A Checkered Past

For those who may not know, since October of 2015, I have fervently questioned Delaware Chancellor Andre Bouchard, who prior to his appointment to the bench was a Democratic activist, over his appointments for the position of Chief Deputy for the Register of Wills Office in Sussex County, Delaware. I challenged him for appointing three democrats (possibly political favoritism) over more accomplished personnel already within the office of the Register of Wills. Since the appointments, each of them have failed in their duties and have since been replaced, one after the other. Instead of following the recommendation of the elected Register of Wills, Cindy Green (a Republican), who highly recommended a competent, experienced, electronic-filing expert already employed within the system, Bouchard has created dissension and multiple problems resulting in delays for people needing to get their estates in order. Hopefully Bouchard’s next appointment will be better. Following this background is another situation involving a current case in Bouchard’s Court, which I find interesting:

TransPerfect

I have been made aware of a Delaware corporation operating in New York City that is in litigation in Delaware’s Chancery Court. The Honorable Chancellor Bouchard is presiding over the case. I have obtained significant documentation, letters, affidavits, and so on. The company’s name is TransPerfect Global and it is owned by Phillip Shawe and Elizabeth Elting. Elting (the Plaintiff in the case), wants to sell her half of the business, but she wants more for her stock than it is worth. She wants the controlling share. Shawe wants to buy her out and keep growing the business, but Elting will not agree, so hence, the Chancery Court has taken over. When these things happen, equity is supposed to reign, not arbitrary and capricious rulings which may end up destroying a viable American company. What would you call a situation where a Delaware Corporation named TransPerfect Global, a very successful $600 million dollar company that employs 4000 people, is being forced by the Chancery Court to be sold because one stockholder chooses to be greedy? Delaware’s Chief Chancellor, Andre Bouchard refuses to address the evidence presented to him, and force an equitable sale to the willing partner, but chose to dissolve the company. I call it inequitable, especially when the company will most likely be put up for sale and thousands of jobs will be lost. Does this sound equitable? Bouchard installed a custodian who is a friend of his, and that man, Bob Pincus, received a detailed letter from 75 senior staff members at TransPerfect asking him and the judge not to sell the company. They asserted faith in Shawe as a manager and their roles in keeping the company in great financial standing. Pincus, a former Partner of Bouchard’s at “Skadden Arps”, chose not to share the letter with Bouchard. Instead, he claimed that he got “a letter from some of the staff” airing their grievances. Instead of refuting Bouchard’s claim that the company is in disarray, Pincus failed to disclose the fact that 75 top employees expressed concern over the court forcing a sale, and demonstrated that the company is running smoothly. These employees also made an offer of $200 million to buy out Plaintiff Elizabeth Elting. Understanding the amount is less than 50% of the company’s worth, and less than the figure Shawe offered to Elting, which she turned down, the point is that the employees were willing to put their own money up because they trust Phillip Shawe to run TransPerfect. Chancellor Bouchard apparently is not considering this in his assessment. From his rulings so far, he has empowered himself by declaring the successful firm in harm’s way. Affidavits on public file in a NYS court were also handed to Bouchard showing over 175 employees’ outstanding opinions of Phillip Shawe as a manager who cares about his company. Folks, as Shakespeare once said, “Something is rotten in Denmark.” What do you call it when the temporary court appointed custodian, a man named Bob Pincus, is appointed to run the company by Chancellor Bouchard and it turns out that Pincus just happens to be a friend of Bouchard’s? I call it cronyism, scratching the back of your buddy. Pincus, according to the evidence and complaints by the current company employees, has unnecessarily spent millions of dollars in ridiculous consulting fees, all while running up the cost of the litigation. Ouch!! Particularly outrageous, is that Bouchard recently appeared on a Tulane Law School panel discussion with Plaintiff Elting’s attorney, Kevin Shannon a couple of weeks ago in New Orleans at Tulane University (* a reference is provided below). The “jury is still out” in this case and Bouchard is the sole jurist. Their joint appearance certainly has the “appearance of impropriety” and should be cause for Bouchard’s recusal from the case. Additionally, the impropriety could be justification for an appeal or even a sanction from the Delaware Bar Association? What do you call it when Chancellor Bouchard appears on a public panel in New Orleans with the plaintiff’s attorney? I call it impropriety, especially when Bouchard is about to decide the fate of the defendant in the case. Under Delaware law “the appearance of an impropriety is as bad as the impropriety itself.” Bouchard should recuse himself from this case. It appears from the evidence, pleadings, and denials I have reviewed that Chancellor Andre Bouchard continuously plays loose with not only fairness and equity, but also with propriety and ethics. From my perspective, the concern here is that Delaware depends on its corporate fees to fill its coffers. Delaware is known as the corporate state. When its equity court, the Court of Chancery, becomes compromised by poor decisions and the appearances of impropriety, then why would people continue to incorporate their businesses in Delaware? This should be of great concern to our legislators, our business people, and all of our citizens. Delaware’s economic growth is depleted enough as it is. There is much more to come on this topic and this is the primary salvo. This is an interesting scenario – and a first of its kind – whereby a viable business could be forced out of business by the judicial branch of Delaware’s government. I have sent my opinions to Chancellor Bouchard, who is supposed to rule on this case on April 27th. I am curious to see what happens, however all indications from the previous pleadings and denials which are public record indicate that the company will go on the auction block and could be eventually outsourced abroad, killing thousands of American jobs. Folks, this is not what America is supposed to be about. Indeed, I find this possible scenario most disconcerting. Your comments are welcome and subject to being forwarded. Respectfully submitted, JUDSON Bennett-Coastal Network

