+
More
More
A court drama being played out may result in TransPerfect’s two chief competitors in the translations services industry seeing increased revenue.   Lionbridge Technologies (LIOX), based in Waltham, Mass., is the largest translation services company in the U.S., with revenue of $560 million last year. TransPerfect is the second largest in the U.S., with revenue last year of $505 million. London-based SDL (SDLLF) could also benefit.   While beating its rival handedly in growth and profits, TransPerfect is experiencing a serious power struggle in the executive suite that has ended up in the courtroom. Lionbridge has attempted to capitalize on this controversy and courtroom drama by planting seeds of doubt on the future of TransPerfect with its customers.   However, this may not be the boon LIOX is expecting. Although TransPerfect’s power struggle began in 2013, it has shown no signs of slowing down the company. So far this year, sales are up more than 11% with May being the most successful month to date. Whatever the Delaware Chancery Court decides, there will inevitably be a lengthy appeal process and co-founder visionary Phil Shawe has made it clear that he is not going anywhere.   The Delaware state court’s apparent willingness to step into the affairs of a private company has come under fire from many directions, including most-notably former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who criticized Delaware’s new Chief Chancellor Andre Bouchard (a Canadian) for an “un-American” decision that was overreaching, intrusive, and against American free-market principles.   Co-CEO and fellow shareholder Elizabeth Elting, who according to many employees has a very limited role in the day-to-day functions of the company, is suing for TransPerfect to be dissolved and force-sold to the highest bidder. When Elting co-founded the business with Shawe 24 years ago they had had a romantic relationship, but that ended years ago. She now claims the two cannot work together anymore and that the New York-based company should be auctioned off because she is upset with their personal relationship. It is also obvious that Elting is now using the court as a weapon to maximize her buyout price.   Shawe recently offered $300 million cash to buy her half of the company. In an attempt to extract more money from Shawe, Elting recently told Forbes Magazine that she intends to counter, but no offer has been forthcoming. It appears Elting believes the Delaware Court will give her a better exit strategy than she can achieve through negotiation, and thus, is content to wait it out until Bouchard’s decision and all appeals, are rendered final.   TransPerfect is the largest privately-held company in the $35 billion translation services industry. With 4,000 employees in 100 cities on four continents TransPerfect is capable of translating more than 170 languages. It has a vast array of clientele, including almost every Fortune 500 company, such as USPS, IKEA, Johnson & Johnson, and Hilton Worldwide.   Elting has used a strategy of saying “no” to all routine decisions to create “deadlock” under Delaware law, and therefore wants the court to auction the company to the highest bidder. Unable to find a judge receptive to her case in New York , she filed a second lawsuit two years ago in Delaware. In the non-jury trial, despite the fact that Elting couldn’t produce one witness to corroborate her testimony, while Shawe presented 10 witnesses on his behalf, the judge sided with Elting on dissolution, and appointed a custodian to oversee a sale process.   This means for the first time in U.S. history, a private, profitable company that has not been accused of any wrongdoing or impropriety is being put on the auction block. Although the harm caused by Chancellor Bouchard’s use of the word “sale” has raised eyebrows with many TransPerfect employees and customers, Bouchard also said he believed that Shawe was the most logical buyer. In the meantime the court has put a middleman in charge of the company for the purpose of having it dissolved and force-sold against the wishes of two of its three shareholders. Elting owns half, while Shawe and his mother own the other 50%.   It appears the employees, TransPerfect’s most important assets, are extremely upset with Bouchard and his apparent willingness to rely on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness who serves no meaningful role at the company. Hoping to save the company they work for, as well as their jobs, the employees wrote to the judge before he rules on the bizarre case currently before him.   On April 26, TransPerfect’s employees sent two letters to Bouchard; Peter C. Schwartzkopf, the speaker of the Delaware House of Representatives; other members of the Delaware house; and the media to present their perspective before a final ruling in the case.   In order to inform the public of their situation, a group of 610 TransPerfect employees called Citizens for a Pro-Business Delaware ran radio ads on local Delaware stations. They also placed a two-page advertisement in the Delaware News Journal that reprinted the contents of each letter. So far, the employees have not received a response from Bouchard, who has issued a series of unprecedented decisions that are so unusual and blatantly one-sided that observers say they are not based on law and equity.   Shawe’s lawyer Martin Russo of New York law firm Gusrae Kaplan Nusbaum told Slator.com , “Ms. Elting has the right now to sell her shares on the open market without interference from, or affecting Shawe’s ownership rights; but that she chooses not to take the market price is an indicator as well. Shawe’s $300 million offer is magnanimous, and is surely better than (what Ms Elting) would get as a 50% owner on the market.” Russo told the website the value represents 10x the company’s after-tax cash flow profits of 30 million and described the $300 million offer for Elting’s 50% stake as “extremely generous.”   However, if Elting refuses the offer and forces the sale, this could provide a big opportunity for either Lionbridge or SDL to purchase TransPerfect and become the undisputed leader of the translation industry.   

