be met when an inside tipper simply gifts confidential information to a trading relative or friend.  In so holding, the Supreme Court significantly narrowed a key aspect of the Second Circuit’s landmark insider trading decision in United States v. Newman, which had required prosecutors to prove that the tipper received something “of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature”—a more difficult standard to meet.

Before Newman was decided, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York had prioritized insider trading prosecutions, obtaining dozens of convictions and over a billion dollars in fines since 2009.  After Newman, however, prosecutors were forced to dismiss several indictments, and some commentators wondered what the future held for insider trading prosecutions.  The Supreme Court’s recent decision should reduce that uncertainty and may bring a renewed focus on insider trading investigations.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Clarifies Insider Trading Liability for Confidential Tips

In its recent decision regarding the acquisition of El Paso Corporation by Kinder Morgan, Inc.,[1] the Delaware Chancery Court concluded that El Paso’s sale process may have been tainted by conflicts of interest affecting the company’s CEO and financial advisors.  The court nevertheless denied plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction on the grounds that enjoining the deal in the absence of a competing bid would pose a significant risk for El Paso shareholders who would have their own chance to judge the merits of the deal at a shareholder meeting.  The opinion, authored by Chancellor Strine, provides guidance, and simultaneously raises a number of questions, regarding how to approach relationships and interests that risk giving rise to conflict of interest allegations against directors, officers and financial advisors involved in a sale of control.
Continue Reading The El Paso/Kinder Morgan Opinion: Further Delaware Guidance on Sell-side Conflicts

In In re Del Monte Foods Company Shareholders Litigation,* Vice Chancellor Travis Laster preliminarily enjoined a shareholder vote on an acquisition of Del Monte Foods by a group of private equity firms based on a preliminary finding that the sales process was tainted by the misconduct of the company’s investment banker, with the knowing participation of the buyers.  While the company had already mooted the plaintiffs’ disclosure claims through a supplemental proxy statement, the court delayed the vote for a period of 20 days, during which time the “no shop”, break-up fee and matching right provisions of the merger agreement would not apply, in order to enable competing bidders to make proposals.
Continue Reading Lessons of Del Monte Foods For Companies Running (or Considering) a Sale Process

On May 13, 2010, in Maric Capital Master Fund, Ltd. v. PLATO Learning, Inc., Vice Chancellor Strine preliminarily enjoined the acquisition of PLATO Learning by Thoma Bravo LLC on the basis of misleading disclosures in PLATO’s proxy statement.  The opinion provides guidance on Delaware’s requirements for merger proxy disclosure regarding management projections, financial advisors’ analyses and contacts between the acquiror and target management.
Continue Reading Delaware Chancery Court Enjoins Merger Vote Over Disclosure of Investment Bank’s Analyses, Management Projections and Acquiror’s Conversations with Management