Below is an editorial by Candidate for Governor of Delaware, Senator Colin Bonini. While I have been covering the injustice and importance of the TransPerfect case (in Andre Bouchard’s Chancery Court) for months, I am happy to see the story resonating with experienced  politicians and leaders. The danger to Delaware’s reputation is real, as Bouchard and his cronies are jeopardizing the company’s future.

The world watches as a ROGUE Judge gambles with our state’s economy with his wacky decisions, by turning off potential incorporators. Kudos to Senator Bonini for being a true leader, challenging the establishment when needed, and giving a voice to the 4,000 workers and families, who Chancellor Bouchard has turned his back on. Delaware cannot afford to risk its business-friendly reputation, and its Corporate Franchise base.

Please read below:

Bonini: Delaware must learn from TransPerfect case

Delaware has a long and well-deserved reputation as the state where businesses come from around the globe when they need somewhere safe, reliable, and reasonable to incorporate their businesses – and livelihoods. They trust our state and our judicial system to help keep their businesses up and running. In turn we reap the tremendous benefits of this industry that helps drive our economy and pay for many of our government services. Indeed, almost a third of the revenue our state government receives comes from business-related revenue. Our corporate laws and our courts are something all Delawareans should be proud of and we need to make certain Delaware’s predominance in the corporate world continues.

But earlier this year, our chancery court ruled that a company, TransPerfect, which is incorporated here in Delaware, should be broken up and sold. This despite TransPerfect being very successful and profitable and, indeed, reporting record-breaking revenues that have invariably improved every single quarter. The legal situation regarding TransPerfect is complex and has received much media attention over the last several months and there are many facets of the case that make it unique.

Not being a party to the case, I, of course, do not have knowledge of the specifics that the court is reviewing and certainly do not question the credentials of our court, but I am concerned that our reputation as a business-friendly state may suffer if TransPerfect is sold and broken up to the detriment of the owners and employees.

On June 29, I sponsored Resolution 91 in the State Senate to ask the Delaware Bar Association to review potential changes to our existing law so that the court may have more options in cases like TransPerfect.  In my opinion, our laws need to be flexible enough so that successful, profitable, companies like TransPerfect will not be dissolved by the courts in our great state. I did this for the sake of not only the employees of TransPerfect who may lose their jobs and their families’ livelihoods because of this situation, but also for the Delawareans who too may suffer if we do not change the law. In this competitive market, the ripple effect of companies currently incorporated in Delaware could be those companies abandoning our state for safer and more reliable states if they perceive Delaware to not be as business friendly as in the past. This flight could be devastating to our economy.

TransPerfect has more than 4,000 employees in more than 100 cities. These people are obviously concerned about what may happen to their company and their careers if TransPerfect is broken-up and/or sold. A group of TransPerfect employees, business people and concerned citizens have banded together more than 1,900 strong to form “Citizens for a Pro-Business Delaware” to push for changes in the way situations like that of TransPerfect are handled in Delaware.

I believe they have the absolute right, as any of us do, to advocate for their cause to members of the General Assembly and to participate in our political process as they see fit. I am very disturbed and disappointed to see the chancery court attempt to stop these employees from exercising their first amendment rights.  I proudly stand with Citizens for a Pro-Business Delaware.

Today, I ask for your help. Please go to DelawareForBusiness.org to sign the Citizens for a Pro-Business Delaware petition and to get more information on this critical legislation. Their futures – and ours – depend on it.

State Sen. Colin Bonini, R-Dover South, is a Republican candidate for governor.