A CONCERNED DELAWARE ATTORNEY

Dear Friends, I received this amazing e-mail below from a prominent Delaware attorney who has chosen to be a “whistle blower” of sorts in regard to Delaware’s Chief Chancellor, Andre Bouchard, specifically as to the inequities of the TransPerfect case of which I have been recently writing about. At the request of this person I have removed his name, as he fears retribution from the court that could affect his livelihood. Maintaining my journalistic integrity, I am bound to honor his request to remain anonymous. I will call him from now on “A CONCERNED DELAWARE ATTORNEY.” Regardless, I assure you of the legitimacy of this person and his production of the facts from his years of legal practice. The importance I feel in publishing it to all who are interested is paramount. Delaware’s credibility in regard to it’s future as America’s corporate capital is at stake. Please read below and as always your comments are welcome. You will be amazed at this legal analysis by an objective expert.  

The Implications of the TransPerfect Forced Sale

Dear Judson: I have been following your articles regarding Chancellor Bouchard and the TransPerfect case. The issues you discuss are indicative of underlying and systemic problems in the Delaware Chancery Court. I have talked to more than a few attorneys who agree the result in the TransPerfect matter is an astonishing travesty of justice. I have read the hearings and trial transcripts, studied the decision, and have come to the inescapable conclusion that the fundamental principles that have long been the back bone of Delaware Corporate law were not properly utilized in the TransPerfect case. It is clear the Chancellor had a personal bias against Shawe or for Elting, and from then on, all his interim decisions were on auto-pilot, favoring Elting. Attorneys I’ve spoken with are split as to whether the root cause is Chancellor’s lack of experience or the more troubling reasons you suggest in your articles. Whatever the cause, these attorneys, as am I are now afraid of publicly stating their true belief’s about the Judge’s decision. Why? Because they wish to continue to practice successfully in Delaware and fear retribution from the Chancery Court, where Chancellor Bouchard will be sitting for the next 12 years. No attorney wants to be worried about being blacklisted by the Court that they do business in because they were candid about their legitimate concerns involving the TransPerfect case. Though your article was quite thorough there are a few additional points that your readers might find very interesting. I have begun to list the many issues with Bouchard’s decision below, which have the potential to set a disastrous precedent in the Chancery Court, and in turn, Corporate America.  

