Court of Chancery Rules on Retirement From LLC

By:  Nicholas J. Caggiano, Jr.
        Shannon S. Frazier
        Jonathan G. Strauss

Court of Chancery holds that where majority LLC members agreed to allow a member to retire, the member was not entitled to “fair value” for his interest under 6 Del.C. §18-604.

Glenn B. Showell v.William H. Pusey et al, CA No. 3970-VCG (September 1, 2011).

This case involves a Sussex county accounting firm organized as a Delaware limited liability company (“LLC”). The LLC was governed by an operating agreement and a supplemental agreement (collectively, the “LLC Agreement”) that provided, among other things, for the LLC’s repurchase of a member’s interest upon a “Retiring Event”, which was defined as the member’s death, bankruptcy or disability. The repurchase price following a Retiring Event was based on the member’s percentage interest applied to the LLC’s liquidation value. The LLC Agreement expressly prohibited voluntary retirement or withdrawal by any member, which the court found to be consistent with the statutory default rule in 6 Del.C. §18-603. Notwithstanding this prohibition, the retiring member, Mr. Showell, and another member, Mr. Pusey, who together held 90% of the LLC interests, agreed that Mr. Showell could voluntarily retire as a member of the LLC. Importantly, although they agreed on Mr. Showell’s retirement, they did not reach an agreement regarding the value Mr. Showell should receive for surrendering his 29% LLC interest. Litigation then ensued to determine what Mr. Showell should get.

The current “default rule” in Section 18-603 of the Delaware LLC Act is that members may not voluntarily resign prior to the dissolution and winding up of the limited liability company unless the limited liability company agreement provides otherwise. This rule only applies to LLCs formed after July 31, 1996. Prior to that time, §18-603 permitted members to resign upon not less than 6 months' prior written notice and receive “fair value” for their interests under §18-604. Section 18-604, if applicable, compensates the resigning member for his “right to share in distributions” from the LLC – i.e. the “enterprise value” -- unless the LLC Agreement “provides otherwise”. Section 18-604 has remained essentially the same since 1996.

Mr. Showell argued that, since the parties agreed to his retirement, he should receive the “fair value” for his interest under §18-604. The defendants countered that he was due nothing since he had no contractual or statutory right to retire voluntarily. Alternatively, they argued that he should receive his share of the liquidation value of the LLC. The Court agreed with the defendants, finding that the LLC Agreement did not permit voluntary retirement, and had its own formula for Retiring Events, hence the “fair value” obligation in Section 18-604 was not applicable. The Court reasoned that the members’ agreement to permit Mr. Showell’s retirement was effectively a modification of the LLC Agreement to treat this as a “Retiring Event”. Hence, the LLC Agreement’s liquidation value method “provided otherwise”  negating the “fair value” default rule in §18-604.

The moral of this story is, as always, when dealing with Delaware LLCs,  “the contract is king.” The “default rules” of the Delaware LLC Act will not apply if the LLC agreement “provides otherwise”. In this case, the LLC Agreement did not precisely contemplate the situation, but the Court nevertheless found a way to apply the provisions of the LLC Agreement “in an attempt to harmonize Showell’s ‘retirement’ with the intent of the parties”. Thus, the parties’ intent trumped the statute.
 

Court of Chancery Rules on Transfer of Membership Interest

By:  Nicholas J. Caggiano, Jr.
         Shannon S. Frazier
         Jonathan G. Strauss

Court of Chancery holds that LLC membership interest can be assigned by 30% member to 20% member without consent of 50% member; Resulting deadlock to be resolved by anology to corporate law.

Achaian, Inc. v. Leemon Family LLC et. al, CA No. 6261-CS (August 9, 2011).

This case involves a dispute among the members of Omniglow, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company that manufactures glowsticks. Founded in 2005, the LLC originally had a single member, Omniglow Corporation, but in 2006, the LLC was sold which resulted in the LLC having three members: Leemon Family LLC (“Leemon”) owned 50%; a trust (the “Holland Trust”) owned 30%; and Achaian, Inc. (“Achaian”) owned the remaining 20%. All were admitted as members, however from a reading of the case it is evident that the limited liability company agreement (or “operating agreement”) was never properly amended to reflect the fact that the LLC no longer had a single member. A dispute as to control of the LLC emerged, with Leemon allegedly trying to assert control. The Holland Trust sold its membership interest to Achaian. Achaian then sued for judicial dissolution claiming that it held 50% of the voting interests and asserting a deadlock with Leemon.

