Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kandell v. Niv

Court of Chancery of Delaware

November 27, 2017

Brett Kandell
v.
Dror Niv, et al.

          Date Submitted: November 6, 2017

          Peter B. Andrews, Esquire Craig J. Springer, Esquire David M. Sborz, Esquire Andrews & Springer LLC

          Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esquire Thomas P. Will, Esquire Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell

         Dear Counsel:

         This Letter Opinion addresses the Defendants' Motion for Limited Reargument of my September 29, 2017 Memorandum Opinion (the "Decision") regarding the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.[1] In that Decision, I declined to dismiss claims regarding the Defendant directors' approval of a loan from Leucadia to nominal defendant FXCM, Inc.[2] I found that a majority of those directors voting was not independent and disinterested, because the Complaint alleged that one outside director, James G. Brown, had expressed an interest in participating personally in the transaction and accordingly had abstained from voting, ending the possibility of a disinterested majority in favor.[3] I also denied the Motion to Dismiss with respect to a related transaction, a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") that amended the terms of the Leucadia loan.[4] It is that latter denial to which the Defendants address their Motion for Limited Reargument. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is denied.

         A breezy informality can be a desirable quality in a friend; it is certainly undesirable in the writer of legal opinions. In my Decision, I noted that "[t]he Complaint is silent as to whether Brown voted for or abstained from the vote to approve the MOU [modifying the Leucadia loan]. In light of my decision on the Leucadia loan, I find it prudent to deny the Motion to Dismiss with respect to the MOU pending discovery as well."[5] This facile treatment of the issue, no doubt, has led to this Motion for Limited Reargument.

         A motion for relief under Court of Chancery Rule 59(f) should be granted where the movant demonstrates that the challenged decision turned on a misapplication of the law, or on a misapprehension of a material fact.[6] The movant here alleges the former; that I misplaced the burden onto the Defendants to show that the MOU was not approved by a board composed of a majority of disinterested and independent directors. As the Defendants state correctly, that burden rests with the Plaintiffs.[7] Nonetheless, I deny the Motion for Limited Reargument here.

         The Defendants point out that a bare majority of the Board was composed of outside directors, and that it was Brown's abstention that caused the Leucadia transaction Board to be evenly split between conflicted and non-conflicted voting directors. While the Complaint is silent as to whether Brown voted on the MOU, the Defendants point out that the board minutes of the meeting in question demonstrate that Brown in fact voted for the MOU. But even if the minutes are meet for consideration at the Motion to Dismiss phase, and I therefore consider Brown's vote in favor, that is insufficient to justify relief under Rule 59(f). That is because the question of Brown's conflict of interest-which caused him to abstain from the vote on the Leucadia transaction but not from the vote on the modification of that transaction via the MOU-is sufficient, to my mind, to raise a reasonable inference that a majority of the MOU Board was not independent and disinterested with respect to the MOU.[8] In any event, in considering the consequences of the conflicted vote in favor of the Leucadia transaction, I must also consider the consequences of the MOU that modifies that transaction, which presumably would not have been in question but for the conflicted vote on the Leucadia transaction itself.

         For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Limited Reargument is denied. To the extent the foregoing requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO ORDERED.

         Sincerely,

          SAM GLASSCOCK III VICE CHANCELLOR

---------

Notes:

[1] Kandell v. Niv, 2017 WL 4334149 (Del. Ch. Sept. 29, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.