TransPerfect has 3 Shareholders, Not Two

  1. THE COMPANY IS NOT 50%/50%
The company is 50%-49%-1%. Why is this important? Because Bouchard is using a history of voting patterns (rather than true ownership) to invoke Section 273 principles which the legislature has made clear should only apply in a two shareholder situations.TransPerfect has three shareholders, but because Shirley Shawe is Philip Shawe’s mother Bouchard is saying that because they vote together, he can treat them as the same shareholder. This is a reckless and dangerous precedent to set, and a formula for a vast increase in litigation by stockholders who will view the Chancery Court’s broad equitable powers as a way to get a better deal than what they negotiated for in their shareholder agreement. Simple example: Huge investing groups vote the same on Board and Shareholder decisions all the time. In applying new law Bouchard proposes to create to a scenario where there are, hypothetically, four hedge funds that each have shares in a profitable company with 10%, 17%, 33%, 40%, stakes respectively and litigation is commenced between the shareholders, there would be a strong likelihood of a disastrous and inequitable result. If the 10% shareholder and the 40% shareholder have always voted in a consistent pattern then, for purposes of dissolution, the Court (i.e. the government) could seize control of a profitable private company, with capable management, and auction it off to the highest bidder.

Unprecedented Ruling by Bouchard

What Bouchard’s unprecedented ruling in the TransPerfect case does is turn Delaware’s law (and reputation) on its head creating substantial uncertainty for the corporate world which looks to Delaware for stability and predictability. It is telling that if TransPerfect had been an LLC (rather than a corporation), it would have been beyond Bouchard’s power to dissolve it as long as it could continue to fulfill its purpose.
  1. DELAWARE DIRECTORS MAY NO LONGER HAVE RIGHTS TO BOOKS & RECORDS
It is undisputed that Elting took $21 million in unilateral unauthorized distributions (the word for dividends in an S-Corp), that she claims she was justified because it was for her individual taxes. Bouchard whitewashed this conversion of funds, as well as Elting’s subsequent raiding of the company coffers to pay her personal lawyers and advisors (Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel and Kidron Advisors). Once familiar with the facts, even the Chancellor’s hand picked Custodian would not condone such avaricious behavior and forced Elting to repay the absconded funds. When Shawe entered Elting’s office to investigate the unauthorized distributions, as Delaware law requires him to do as a Director and Officer when suspecting fraud, he was with a professional Fraud Examiner while doing so. Yet, the court was deceived into ruling that Ms. Elting’s company-owned office was somehow her private personal property. Shawe had every right (and duty) to examine her emails stored on the company equipment and enter her company for an investigation, once he suspected fraud. Now, he faces unwarranted sanctions for doing so. Additionally, these emails contain information which would have exonerated Shawe. Yet, the Chancellor improperly refused to allow them into evidence. Instead of reviewing the emails in camera, the proper course for a judge when fraud is alleged, Bouchard is now threatening to sanction Shawe by paying millions of dollars in Elting’s legal fees. This is another disastrous precedent Bouchard has hoisted upon the Chancery Court. Can anyone imagine a world in which a Director or Officer (in this case Elting), empowered by the Company Handbook, cannot be investigated for fraud if suspected by her Co-Directors and Officers—for fear of an unwarranted multi-million sanction? This aspect of Bouchard reasoning alone is spine-chilling, impractical, and defies logic. III. PUNITIVE SANCTIONS Bouchard has stated he believes it is within his powers to sanction Shawe punitively for the full amount of legal fees Elting has run up in the case—even for causes of action that Elting dropped at trial. Therefore, he contemplates having Shawe reimburse Kevin Shannon (Potter Anderson) for bringing baseless claims and causes of action that could not be proved at trial. I cannot think of a precedent that would encourage more frivolous litigation. The more claims Elting brings that she can’t prove, the more it costs Shawe in reimbursing Kevin Shannon and Potter Anderson. One might argue that Bouchard was being fair because he sanctioned Kramer Levin$135,000 for failing to answer deposition questions. However, this argument is a red herring. From the public record, the deposition testimony of Ronald Greenberg of Kramer Levin is plainly critical to proving Shawe’s claim that deadlocks were manufactured and that in a well thought out plan he masterminded a scheme to use dissolution as a vehicle to maximize Elting’s exit value. What