In the Matter of Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. Shareholder Litigation

Transcription

1 In the Matter of Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. Shareholder Litigation New York Court of Appeals Adopts MFW Business Judgment Standard of Review for Squeeze-Out Mergers In, 1 the New York Court of Appeals (Stein, J.) adopted the Delaware Supreme Court s 2014 approach in Kahn v. M&F Worldwide Corp. 2 ( MFW ), holding that business judgment is the standard of review for squeeze-out mergers with controlling stockholders so long as the MFW-established conditions exist the transaction from the outset is subject to the approval of a well-functioning independent special committee empowered to select its advisors and reject the transaction and an informed, uncoerced vote of a majority of the minority shares. The Court of Appeals noted that the MFW standard serves as an attempt to achieve a balance between protecting minority shareholders and preventing frivolous litigation and unwarranted judicial interference in independent corporate decision-making. The Kenneth Cole Productions decision involved the attempted take-private of Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. ( KCP ) by Kenneth Cole, its founder and controlling shareholder (holding approximately 89% of the vote). In February 2012, the KCP board, without Cole present, established a special committee comprised of two directors elected by Class A shares (of which Cole held 46%) and two directors elected by Class B shares (of which Cole held 100%) to consider Cole s proposal to take KCP private. Cole made an initial offer of $15.00 per share, contingent on approval from the special committee and a majority of the minority shares. He stated that he would not approve any other type of merger as a shareholder and that the failure to approve the proposal would not adversely affect his future relationship with KCP. Following months of negotiations, the KCP special committee recommended approval of Cole s offer of $15.25 per share, and 99.8% of the minority shares approved the transaction. New York Washington, D.C. Los Angeles Palo Alto London Paris Frankfurt Tokyo Hong Kong Beijing Melbourne Sydney

2 Shortly after Cole made his offer, certain minority shareholders filed class action suits against Cole and the KCP directors alleging, among other claims, that the directors lacked independence and breached their fiduciary duty by failing to seek other bids for KCP. The New York Supreme Court granted the defendants motion to dismiss, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted review of the case to determine the appropriate standard of review to apply. The Court of Appeals declined to be constrained by its decision in Alpert v. 28 Williams St., 3 which applied the entire fairness standard of review to a two-step freeze-out merger. The Court of Appeals emphasized that the Alpert decision was expressly limited to the two-step freeze-out structure, whereas the KCP transaction was a going-private merger, and that the Alpert situation had not featured the independent committee or minority shareholder vote that are key components of the MFW conditions. However, the Court of Appeals noted that any complaint that alleges a reasonably conceivable set of facts showing that any of the MFW conditions to the application of business judgment review did not exist will survive a motion to dismiss, and if the evidence demonstrates that any of those elements did not exist, the transaction will be subject to entire fairness review, which places the burden on directors to demonstrate that they engaged in a fair process and obtained a fair price. Applying the MFW standard, the Court of Appeals determined that the lower courts were correct in dismissing the allegations in Kenneth Cole Productions. The Court of Appeals noted that under the business judgment standard of review, absent fraud or bad faith, the determinations of the KCP special committee and board would be deferred to. In addition, in finding that the plaintiffs had not alleged sufficient facts showing that the MFW conditions had not been met, the Court of Appeals, among other things, rejected the allegations that the special committee directors lacked independence because Cole and his personally selected directors were responsible for nominating and electing the special committee members. Friendships, traveling in the same circles, some financial ties, and past business relationships are not enough to rebut the presumption of independence; the ties must be material in the sense that they could affect impartiality, the Court of Appeals stated. 4 The Kenneth Cole Productions opinion provides a controller of a New York corporation a path to avoid entire fairness review; the certainty of business judgment review, however, likely will be accompanied by focused challenges to the independence of the special committee and the adequacy of disclosure to shareholders concerning the transaction. * * * Copyright Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

3 ENDNOTES Matter of Kenneth Cole Prods., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op (May 5, 2016) [hereinafter Slip Op.]. 88 A.3d 635 (Del. 2014). For a discussion of MFW, see our publication, dated March 17, 2014, entitled Kahn v. M&F Worldwide Corp. 63 N.Y.2d 557 (1984). Slip Op. at *

4 ABOUT SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP is a global law firm that advises on major domestic and cross-border M&A, finance, corporate and real estate transactions, significant litigation and corporate investigations, and complex restructuring, regulatory, tax and estate planning matters. Founded in 1879, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP has more than 800 lawyers on four continents, with four offices in the United States, including its headquarters in New York, three offices in Europe, two in Australia and three in Asia. CONTACTING SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP This publication is provided by Sullivan & Cromwell LLP as a service to clients and colleagues. The information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Questions regarding the matters discussed in this publication may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other Sullivan & Cromwell LLP lawyer with whom you have consulted in the past on similar matters. If you have not received this publication directly from us, you may obtain a copy of any past or future related publications from Stefanie S. Trilling ( ; trillings@sullcrom.com) in our New York office. CONTACTS New York Francis J. Aquila aquilaf@sullcrom.com H. Rodgin Cohen cohenhr@sullcrom.com Audra D. Cohen cohena@sullcrom.com Scott B. Crofton croftons@sullcrom.com Mitchell S. Eitel eitelm@sullcrom.com Brian T. Frawley frawleyb@sullcrom.com Joseph B. Frumkin frumkinj@sullcrom.com C. Andrew Gerlach gerlacha@sullcrom.com Brian E. Hamilton hamiltonb@sullcrom.com John L. Hardiman hardimanj@sullcrom.com Matthew G. Hurd hurdm@sullcrom.com Alexandra D. Korry korrya@sullcrom.com Stephen M. Kotran kotrans@sullcrom.com Mark J. Menting mentingm@sullcrom.com Scott D. Miller millersc@sullcrom.com James C. Morphy morphyj@sullcrom.com Keith A. Pagnani pagnanik@sullcrom.com George J. Sampas sampasg@sullcrom.com Melissa Sawyer sawyerm@sullcrom.com Alan J. Sinsheimer sinsheimera@sullcrom.com -4-

5 Krishna Veeraraghavan Washington, D.C. Janet T. Geldzahler Los Angeles Eric M. Krautheimer Alison S. Ressler Robert A. Sacks Palo Alto Brendan P. Cullen Sarah P. Payne London Richard C. Morrissey David Rockwell Paris William D. Torchiana Frankfurt Krystian Czerniecki Melbourne Robert Chu Tokyo Izumi Akai Keiji Hatano Hong Kong Michael G. DeSombre Chun Wei Beijing Garth W. Bray SC1: