The suit
Robert Pincus threatened employees and is now waging a costly investigation to check emails and cell phones, to follow employees, in an effort to discover who is talking to the media and legislators.
As a result, Timothy Holland waged a suit to maintain his rights.
Holland v Bouchard Complaint by Charles Taylor on Scribd
Controversial TransPerfect Global case The controversial TransPerfect Global case is still in the Delaware Court of Chancery. This outrageous situation gets more and more astounding as each ruling is adjudicated. The blatant unfairness and obvious bias in my opinion by the presiding Chief Chancellor, Andre Bouchard towards one party over the other and the financial damage this Judge has done to this viable company through his determinations is beyond remarkable. The use of his judicial discretion under the law considering his appearances of impropriety involving cronyism, a dearth of evidence, and in effect his legislation from the bench by his rulings contrary to established Delaware law, are indeed frightening and disconcerting. I have been asked by members of my network and one reporter why I’ve taken this on. The answer is that whenever there is, in my educated opinion, an obvious and insidious case of injustice involving politics or government, which I can back up by the facts, especially in my home state of Delaware, then I’m going to write about it. I’ve become a pundit of sorts and it is an enjoyable hobby. My Coastal Network, which reaches over 6,000 people through personal e-mails and now Facebook is an informative vehicle that has been extremely effective over the years. One of the best things about being an American is being able to use my First Amendment rights of free speech, especially since I like to write. Believe me there are those in this country who would love to take that away from us, and we have to be eternally vigilant in all matters of our constitution. That said, I first noticed Chancellor Andre Bouchard in regard to his involvement with the Register of Wills office in Sussex County, Delaware where he used his Judicial power under the law to appoint two apparently incompetent chief deputies who couldn’t properly do the job, ignoring the recommendations of the elected Register of Wills, the Honorable Cindy Green, thus thrusting this important office into chaos. His arrogance and disrespect of the elected Register of Wills by making political appointments instead of the most qualified, made me wonder then about his objectivity. Chancellor Bouchard further led the charge in the Delaware legislature to do away with this office, putting everything involving wills under the Court of Chancery. This would have taken away the personal service in Sussex County for its citizens and ultimately costing the Sussex County residents more money. Fortunately, the legislature chose to not implement this action. Regardless, after that I started watching Bouchard’s Chancery Court cases. The TransPerfect case caught my attention. Since then, I have followed it in detail, investigated and researched those involved, gleaned expert legal opinions, spoken with employees of the company, read all the court documents, and have ascertained that something is radically wrong with the whole deal. The two founders and stockholders, Phillip Shawe and Elizabeth Elting, are entwined in a legal battle that is rocking the corporate world. Elting wants to sell and Shawe does not. Shawe is willing settle out of court, Elting refuses to settle, using the bias of the court to hopefully glean more money in her pocket. Chancellor Bouchard’s decision to sell this viable company—clearly based without merit or proper evidence, creates huge concerns for those who are incorporated in Delaware and those who might choose to do so in the future. If Delaware loses its corporate franchise, it could lose millions of dollars, plummeting it into the red so deep, it would never recover. Reiterating the facts, under Delaware business law, a company is not supposed to be sold unless there is evidence of irreparable harm. TransPerfect has shown a profit for the past 24 years, and now makes $500,000,000 a year — no harm here at all. Regardless, the Chancellor does have the authority to force the sale of a company when there are disagreements if there are only two stockholders. Folks, TransPerfect has *three stockholders* and Bouchard is making new law here according to my legal experts. Bouchard has a long-term friendship and business connection with Elizabeth Elting’s lawyer, Kevin Shannon; they worked on the Disney case together 20 years ago, and served on an educational panel together in New Orleans *during the decision stage of this trial.* Andre Bouchard should have recused himself immediately. *By not doing so, he has created the appearance of a serious impropriety.* To make matters worse and making objective observers concerned about the possibility of corruption, Bouchard ordered a custodian—another one of his good friends and former colleague Robert Pincus to take over the company. He has ordered an audit of the company with huge salaries and fees to all of his friends, costing the company around $8,000,000 dollars over the last 10 months. Any doubts who benefits from this long drawn out affair? Bouchard’s cronies. It gets worse than this folks… Bouchard has denied the production of evidence indicating a plot by Elting to make Shawe look bad by having her husband Michael Burlant (TransPerfect’s lease agent) intentionally create lease problems overseas. Elting also has taken funds from the company (over $20,000,000 dollars), which are also questionable. Yet when Phillip Shawe checked out Elting’s e-mails on the company server with a professional fraud investigator on hand — shortly after finding out that she had secretly made over $150,000 in payments to her attorneys and financial advisors indicating her questionable activity, Chancellor Bouchard arbitrarily and capriciously sanctioned Shawe on the sole say so of Elting’s lawyer. No evidence, no testimony, no proof — denying Shawe his due process. The sanctions include 1/3 of Elting’s legal fees and 100% of her fees for the hearing on sanctions created by Bouchard in the first place, where he ruled against Phillip Shawe in all ways, costing him millions of dollars. The bottom line here is thousands of TransPerfect employees could lose their jobsand a viable company could be destroyed. Obviously Judge Bouchard does not care about that. The bias and prejudice against Phillip Shawe by this Judge is unprecedented in Delaware’s Chancery Court. Could it be that Andre Bouchard is using his Judicial power by suppressing evidence to rig a result that’s good for his buddy Kevin Shannon (Elizabeth Elting’s attorney), thus creating huge legal fees that are going into Shannon’s pocket? The apparent and absolutely unnecessary raping of a company (which epitomizes the American dream) by the Judicial Branch of the State of Delaware through the actions of a rogue Judge creates much negative speculation which is never a good thing. These facts and appearances of impropriety make me shake my head and wonder how this can happen in Delaware’s valued and respected equity court? More to come, so please stay tuned. With respect as always As always your comments are welcome and subject to being forwarded. Respectfully Submitted, JUDSON Bennett-Coastal Network In the past several months, I have written extensively about the astounding case still going on in Delaware’s Chancery Court involving TransPerfect Global, whereby Chief Chancellor Andre Bouchard has ordered the sale of a private, extremely profitable company. According to my expert legal sources, the Delaware Chancery Court is under no duty to insert itself, and replace the free market by adjudicating a solution when there are simply disagreements between stockholders that involve no wrong doing. This company should not be dissolved under the present circumstances. Chancellor Bouchard has seemingly made a radical, rogue, and reckless decision that could damage the state of Delaware’s corporate future. TransPerfect has annual revenue of approximately $500 million and 4,000 employees in 90 different cities worldwide. It also happens to exemplify the American dream, where two people had an idea and created a successful business. Unfortunately, Elizabeth Elting now wants an immediate exit strategy and is using the valuable resources of the court to manipulate a sale process that gives her a share price that she is not entitled to on the open market and is selfishly leaving the employees up in the air. Basically, Chancellor Bouchard has essentially applied family court principles to this business saying, in effect, that when two people get a divorce and cannot agree what to do with the house, the house must be sold to a third-party, and the monies received are to be split equally. Why is this wrong? Under Section 226 of the Delaware Business Law when two or more shareholders cannot agree, the court can order the sale of the company, but there is one key difference. There must be a showing of irreparable harm. The easiest way to determine irreparable harm is by a very simple indicator. Is the company profitable? TransPerfect Global has been extremely profitable every year of its 24-year existence and continues to thrive. So where is the irreparable harm Chancellor Bouchard? Just because one owner claims she doesn’t want to work with her partner anymore doesn’t mean the Court should intervene. Your “equitable” solution is a dangerous precedent which will not only scare companies away from Delaware, but clog our judicial system with merit-less cases whenever a stockholder wants a better deal than they negotiated. Interestingly this is only part of the problem, because in this case there are not just two stockholders, there is a third, and that changes things drastically under Delaware Law. Plaintiff Elting owns 50%, Defendant Shawe owns 49%, and Shawe’s mother owns 1%. Besides being clearly prejudiced against Shawe, ignoring the overwhelming testimony of 10 witnesses to Elting’s 0, and operating under the appearance of several improprieties, Chancellor Bouchard has overreached his authority in another way that is just as equally threatening to the incorporation business that Delaware relies so heavily upon. This type of judicial overreach is so outrageous that many legal experts are truly fearful of the future of this State’s reputation. The bottom line is that Chancellor Bouchard is ignoring the fact that there are three stockholders and saying basically that “because Shawe’s mother usually votes with him, it is the same as there being only two.” This action by Chancellor