Shawe needed was an order that Elting’s attorney answer the questions. Instead the court sanctioned them $135,000 for the cost of the deposition and shielded Greenberg from ever having to answer the questions. I’m sure Shawe would have preferred to soak up the cost to expose the Elting’s fraud, but Bouchard forestalled this line of inquiry. This hollow gift from Bouchard to Shawe, appears calculated to allow Bouchard to appear even-handed, while doling out his pre-ordained sanction on Shawe. Judson, I could keep going and going, helping you analyze the obvious travesty of justice, destruction to Delaware’s reputation, and the detrimental effect that Chancellor Bouchard’s decision has had all the stakeholders of this thriving business (except Ms. Elting and Kevin Shannon). And I have not even reached the most shocking material—including Bouchard’s new definition of the 226 “irreparable harm to the business” standard that he used to empower himself to takeover TransPerfect. However, as I close PART #1, I just want you to know one thing: There are many attorneys and members of the Bar in Delaware who feel the same way that you do, and want to see this company left alone from Bouchard’s bias, activism, and judicial overreach, but are too afraid to sacrifice the next 12 years of their career to speak out against him. Thank you, Judson, for having the courage to say what others will not, and for your journalistic integrity. A Concerned Delaware Attorney Respectfully submitted Respectfully Submitted, JUDSON Bennett-Coastal Network     Source: http://hubpages.com/business/Shocking-Legal-Analysis-of-the-TransPerfect-Case  Delaware Legislature Must Act Dear Friends, On Friday, June 17, 2016, reporterJeff Mordock wrote an article in the Wilmington News Journal about the controversial TransPerfect Global case which is before the Delaware Court of Chancery (which I have been writing about), whereby Chief Chancellor Andre Bouchard, ordered the sale of this extremely profitable company, siding with the Plaintiff, Elizabeth Elting (who appears to be spiteful, vindictive, and acutely unreasonable, from the court documents and pleadings I have read) over defendant Phillip Shawe who appears to love his company, cares about his employees, and has led the company successfully through his brilliant creativity and hard work. Shawe does not want the company sold and Elting does. Shawe has offered Elting more than what her share is worth, however she only wants to hurt Shawe by refusing to negotiate in good faith.
Philip Shawe is the logical owner of TransPerfect

Sworn Testimony about Phil Shawe’s Devotion

The Chancellor in the wake of obvious cronyism and the appearance of personal improprieties has made an arbitrary and capricious ruling, although certainly within his legal right, which is clearly inequitable and does not represent the greater good. Although, reporter Mordock was somewhat thorough in his article, his reporting was typical drive by media reporting (sensationalizing the fact that Elting and Shawe once had an amorous relationship) while missing what is most important, the fact that the company is being forced to be sold and 4000 well- paying jobs could be lost. Murdock further misses the boat here in that the American dream is being dashed because one of the owners appears to be willing “to cut off her nose to spite her face,” with total disregard for her employees’ well-being. On the other hand Phillip Shawe wants to maintain the company that he created and nurtured to where it nets over $500 million dollars per year. The article mentioned the legislation sponsored by Senator Colin Bonini (R) in the Delaware Senate to prevent the sale of company’s like TransPerfect, however Mordock only interviewed the detractors and not the proponents portraying a negative bent on the whole issue. Although reporting on the real possibility that this decision in the Chancery Court could hurt Delaware’s profitable corporate franchise which brings in millions into its coffers if future entrepreneurs start incorporating in Nevada or Rhode Island instead of Delaware, Mordock has clearly missed the boat on the real essence of this important issue. Intentional Disregard or Collusion? This brings me to the disappointment I have in Senate Minority Leader, Gary Simpson (R), and House Minority Leader Dan Short(R) who oppose the legislation. I am surprised that they don’t get it. In the News Journal article Mordock quotes Simpson who says, “He hasn’t received any e-mails about it”. Hello Senator-you are on my vast e-mail list and have received e-mails about it. Simpson further states, “We have a reputation in Delaware for having a Chancery Court where litigants and their attorneys know how Delaware law reads. To give uncertainty because a party may be able to persuade the Delaware Legislature to change things is just bad.” I vehemently disagree. Regardless of this reputation, when something is wrong, it’s wrong and if it is wrong, it needs