Category: Corporate law

The Debate Rages On Regarding Whether Default Fiduciary Duties Apply to LLC Managers Under Delaware Law

Bracewell & Giuliani Logo

Earlier this year, we reported on the Delaware Court of Chancery’s decision in Auriga Capital Corp. v. Gatz Properties, LLC, wherein Chancellor Strine held that traditional fiduciary principles apply to LLC managers or members by default. See Delaware Chancery Court Clarifies that Default Fiduciary Duties Apply to LLC Managers, March 15, 2012 available here (discussing Auriga Capital Corp. v. Gatz Properties, LLC, No. C.A. 4390-CS, 2012 WL 361677 (Del. Ch. Jan. 27, 2012)). We emphasized that “until the Delaware Supreme Court or General Assembly state otherwise, Chancellor Strine has definitively established that LLC managers are governed by the same well-established fiduciary duties applicable to corporate fiduciaries, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the LLC Agreement.”

On November 7, 2012, the Delaware Supreme Court issued its decision on appeal. In an en banc opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery decision, but declined to reach the issue whether default fiduciary duties exist for LLC managers. See Gatz Properties, LLC v. Auriga Capital Corp., No. 148, 2012 (Nov. 7, 2012). The Supreme Court instead affirmed on the ground that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties arising from an express contractual provision in the operating agreement of the LLC. The Supreme Court’s analysis focused on Section 15 of the LLC Agreement. Section 15 provided, in pertinent part, that no member or manager was permitted to cause the company to “enter into any additional agreements with affiliates on terms and conditions which [were] less favorable to the Company than the terms and conditions of similar agreements which could then be entered into with arms-length third parties . . . .”  Emphasizing that “there is no requirement in Delaware that an LLC agreement use magic words, such as ‘entire fairness’ or ‘fiduciary duties[,]'” the Supreme Court construed Section 15 as an explicit contractual assumption by the contracting parties of a fiduciary duty to obtain a fair price for the LLC in transactions between the LLC and affiliated persons. Viewing Section 15 functionally, the Supreme Court treated it as the contractual equivalent of the entire fairness standard of conduct and judicial review.  Thus, because there was no approving vote by the majority of the Company’s minority members, the Supreme Court held that the defendant – the LLC’s manager – had the burden of establishing the entire fairness of the transaction. Referencing the defendant’s trial testimony and the evidentiary record, the Supreme Court held that he failed to meet this burden, and thus affirmed the Court of Chancery’s holding that he had breached his contractually adopted fiduciary duties.1

While the Supreme Court’s contractual analysis is instructive, the decision has garnered far more attention based on the Supreme Court’s analysis of Chancellor Strine’s holding that default fiduciary duties apply to LLC managers, which it characterized as “dictum without any precedential value.” The Supreme Court reasoned that “[w]here, as here, the dispute over whether fiduciary standards apply could be decided solely by reference to the LLC Agreement, it was improvident and unnecessary for the trial court to reach out and decide, sua sponte, the default fiduciary duty issue as a matter of statutory construction.” The Supreme Court thus intentionally left unresolved the question whether default fiduciary duties apply to managers of an LLC.

However, the debate regarding default fiduciary duties did not end there. Just a few weeks later, Vice Chancellor Laster revisited the issue in Feeley v. NJAOCG, C.A. No. 7304-VCL (Del. Ch. Nov. 28, 2012), a case that, unlike Auriga, put the question of default fiduciary duties squarely before the court. Though he acknowledged that the Auriga decision could not be relied upon as precedent, Vice Chancellor Laster nonetheless adopted Chancellor Strine’s analysis, “afford[ing] his views the same weight as a law review article, a form of authority the Delaware Supreme Court often cites.” Based on Chancellor Strine’s reasoning and “the long line of Chancery precedents holding that default fiduciary duties apply to the managers of an LLC[,]” the Court held that default fiduciary duties apply to LLC managers. Vice Chancellor Laster recognized, however, that “[t]he Delaware Supreme Court is of course the final arbiter on matters of Delaware law.”

Thus, in many ways these two decisions bring things full circle. Until the Delaware Supreme Court or General Assembly address the question whether default fiduciary duties exist for managers of Delaware LLCs, Delaware Chancery precedent provides that they do.  However, while this may suggest extra caution be used when drafting an LLC agreement, the Supreme Court’s contractual analysis in the Auriga decision suggests that the question of default fiduciary duties may often be beside the point. Even in the absence of magic language regarding “fiduciary duties” or “entire fairness,” imprecise language in an LLC agreement may be construed as a contractual assumption by the LLC manager to abide by traditional fiduciary duties. Thus, while we do not expect that Chancellor Strine’s Feeley decision represents the last word in the default fiduciary duty debate, the lesson is the same: LLC agreements should be drafted to expressly address the nature and scope of the LLC managers’ fiduciary duties, or to specifically eliminate fiduciary duties altogether.

