Who's Really in Control? And Why Does It Matter?

ATTORNEY: DARYOUSH BEHBOOD | POMERANTZ MONITOR MARCH/APRIL 2020

Today, most (if not all) Delaware corporations protect their board members through certain exculpatory pro­visions included in their certificates of incorporation. These provisions, as authorized by 8 Del. C. § 102(b) (7), eliminate the personal liability of a director for breaches of the duty of care. However, exculpatory provisions cannot eliminate, or even limit, the liability of a director for any breach of the director’s duty of loyalty, acts of bad faith, intentional misconduct, self-dealing, or knowing violations of law.

Why is this important? When a stockholder alleges a board of directors breached their duty of loyalty, he or she can attempt to prove such a breach by dem­onstrating that the board members acceded to the will of a “controlling stockholder.” A putative class of stockholders (“Plaintiffs”) for Essendant, Inc. recently tried to apply this theory to uphold their complaint in a merger case called In Re Essendant, Inc. Stockholder Litigation. The decision highlighted the fine line that sometimes separates shareholders who actually con­trol a corporation, or a particular corporate decision, and those who don’t.

In the spring of 2018, Essendant signed a merger agreement with Genuine Parts Company (“GPC”), whereby Essendant would combine with a GPC af­filiate. The agreement contemplated a stock-for-stock transaction that would result in Essendant stock­holders owning 49% of the combined company. Sig­nificantly, the merger agreement contained a “non-solicitation” provision which prohibited Essendant from knowingly encouraging a competing acquisition proposal. The non-solicitation provision did not, how­ever, prohibit Essendant from considering alterna­tive unsolicited proposals, such as the one received by Essendant’s board of directors from Sycamore Partners. Sycamore submitted an offer to acquire Essendant for $11.50 per share in an all-cash transaction. Essendant’s board eventually determined that Sycamore’s offer was “reasonably likely to lead to a superior acquisition proposal” and invited GPC to exercise its matching rights. While Essendant was negotiating with GPC, Sycamore began acquiring Essendant’s stock on the open market, and eventually acquired an 11.16% interest in Essendant.

In September 2018, after further negotiations, Essendant announced that it had agreed to accept Sycamore’s revised acquisition proposal of $12.80 per share in cash. Essendant again extended a matching right to GPC, but GPC declined. The Sycamore merg­er ensued. Believing the merger with Sycamore to be unfair to Essendant’s public stockholders, Plaintiffs, representing a class of Essendant stockholders, filed a class action complaint against Essendant’s Board in October 2018.

In the complaint, Plaintiffs alleged breaches of fi­duciary duties flowing from the Board’s “failure to obtain the highest value reasonably available for Essendant by approving and recommending the Sycamore merger…” Plaintiffs further alleged that the Board “caved to the will of Sycamore [by] know­ingly and willfully allowing the GPC merger to be sabotaged by Sycamore so that Sycamore could acquire Essendant at an unfair price.” Plaintiffs also filed a claim against Sycamore for breaching its fiduciary duties as a controlling stockholder. In that regard, Plaintiffs alleged Sycamore “used its control against the interests of the non-controlling stockholders by pressuring the Essendant Board to accept its inadequate offer.”

Because Essendant had an exculpatory charter provi­sion protecting directors from claims alleging breach of their “due care” obligations, Plaintiffs’ complaint had to “invoke loyalty and bad faith claims.” Plaintiffs attempted to overcome this burden by, among other things, alleging that the directors breached their duty of loyalty by acceding to the will of Sycamore as a controlling stockholder. The Delaware Court of Chan­cery ultimately decided that Plaintiffs failed to meet this burden. In reaching its decision, the Court ana­lyzed whether the factual allegations of the complaint, if true, could establish that Sycamore was a “control­ling stockholder” in the first place.

In so holding, the Court of Chancery reaffirmed Delaware law that a stockholder is a controlling stock­holder only if it “(1) owns more than 50% of the com­pany’s voting power or (2) owns less than 50% of the voting power of the corporation but exercises control over the business affairs of the corporation” such that “as a practical matter, it [is] no differently situated than if it had majority voting control.” Plaintiffs could only succeed on this theory if the Court was able to conclude that Sycamore’s stake was “so potent that independent directors could not freely exercise their judgment, fearing retribution from Sycamore.”

This was difficult because Sycamore’s 11.16% stake was far less than 50% and, in fact, it was only the third largest shareholder of Essendant. Nor did the complaint allege facts supporting any claim that Syca­more exercised de facto control of the company. As the Court noted, “Sycamore did not (i) nominate any members of the Essendant Board, (ii) wield coercive contractual rights, (iii) maintain personal relationships with any of the Essendant Board members, (iv) maintain any commercial relationships with Essendant that would afford leverage in its negotiations, (v) threaten removal, challenge or retaliate against any of the Es­sendant Board members or (vi) otherwise exercise ‘outsized influence’ in Essendant’s Board room.”

In support of their claim that Sycamore exer­cised de facto control, Plaintiffs alleged that while Sycamore may not have exercised day to day control over Essendant, it managed to exert control with respect to this particular transaction, essentially by bullying the board and threatening it with a proxy contest for con­trol. In support of their theory, Plaintiffs relied on a Maryland case which applied Delaware law. The case involved a merger transaction and a pushy shareholder, Ares. There, the court found that Ares, an aggressive institu­tional investor that held a 13.2% stake in the company, managed to force the board to sell the company in a transaction that was unfair to the company’s stockhold­ers. According to the Maryland court, “the role played by [the shareholder], the apparent willingness of at least two other buyers…to pay a higher price, and the discount to book value [in the approved transaction] gives credence to the plaintiffs’ contentions that the board knew that Ares’ bid substantially undervalued the Company, but brushed this concern aside because it was worried about losing a proxy battle…” The Court also held that the complaint alleged facts showing that Ares had inserted itself into the board’s deliberations and procured a $3 million fee for itself for its “advisory” services in pushing the deal through.

In Essendant, the Court did not rule on the legal merit of the “bullying” theory of control over a single transac­tion. Instead, it held that Plaintiffs’ complaint did not allege the type of behavior that occurred in the Mary­land case. No bullying, no controlling stockholder.  

When a board of directors loses control of its compa­ny, it can certainly have broad implications. However, as Essendant makes explicitly clear, the argument that a company’s board of directors so lost their will to lead that a controlling stockholder was able to force a merger that was unfair to everyone but the stockholder in control, is a theory proving to be more and more difficult for plaintiff stockholders to support. Following an appeal of this decision, the Essendant Plaintiffs will have another bite at the apple in front of the Delaware Supreme Court.