to be changed. Delaware’s Chancery Court reputation and corporate franchise situation will be tainted by Chancellor Bouchard’s ruling and the law needs to be corrected to prevent this kind of hard core decision from being implemented. Likewise, Representative Dan Short is quoted by Mordock as saying, “ The company’s dysfunction is the result of its own lack of corporate governance to resolve a bitter dispute between its leaders. The Chancery Court is using the tools available to it under Delaware law to untangle a knot TransPerfect tied for itself.” Again I disagree whole heartedly. Who said the court is responsible for untying a knot it never made. If Ms. Elting is unhappy there was nothing to stop her from selling her shares on the open market and there is still nothing stopping her today. Instead, it appears she consciously manufactured deadlock to use the court in an attempt to get a higher price than the market is willing to pay. The law needs to be changed to prevent a litigant from using false and questionable evidence to manipulate the court. The judge in New York threw out her case; why didn’t Bouchard? Who clearly benefits by not settling? Certainly not Phillip Shawe! The Truth that Media is Missing The company is not dysfunctional, and although there was no agreement in place between the two owners to resolve disputes, there are more reasonable options available to the Court in lieu of selling a very well working company. Just because the Chancellor has the authority “to kill the goose that laid the golden egg”, doesn’t mean he has to do it. Elting is using the court and Bouchard has either fallen for it or is subconsciously working to help his buddies involved (the law firm, the custodian who spends $5 million each year of TransPerfect money, etc.) The proposed law change makes sense. The problem here is, even though I respect Gary Simpson and Dan Short and consider them friends, they appear to have become “Establishment Politicians”. The entire Delaware Legislature should go to school on the amazing phenomenon of Donald Trump ( a bombastic, politically incorrect egocentric) and Bernie Sanders (a passionate Socialist) who both are resonating with millions of voters. People are hurting and they are sick of the “Status Quo” of the “Political Establishment” on both sides of the isle. Delaware is not exactly booming with a great economy or positive economic growth. This Chancery Court ruling by Andre Bouchard and rulings like it will only tend to hurt the State of Delaware economically. The law needs to be changed in this legislative session and there is a realistic bill on the table to do so. Delaware voters are watching and they are very frustrated. The election is coming up in November. As always your comments are welcome and subject to being forwarded. Respectfully submitted, Judson Bennett-Coastal Network      What is the Court of Equity in Delaware? Dear Friends, The Delaware Court of Chancery is supposed to be Delaware’s Equity Court. What is the definition of the word “Equity”? Equity is defined by Webster’s dictionary as “ the quality of being fair and impartial.” When there is a corporate dispute, involving a Delaware corporation, the Delaware Court of Chancery decides the case. The decision is supposed to be based on objective fairness involving reasonable decisions based on the evidence provided. All relevant evidence should be objectively considered. If it is not, then there is something radically wrong. So how does TransPerfect Fit in? This brings me to the TransPerfect Global case of which I have been writing aboutwhere there are obvious improprieties involving a questionable decision. Let’s put everything in a very simple perspective. The company is a translation company that nets over $500 million dollars per year. It employs about 4000 people. It has 90 offices world- wide. It is a Delaware Corporation. There are two equal owners who were once lovers. The owners Elizabeth Elting and Phil Shawe are at odds and do not get along. Now, the case: Elizabeth Elting (who vindictively) wants the company to be sold and Phil Shawe (who loves his company and cares about his employees) does not. Shawe has offered Elting 300 million dollars for her share which is more than she would get at a public action. If the company is sold, there is a good chance that many of the 4000 employees would lose their jobs. The presiding Judge is the Chief Chancellor named Andre Bouchard. Elizabeth Elting who brought the complaint before the court refuses to make a counter offer or agree to any reasonable negotiations out of what appears to be pure spite. It certainly looks as if she wants the company to go to public auction just to hurt Shawe. Chancellor Bouchard has ordered a temporary custodian (one of his buddies) to run the company during the interim. Elting’s attorney Kevin Shannon is a friend of the Chancellor and they appeared on a legal panel together in New Orleans while in the heart of this