1 The Supreme Court also affirmed the Court of Chancery’s determination that the LLC Agreement did not exculpate or indemnify the LLC’s manager due to his bad faith and willful misrepresentations, as well as its awards of damages and attorneys’ fees.

© 2013 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Conference – October 18-19, 2012

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information regarding the upcoming ABA Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Conference:

When

October 18 – 19, 2012

Where

  • The Westin Grand Hotel
  • 2350 M St NW
  • Washington, DC, 20037-1417
  • United States of America

Program Description

As enforcement of anti-corruption laws in the United States and abroad continues to be a top priority for law enforcement, the Institute will provide a timely and substantive briefing on developments to companies, their officers, and employees. This year’s program will continue to examine trends stemming from recent proceedings brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as well as address recent challenges to the FCPA both in Congress and the courts.

The Institute will also provide a more in-depth focus on certain recurring issues faced by practitioners and companies alike. Whether examining liability presented by other federal and non-U.S. laws in the event of a potential FCPA violation or minimizing liability in connection with complex international business transactions, the program will provide practical tips from experienced government, corporate, and private practitioners. In addition, the Institute will feature both an in-house perspectives panel and, for the first time, a panel dedicated to SEC enforcement and how it has evolved since the SEC’s establishment of its FCPA unit.

SEC Adopts Compensation Committee and Adviser Independence Rules

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP‘s David A. Sirignano, Amy I. Pandit, and Albert Lung recently had an article regarding The SEC’s New Rules featured in The National Law Review:

 

 

New rules address compensation committee member and adviser independence and disclosure requirements for compensation consultant conflicts of interest.

On June 20, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted final rules directing national securities exchanges and national securities associations (collectively, the exchanges) to establish listing standards addressing the independence of compensation committee members; the committee’s authority to retain Compensation Advisers (as defined below); and the committee’s responsibility for the appointment, compensation, and oversight of its advisers. The final rules implement Section 952 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act), which added Section 10C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and which requires the SEC to adopt rules directing the exchanges to prohibit the listing of any equity security of an issuer that is not in compliance with Section 10C’s compensation committee and Compensation Adviser requirements. The final rules also amend Item 407 of Regulation S-K to require companies to provide additional disclosures in their proxy statements on conflicts of interest of compensation consultants.

Under the final rules, the exchanges are required to propose new listing standards by September 25, 2012, and must have final rules or amendments that comply with Rule 10C-1 of the Exchange Act by June 27, 2013. Companies must provide new disclosures on conflicts of interest of compensation consultants in any proxy or information statement for an annual or special meeting of stockholders at which directors will be elected occurring on or after January 1, 2013.

Compensation Committee Independence Requirements

New Rule 10C-1 of the Exchange Act directs the exchanges to adopt new listing standards requiring a compensation committee to be composed solely of independent members of the board of directors, and requires the exchanges to establish new independence criteria for these members. While the final rules do not require a company to have a compensation committee, the new independence criteria, as well as the requirements relating to the consideration of a Compensation Adviser’s independence and requirements relating to the responsibility for the appointment, compensation, and oversight of Compensation Advisers, are equally applicable to any board committee performing the functions typically performed by a compensation committee. In formulating the new independence standards, the exchanges are instructed to consider relevant factors, which must include the following:

  • The sources of compensation, including consulting, advisory, or other fees paid by the issuer to such member of the board of directors.
  • Whether the board member is affiliated with the company, any subsidiary of the company, or an affiliate of a subsidiary of the issuer.

The exchanges may consider additional relevant criteria, such as share ownership or business relationships with the issuer. The SEC emphasizes that the exchanges are provided with the flexibility to develop their own independence standards consistent with the nature and types of listed companies. In this regard, the SEC notes that it may not be appropriate to prohibit directors affiliated with large stockholders, such as private equity funds and venture capital firms, from serving on a compensation committee. The SEC recognizes that directors elected by certain funds may have a strong institutional belief in the importance of appropriately structured and reasonable compensation arrangements and that their significant equity ownership may align the directors’ interests with public stockholders on matters of executive compensation.

The final rules also reiterate an important distinction between the compensation committee independence requirements under Section 952 of the Dodd-Frank Act and the existing independence requirements for audit committee members under Rule 10A-3 of the Exchange Act. While the audit committee independence rules prohibit a director from serving on the audit committee if such director accepts consulting or advisory fees or is otherwise affiliated with the listed company or any of its subsidiaries, the Dodd-Frank Act does not require any mandatory exclusion of compensation committee membership due to these factors. Instead, the final rules only require that these two factors be considered in determining the independence of compensation committee members.