Bouchard is unprecedented, has the potential to create turmoil and needless litigation in the business community, and has prompted employees and concerned citizens to organize to bring about change in the law; whereby a Judge cannot arbitrarily order the sale of a company when legal precedent states otherwise. In reality, they shouldn’t have to change it, because Bouchard is already acting outside what the legislature intended his powers to be by fabricating the “irreparable harm” component. Senator Colin Bonini (R), much to his credit, proposed Senate Concurrent Resolution 91 which basically requested that the Delaware Bar Association review the law and come up with viable legal alternatives to rulings of this sort. The resolution was non-binding, harmless in all respects, and was intended to open the door for potential legislation if after review and discussion changes were determined to be reasonable. Unfortunately the proposal never came to a vote due to a lack of time and lack of understanding on both sides of the political aisle. Not really knowing the facts of the case, certain establishment politicians who wanted to maintain the “status quo,” regardless of this apparent inequity, planted their feet and closed their minds to positive change and clarification of the law. Senate Minority Leader Gary Simpson could have facilitated the vote on this issue, but chose not to do so. According to Senator Simpson, he contacted former Chief Chancellor Chandler who was a highly respected Sussex County Judge. Chandler advised Senator Simpson that often the Chancery Court orders the sale of companies when there are disagreements in 50%/50% partnerships, however Senator Simpson did not tell him that this was a highly profitable company, that the decision was unprecedented in the history of Delaware, and that there were three stockholders and not just two. As quoted in the News Journal– “We have a reputation in Delaware for having a Chancery Court where litigants and their attorneys know how Delaware law reads,” said State Sen. Minority Leader Gary F. Simpson, a Republican and opponent of changing the court’s authority. “To give uncertainty because a party may be able to persuade the Delaware Legislature to change things is just bad.” Well folks if something is wrong in the law, and something is inequitable, or allows a freshman judge to interpret it in an inequitable way, then the law needs to be changed. I disagree with Senator Simpson and others who failed to support this positive attempt at making Delaware’s Chancery Court and state laws better and more business friendly, with less uncertainty. Corporate litigants, who have disputes, should be able to count on Delaware for fair and equitable solutions under the law; and our laws should not be frozen in time when they are ambiguous enough for Chancellors to abuse their discretion by way of an unclear loophole. Frankly, according to my sources in the legal community, Chancellor Bouchard has already tarnished his own personal reputation with his handling of TransPerfect case. Regardless, there is a larger cause for all Delawareans that hangs in the balance. Our business-friendly reputation as the nation’s corporate capital and all the thousands of jobs this creates is now at stake. Our state’s reputation for predicable and reasonable adjudication of business disputes is essential to the economy and the people of Delaware. If Bouchard wants to gamble, he should go Dover Downs with his own money. He should not be betting Delaware’s reputation from the bench with arbitrary and capricious decisions. Regardless, this writer will continue watching and reporting on this remarkable case in Delaware’s Chancery Court with the Honorable Chancellor Andre Bouchard presiding. The “rub” in this case is not going to go away and there is no doubt that appeals will be taken and there will be another campaign at correcting the law again in January. As always your comments are welcome. As always, with Delaware’s best interest in mind Respectfully Submitted, JUDSON Bennett-Coastal Network Delaware Companies at Risk
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 91 ENCOURAGING THE DELAWARE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, ITS CORPORATE LAW SECTION, AND THE COUNCIL OF THAT SECTION TO EXAMINE THE STATE’S BUSINESS BUSINESS ENTITY WITH AN EYE TOWARDS MAINTAINING BALANCE, EFFICIENCY, | Source
Summary of bill
The bill is online and HubPages does not allow duplicate content, even if repeating the bill’s text. So here is the summary and use the links above to read it in its entirety.
Purpose:
Encouraging the Delaware state bar association, its corporate law section, and the council of that section to examine the state’s business entity with an eye towards maintaining balance, efficiency, fairness and predictability.
SYNOPSIS
This Resolution encourages the Delaware State Bar Association, its Corporation Law Section, and the Council of that Section, to examine the State’s business entity laws with an eye towards maintaining balance, efficiency, fairness, and predictability.
Respectfully Submitted
I have been a staunch defender of Delaware and this issue is lurking, and still too few are paying attention. We need to change the “who cares?” atmosphere.
Are you with me?
Respectfully Submitted,
JUDSON Bennett-Coastal Network
Judson Bennett