lawsuit. This custodian has threatened employees with job terminationthrough inter office directives not to discuss the case. Millions of dollars have been unnecessarily spent with this custodian at the helm (<$5 mIllion) usurping Shawe’s successful leadership which has been clearly proven by the company’s financial success over the years and by the testimony of many employees. There was no testimony on behalf of Elting. Evidence indicating some irregularities by Elting has not been allowed to be presented. Other substantial evidence on behalf of Shawe has been ignored. Granted, under normal circumstances, when two owners of a company cannot agree and there is no written agreement in place (which there isn’t), then the assets have to be sold or one partner buys out the other? However in this case, you have one partner who is willing to buy out the other for more than what her share is worth. Let me mention one more fact. Elting lied in a recent Forbes piece where she stated that in response to Shawe’s offer she told the custodian that she would offer more. It is a lie, and she is not offering to buy, nor is she willing to sell to Shawe. This is the key fact Bouchard ignores. He can force the mediation by telling the parties he will install a third board member to break any tie and then leave the case alone. The Questions Not Being Asked Therefore I ask the following questions:
  1. Why does Chancellor Bouchard not order Elting to settle or become a silent partner?
  2. Why would he order the sale of a viable company possibly costing thousands of employees their jobs?
  3. That being the case, why would someone want to incorporate in Delaware when this is the possible result?
I am a writer who has an interest in many things. I love to expose inequities when they are obvious. Having followed this case very carefully, there is no doubt in my mind that there have been suspicious irregularities in the way this case has been handled. There is certainly the appearance of improprieties. There has been no objective fairness, impartiality, or reasonable consideration which is the duty of this court. Elting’s lawyers even bragged about how this judge awarded everything to Elting and ignored Shawe, saying they felt it was not usual. There is certainly grounds for appeal to Delaware’s Supreme Court if this case is not equitably resolved. What a shame to have a successful business decimated because of a personal vendetta by one of the partners apparently supported for whatever reason by the Chief Chancellor. I hope justice prevails and TransPerfect remains intact as a shining example of the success of an American dream. These success stories are few and far between these days. Always on Delaware’s Side As always your comments are welcome and subject to being forwarded. Respectfully Submitted, JUDSON Bennett-Coastal Network  Rick Bell of Harvard Business Services Speaks Dear Friends, I received this e-mail from Rick Bell in response to the TransPerfect articleabout Chancellor Bouchard’s controversial ruling. Rick Bell, a former Lt Governor candidate, is Delaware’s foremost specialist on forming Delaware corporations worldwide. Rick also tells me that incorporations in Delaware are down 1.5 % and new business growth is way off. Bouchard’s actions will definitely hurt Delaware’s credibility. Below Rick Bell’s message is a News Journal article by Jeff Mordock. Please become aware of this disaster in the making by reading these articles. Call your state legislators and let them know how you feel. Harvard Business Services Harvard Business Services, Inc. Rick Bell’s Delawareinc.com | Source Rick Bell “Jud, As you know, we form Delaware companies for people. In fact, we form more than 15,000 new Delaware companies per year for people from all across the USA and all around the world. On a good day, we’ll form more than 50 new Delaware companies. There are many companies like ours, except we are different in that we form ONLY Delaware companies. Most of the other companies in this business will form a company in all 50 states. The Court of Chancery decision you are referring to is one of the most significant stumbling blocks to many entrepreneurs choosing Delaware. The decision may be justifiable to the chancellor, but it is a disaster for Delaware’s image. When people are making a decision as whether to choose Delaware or their home state, they take a leap of faith that Delaware will be better for them. Specifically, they perceive Delaware as protecting Directors and treating stockholders fairly. This case has everyone thinking that Delaware is unpredictable and makes rogue decisions that could literally assassinate your company even if you’ve been successful in the marketplace. If it is reversed by the Supreme Court Delaware will be better off.” Richard H. (Rick) Bell, II Chairman & CEO Harvard Business Services, Inc. 16192 Coastal Highway Lewes, Delaware 19958   Delaware is the Corp Capital   What should Judge Bouchard do?   