Exemptions from Independence Standards

The following categories of listed issuers are not subject to the independence standards described above:

  • Limited partnerships
  • Companies in bankruptcy proceedings
  • Open-end management investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940
  • Any foreign private issuer that discloses in its annual report the reasons that the foreign private issuer does not have an independent compensation committee

The exchanges may exempt from the independence requirements a particular relationship with respect to members of the compensation committee as each exchange may determine, taking into consideration the size of an issuer and any other relevant factors.

Compensation Adviser Requirements

Authority and Oversight

The final rules require the exchanges to adopt listing standards providing the compensation committee with full discretion and authority to retain and obtain the advice of compensation consultants, independent legal counsel, and other advisers (collectively, Compensation Advisers). The compensation committee will be directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, and oversight of Compensation Advisers, and listed companies must provide appropriate funding to the compensation committee to retain these advisers. The final rules also make clear that the compensation committee is not required to obtain the advice or recommendation of any independent Compensation Adviser or to follow its advice.

Assessment of Compensation Adviser Independence

While the compensation committee is not required to retain any independent Compensation Adviser, the compensation committee is required to assess the independence of each Compensation Adviser prior to the Compensation Adviser being retained and to consider the following six factors (as well as any other factors identified by the relevant exchange):

  • Whether the employer of the Compensation Adviser is providing any other services to the issuer
  • The amount of fees received from the issuer by the employer of the Compensation Adviser as a percentage of such employer’s total revenue
  • Policies and procedures that have been adopted by the employer of the Compensation Adviser to prevent conflicts of interest
  • Any business or personal relationship of the Compensation Adviser with a member of the compensation committee
  • Any stock of the issuer owned by the Compensation Adviser
  • Any business or personal relationship of the Compensation Adviser or employer of the Compensation Adviser with an executive officer of the issuer

The final rules clarify that these six factors should be considered as a whole, and no one factor is determinative or controlling. This list is not exhaustive, and the exchanges may consider other relevant factors in determining the independence assessment requirement.

The final rules also state that a listed issuer’s compensation committee is required to conduct the independence assessment outlined above with respect to any Compensation Adviser that provides advice to the compensation committee, other than in-house legal counsel.

General Exemptions

The requirements relating to both the independence of compensation committees and the independence of Compensation Advisers shall not apply to the following categories of issuers:

  • Controlled companies (companies where more than 50% of the voting power for the election of directors is held by an individual, a group, or another entity)
  • Smaller reporting companies

The exchanges may also choose to exempt from the above-described requirements any further categories of issuers the exchanges determine appropriate.

In addition, the rules adopted by the exchanges must provide for appropriate procedures for a listed issuer to have a reasonable opportunity to cure any defects that would be a prohibition for listing. Such rules may provide that if a member of a compensation committee ceases to be independent in accordance with the requirements of Rule 10C-1 of the Exchange Act for reasons outside the member’s reasonable control, that person, with notice by the issuer to the applicable exchange, may remain a compensation committee member of the listed issuer until the earlier of (i) the date of the next annual stockholder meeting of the listed issuer or (ii) one year from the occurrence of the event that caused the member to be no longer independent.

Conflicts of Interest Disclosures

The final rules amend Item 407(e) of Regulation S-K to expand the current proxy disclosure requirements regarding compensation consultants identified by listed issuers in their SEC disclosures, pursuant to Item 407(e)(3)(iii) of Regulation S-K, as having played a role in determining or recommending the amount or form of executive or director compensation. The final rules will require additional disclosures on (i) whether the work of a compensation consultant raised any conflict or interest, and (ii) if so, the nature of such conflict and how the conflict is being addressed. The new disclosure requirement applies only to conflicts of interest with respect to a compensation consultant, not to outside legal counsel or other advisers.

The final rules do not provide any definition of “conflicts of interest,” and companies should consider their specific facts and circumstances in making such a determination. However, the final rules instruct companies to consider the same six factors described above relating to the independence of Compensation Advisers in analyzing whether conflicts of interest exist.

The new disclosure requirements will be applicable to all reporting companies subject to the proxy rules, regardless of whether the company is listed on an exchange. Accordingly, smaller reporting companies and controlled companies will also be required to provide the additional disclosures, although foreign private issuers will be exempt from such requirements.

Practical Considerations

Assessment of compensation committee composition: While the new compensation committee independence requirements may not become effective until after the 2013 proxy season, companies should begin analyzing the composition of the compensation committee to determine whether the independence of any director may be affected by the new listing standards.

Review of the compensation committee charter and director and officer questionnaire: The new listing standards are likely to require companies to review and update compensation committee charters and director and officer questionnaires to reflect the new independence criteria for directors.