There are 2 interesting aspects of this case. First, the Court considered the issue of whether one member could sell its voting interest to another member without the consent of the third member. Under the
LLC Act, unless otherwise provided in the operating agreement, the sale by a member of its LLC interest does not entitle the assignee to become a member or have any voting power – it is purely an assignment of economic rights such as the right to receive distributions and tax allocations. Leemon claimed that the Holland Trust’s assignment to Achaian only conveyed economic rights, not voting power. Vice Chancellor Strine disagreed, reasoning that since the operating agreement defined “Interest” broadly to mean “entire ownership interest”, and provided that a Member may transfer “all or any portion of its Interest” to any person at any time, the Holland Trust could transfer its voting power to Achaian. In essence, the operating agreement modified the statutory default rule. Leemon countered that such a transfer was not possible without its consent, since the operating agreement provided that no person shall be admitted as a Member without the written consent of all members. The plaintiff, Achaian, argued that since it was already a member, it need not be re-admitted. Leemon argued that, given the statutory default rule, and no provision of the operating agreement dealing specifically with this situation, Achaian should not be able to change the voting structure of the LLC without Leemon’s consent. In other words, Leemon wanted Achaian to be separately admitted as a member with respect to its additional 30% Interest acquired from the Holland Trust. Vice Chancellor Strine agreed with Achaian and found that the operating agreement, taken as a whole, allowed the members to transfer voting power amongst themselves, and that Holland Trust had transferred voting power to Achaian. The take aways are that, in the world of Delaware limited liability companies, (i) the “contract is king” – the operating agreement will normally prevail over the statute (with certain exceptions – as there are provisions of the LLC Act that may not be altered or waived), and (ii) a limited liability company interest normally represents an economic interest only but an operating agreement may explicitly provide for a transfer of more than an economic interest. Thus, care must be taken to make sure that the operating agreement clearly and adequately addresses the needs of all members.

The second interesting aspect is that the Court stated that since Achaian had successfully obtained 50% voting power, the judicial dissolution of the LLC would be treated like a dissolution of a 50/50 joint venture corporation under Section 273 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Vice Chancellor Strine originally took this approach in
Haley v. Talcott. Under Section 18-802 of the LLC Act, the test for judicial dissolution depends only on a finding that it is “not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in conformity” with the operating agreement. However, by incorporating the corporate test, the Court seems to be requiring that in the case of a deadlocked 50/50 LLC joint venture, a plaintiff seeking judicial dissolution must plead the three elements of DGCL 273: that there are (1) two 50% stockholders; (2) engaged in a joint venture; (3) who are unable to agree upon whether to discontinue the business or how to dispose of its assets.

American Securitization Forum 2012 Conference-- Las Vegas

The American Securitization Forum has announced that its 2012 conference will take place January 22-25, 2012 at the ARIA hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada. 

It  is anticipated that over 4,500 participants will attend the 2012 event, and with the gradual resurgence being experienced in the securitization market, the conference promises to be replete with industry experts, legislators, issuers and investors.

Fitch: Princeton Deemed Acceptable as CDO AM for Prudential CBO

In a press release today, Fitch announced the following:

Fitch Ratings has reviewed Princeton Advisory Group (Princeton) as a potential replacement collateralized debt obligation (CDO) asset manager for Prudential Structured Finance CBO I, and determined the manager's capabilities to be consistent with Fitch's criteria for credit asset managers.

On Oct. 4, 2010, Fitch was notified of a proposal to transfer the CDO asset management responsibilities for Prudential Structured Finance CBO I to Princeton. Fitch's review procedure for potential replacement CDO asset managers is outlined in the special report titled 'CDO Asset Managers: U.S. Replacement Activity Update', dated Dec. 9, 2010, available on the Fitch Ratings website.

Established in 2002 as a structured credit asset management firm, Princeton is a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registered investment advisor headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey. Princeton is owned exclusively by active employees and currently has a staff of 10 professionals managing approximately $4 billion through its asset-backed securities (ABS) CDO platform. Princeton currently manages seven ABS CDOs, none of which are rated by Fitch.

Fitch emphasizes that the scope of its review was solely to determine that Princeton meets Fitch's minimum guidelines to manage Prudential Structured Finance CBO I within the context of Fitch's stated review procedure for replacement managers. Fitch is not a party to the transactions and therefore does not provide consent or approval, as that remains the sole preserve of the transaction parties. Fitch expects to be notified by the trustee when or if the proposed transfer of asset management responsibilities is completed.
 

DSBA Corporate Counsel Section Meeting March 28, 2011

The Corporate Counsel Section of the Delaware State Bar Association will hold a meeting on Monday, March 28, 2011 at 12:00 p.m. at the DSBA office.