“What’s going on in Delaware”

  This is my 4th article in a series spotlighting the recent practices and apparent bias in one of the Delaware Chancery Court Cases which has gleaned significant public attention. In my last article in this series I focused on the Elting v. Shawe case involving the company Transperfect, a translation company with 4,000 employees and 90 offices throughout the world. For those of you who might be just joining this series, this is a case involving the highly-connected Democratic activist Andre Bouchard who was appointed Chief Chancellor of the Chancery Court although he never served a day on the bench. His appointment by Governor Markell was never questioned and in my first article I pointed out how Bouchard seemed to be part of the rampant cronyism widespread in the Delaware Court System. If there was ever a reason to question these type of practices and the harm they can cause to the people of Delaware, the Transperfect case is a shining example. You may recognize this case by now from my previous missives: This is the one where Chancellor Bouchard in one of his very first cases appointed a custodian to oversee an auction of this quite profitable company. What makes this unique is that Chancellor Bouchard’s decision was unprecedented in the history of Delaware and its implications can have a chilling effect on the future of Delaware as the corporate capital of the United States. The people of Delaware have every reason to be concerned as 14 percent of all jobs in Delaware are created as a result of this franchise and this decision has raised eyebrows up and down the legislative hallways. However, this decision has more immediate repercussions to the 4,000 employees of TransPerfect who have started a committee to amend statute 226…. to prevent this type of unprecedented judicial activism that has a good chance of leading to the loss of many jobs and possibly lead to the demise of this company which has never failed to have a profitable year in its 24-year history. The aspects of this case are quite fascinating. After reading many of the motions and testimony in this dispute what made it so unusual was not only was it the first decision of it’s kind coming from a freshman jurist but that there was an obvious prejudice by Judge Bouchard who completely ignored the overwhelming evidence presented by Defendant Shawe that indicated many questionable irregularities by the plaintiff. Ten witnesses testified on behalf of Mr. Shawe while Ms. Elting presented none. This prejudice amplified when the judge refused to allow communications on company emaiIs between Elting and her husband Michael Burlandt, the company real estate broker, to be presented in court showing further evidence of a nefarious scheme to debunk the status quo of TransPerfect to the detriment of its founder Phil Shawe. If the ruling by Chancellor Bouchard to auction a profitable company (which makes over $500 million dollars a year) and forcibly take it away from it’s visionary founder Phil Shawe wasn’t strange enough, then how do you explain such a ruling that appeared to be based entirely on Elting’s questionable testimony? Shawe, on the other hand, was not allowed to present relevant and beneficial evidence to make his case. Furthermore, much evidence that was presented by Shawe which put Elting in a very bad light, was completely ignored by Chancellor Bouchard. Apparently Ms. Elting tried to remove Mr. Shawe as CEO in a New York State Court prior to coming down to Delaware, where the judge summarily threw her case out not in small part due to the fact that 110 employees submitted affidavits on behalf of Mr. Shawe. As in the Delaware case Ms. Elting presented none, yet Chancellor Bouchard apparently didn’t care. The appearance of improprieties and substantial court bias throughout this whole case are outrageous, and any logical observer could ascertain grounds for an appeal. Regardless of the negative effect this arbitrary and capricious ruling could have onDelaware’s lucrative corporate bonanza, any logical person who has followed the case as I have, can clearly recognize that fairness and justice have not been adjudicated. There is much more to talk about, so more articles are coming. As always my opinions are open for discussion and your comments are welcome. New York Times Agrees that Delaware Chancery Has Too Much Power Always on Delaware’s Side Respectfully submitted, JUDSON Bennett-Coastal Network Getting along? Getting Along?