Analysis of Compensation Adviser independence and conflicts of interest: Given that new factors must be considered in determining the independence of Compensation Advisers, companies and compensation committees should be proactive in establishing or updating procedures for collecting the information necessary to conduct the required independence and conflicts of interest analysis. This may include new screening questionnaires for Compensation Advisers, additional interview sessions, and committee meetings to discuss independence and potential conflicts of interest. The collection of such information should be part of an enhanced disclosure and control procedure designed to ensure that companies can prepare and determine, in a timely manner, whether there are independence questions warranting further discussion regarding Compensation Advisers and if there will be conflicts of interest disclosures relating to compensation consultants in their proxy statements.

Copyright © 2012 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Conference – October 18-19, 2012

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information regarding the upcoming ABA Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Conference:

When

October 18 – 19, 2012

Where

  • The Westin Grand Hotel
  • 2350 M St NW
  • Washington, DC, 20037-1417
  • United States of America

  • Program Description

As enforcement of anti-corruption laws in the United States and abroad continues to be a top priority for law enforcement, the Institute will provide a timely and substantive briefing on developments to companies, their officers, and employees. This year’s program will continue to examine trends stemming from recent proceedings brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as well as address recent challenges to the FCPA both in Congress and the courts.

The Institute will also provide a more in-depth focus on certain recurring issues faced by practitioners and companies alike. Whether examining liability presented by other federal and non-U.S. laws in the event of a potential FCPA violation or minimizing liability in connection with complex international business transactions, the program will provide practical tips from experienced government, corporate, and private practitioners. In addition, the Institute will feature both an in-house perspectives panel and, for the first time, a panel dedicated to SEC enforcement and how it has evolved since the SEC’s establishment of its FCPA unit.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Conference – October 18-19, 2012

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information regarding the upcoming ABA Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Conference:

When

October 18 – 19, 2012

Where

  • The Westin Grand Hotel
  • 2350 M St NW
  • Washington, DC, 20037-1417
  • United States of America

  • Program Description

As enforcement of anti-corruption laws in the United States and abroad continues to be a top priority for law enforcement, the Institute will provide a timely and substantive briefing on developments to companies, their officers, and employees. This year’s program will continue to examine trends stemming from recent proceedings brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as well as address recent challenges to the FCPA both in Congress and the courts.

The Institute will also provide a more in-depth focus on certain recurring issues faced by practitioners and companies alike. Whether examining liability presented by other federal and non-U.S. laws in the event of a potential FCPA violation or minimizing liability in connection with complex international business transactions, the program will provide practical tips from experienced government, corporate, and private practitioners. In addition, the Institute will feature both an in-house perspectives panel and, for the first time, a panel dedicated to SEC enforcement and how it has evolved since the SEC’s establishment of its FCPA unit.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Conference – October 18-19, 2012

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information regarding the upcoming ABA Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Conference:

When

October 18 – 19, 2012

Where

  • The Westin Grand Hotel
  • 2350 M St NW
  • Washington, DC, 20037-1417
  • United States of America

  • Program Description

As enforcement of anti-corruption laws in the United States and abroad continues to be a top priority for law enforcement, the Institute will provide a timely and substantive briefing on developments to companies, their officers, and employees. This year’s program will continue to examine trends stemming from recent proceedings brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as well as address recent challenges to the FCPA both in Congress and the courts.

The Institute will also provide a more in-depth focus on certain recurring issues faced by practitioners and companies alike. Whether examining liability presented by other federal and non-U.S. laws in the event of a potential FCPA violation or minimizing liability in connection with complex international business transactions, the program will provide practical tips from experienced government, corporate, and private practitioners. In addition, the Institute will feature both an in-house perspectives panel and, for the first time, a panel dedicated to SEC enforcement and how it has evolved since the SEC’s establishment of its FCPA unit.

Upcoming Summer 2012 CLE National Institutes

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the ABA’s Upcoming Summer 2012 CLE National Institutes:

Learn and network at these in-person,full-day or multi-day seminars held live in various locations across the country that draw lawyers from across the nation.

Upcoming Spring 2012 CLE National Institutes

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the ABA’s Upcoming Spring 2012 CLE National Institutes:

Learn and network at these in-person,full-day or multi-day seminars held live in various locations across the country that draw lawyers from across the nation.

Upcoming Spring 2012 CLE National Institutes

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the ABA’s Upcoming Spring 2012 CLE National Institutes:

Learn and network at these in-person,full-day or multi-day seminars held live in various locations across the country that draw lawyers from across the nation.

Upcoming Spring 2012 CLE National Institutes

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the ABA’s Upcoming Spring 2012 CLE National Institutes:

Learn and network at these in-person,full-day or multi-day seminars held live in various locations across the country that draw lawyers from across the nation.