Based on the deadlines set forth in the Section By-Laws, it is necessary to have the Section Officer Elections at the March meeting instead of the June meeting as originally planned.  If you are interested in volunteering for an Officer's position and please plan to attend the March meeting if possible.  

The current list of Officers is as follows:  

Co-Chairpersons:  Lisa Passante, Laura Beth Taylor
Co-Vice Chairpersons:  
Cathy Reese, Daniel Horowitz
Secretary:
Shannon Frazier

Any Section member interested may run for election for any of the positions posted above. Current Officers have expressed interest in running again but we want to give you the opportunity to run as well. The fiscal year begins on July 1 giving new Officers time to review the roles and responsibilities of the position.

We look forward to seeing you there!

Tags:

SEC Approves New Rules Regulating Asset-Backed Securities

The Securities and Exchange Commission today voted to adopt two sets of new rules designed to help revitalize the asset-backed securities (ABS) market by encouraging better disclosure for investors. 

One set of rules that requires issuers of asset-backed securities to disclose the history of the requests they received and repurchases they made related to their outstanding asset-backed securities. The second set of rules requires issuers of asset-backed securities to conduct a review of the assets underlying those securities, and to disclose to investors the nature, findings and conclusions of the issuer's review of the assets.

In a press release today, SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro is quoted as stating:

"At one time, the securitization market provided trillions of dollars of liquidity to virtually every sector of the economy. However, during the financial crisis, ABS investors suffered significant losses, causing the market for securitization to rapidly decline. These rational measures are designed to help revitalize the important asset-backed securities market by encouraging better disclosure for investors."

Will these rules bring stability to the ABS market?  Will investors and issuers react favorably?  What do you think?

ASF 2011 Agenda Announced

The American Securitization Forum has published the agenda for the ASF 2011 Conference taking place in Orlando, Florida on February 6-9, 2011. 

This year's topics will include securitization legislative and regulatory reform, risk-based capital regulations, Regulation AB II, loan servicing and loss mitigation initiatives and GSE reform, among others.  Current business developments and the outlook for all securitization asset classes and product types, including RMBS, credit card ABS, auto loan ABS, student loan ABS, and re-emerging sectors and business opportunities will also be examined.

Speakers have not yet been announced, but ASF is soliciting suggestions.

Morris James LLP is Named a "Go-To Law Firm" for the Nation's Fortune 500 Companies

Recognizing the firm's strength in intellectual property litigation, Corporate Counsel magazine has named Morris James a “Go-To Law Firm for the Top 500 Companies.”  Go-To Law Firms are chosen from an American Lawyer Media national survey of general counsel from the top Fortune 500 companies and through research in various key databases.  The firm’s recognition will be published in the 8th Annual Edition of In-House Law Departments at the Top 500 Companies.

The Morris James Intellectual Property Litigation Group provides out-of-state firms and their clients help in navigating the Delaware court system. The Group combines its on-the-ground, technical and trial experience to address the complex intellectual property protection issues moving global markets today. They represent clients in complex disputes involving patents, trade secrets, trademarks, copyrights, unfair competition, and antitrust issues and have successfully litigated cases in all areas of technology in the Delaware District Court, the Delaware Court of Chancery and Superior Court, and federal courts throughout the country, including the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
 
Tags:

American Securitization Forum Releases Study on Mortgage Loan Transfers in Securitizations

The American Securitization Forum today has released a detailed study on the principles of valid mortgage loan transfers in securitization transactions. 

This project began in the wake of recent concerns expressed by commentators questioning whether securitization trusts (both private and government-sponsored) have valid legal title to the trillions of dollars of mortgage notes in those trusts.  The initial response by the securitization industry indicated that the methods for conducting these transfers were "adequate and appropriate" and "in accordance with applicable law."  The study results released today provide ample support for this position.

In a statement released to members, the American Securitization Forum stated that the study "...finds that traditional legal principles and processes, including the common law rule that “the mortgage follows the note,” are fully consistent with today’s complex holding, assignment and transfer methods for mortgage loans and those methods are legally effective for participants in the secondary mortgage market to transfer mortgage loans." 

This is good news for the securitization industry and all its participants, and hopefully the study will provide reassurance to issuers and investors alike, such that the still sluggish securitization market can continue to improve.

Four Morris James Attorneys Selected By Their Peers As "Top Lawyers" In Delaware Today Magazine

Morris James is pleased to congratulate the lawyers listed below who were the most recommended by their professional peers, as determined by a Delaware Today survey of Delaware attorneys.

Gretchen S. Knight
Divorce
Family Law

Mary M. Culley
Elder Law

Keith E. Donovan
Personal Injury
(Dover Office)

Jill S. Di Sciullo
Family Law


To view the entire list of "Top Lawyers", please click here.