TransPerfect Case Exposes the Risk to Delaware Economy from Bouchard’s Unchecked Power

William Shakespeare in his play Henry VI, incorporated (no pun intended) through his character “Dick the Butcher”, the famous line “The first thing we do, is kill all the lawyers”. Even today, lawyers themselves often smile at the inference made by Shakespeare about the perceived opinion so many citizens have about the ethics, standards, and practices of the legal profession. Unfortunately, when we need a lawyer, it is an expensive proposition. I know this to be true from personal experience as do many of my readers. The bottom line is that most attorneys will take either side in a civil matter as long as the money is there. In my mind, having to hire a lawyer to protect you is a necessary evil, because even your advocates are incentivized for a long, drawn-out, and financially draining process.

The only protection we have when we find ourselves entangled in a legal situation is the hope that the Courts will rule fairly and equitably. The lawyers are supposed to operate under strict ethical guidelines established by the Bar Association. The Judiciary is supposed to be held to an even higher standard, being impartial, unbiased, fair — without the appearance of impropriety, much less impropriety itself. When that does not happen, then it becomes a form of corruption leading to a loss of confidence in the judiciary system. In Delaware, the TransPerfect case has many in our state questioning the ethics of Andre Bouchard, the Chief Chancellor himself. When this happens, our democratic process becomes tainted, constitutional rights to a fair trial are trampled, and the damage to a company, the litigants, and the operation can be irreparable.

All this being said, Chancellor Andre Bouchard seems to have gone beyond “abusing his discretion” in the TransPerfect case. In my opinion he has obliterated it from any objective consideration. He has set a frightening standard for all Delawareans, which is of significant concern to our state. I have been writing regularly about this case in an attempt to bring Bouchard’s actions out of the shadows and into the light, as he single-handedly not only endangers TransPerfect, a private profitable Delaware enterprise — but also endangers Delaware’s corporate bonanza, which is responsible for 25% to 33% of our entire state budget. What happens if the money goes away? Bouchard will remain perched on his arrogant mountain, after recently entering the judiciary via a political appointment vs real bench experience. Indeed, he will not suffer, while the average man, woman, and child in Delaware stands to be meaningfully impacted by the rogue nature of his decisions.

The question is: Should a rogue Judge, through his capricious, arbitrary legal decisions, be able to sell off a successful company that employs 4,000 people for no good reason? Or should Bouchard be held accountable for his complete disregard of the law and precedence, his audacious appearances of impropriety during the case, his unreasonable — unheard of — and wholly-unsupported sanctions, and his complete disregard and disrespect for all true evidence in the case? Should he be permitted to cherry-pick testimony out of context to “back into” his desired (and predetermined result)? Simply put, in my opinion, to not hold Bouchard accountable for his actions of possibly destroying years of the Chancery Court’s sterling reputation, and turning it into a Kangaroo Court — as it has done during the TransPerfect case, would be an injustice. This may be my subjective opinion, but it is based on objective observations from many days of intense research which I have devoted to this case. Why? Because I believe Delaware deserves to know how Bouchard operates, and how his judicial overreach can damage our state.

Why the hell would any business owner incorporate in Delaware once they’re aware of Bouchard’s rulings? Businesses want stability and predictability. In this case, one shareholder, without a controlling share, ran into Court, produced no witness, spewed self-serving nonsense — and is now getting the company dissolved and auctioned off?! Who would take this risk by incorporating here? It is just a matter of time before Bouchard’s reputation for destruction starts taking more and more food off the table of the average Delawarean.

In brief, let us look at the facts:

1) A woman gets mad (Elizabeth Elting) and sues her partner Phillip Shawe in the Delaware Chancery Court.

2) Judge orders the company to be sold which makes $500 million a year – causing 4,000 workers and their families uncertainty – and the distinct possibly of losing their jobs.

3) There is no evidence of “irreparable harm” (the false hook Bouchard used to seize the company and install his cronies), is absurd. Bouchard himself admitted that since Elting and Shawe have fought for many years, his ruling was speculative in nature! It is outrageous — and folks — this cannot be what the Delaware Legislature intended!! In the “Harm” Section-226 of the Delaware law, is an indication that to show harm is something Bouchard must have evidence of — instead, he tells the world he’s “guessing”.

4) The company has 3 stockholders — ruling is undisputed, yet Kevin Shannon of Potter Anderson somehow convinced the judge that Shawe’s mom was not a real person, and not entitled to her own independent vote. There’s nothing in the evidence record that says Shirley Shawe will only vote with her son — another key ruling based on “NO EVIDENCE” other than Shannon’s say so (Elting’s lawyer).

5) The Plaintiff (Elting) (unlike Shawe who loves the company), stands to profit more, if the company is sold in its entirety, than she would if she just sold what she owned (her stock). So her game, for which the Court has been a willing accomplice, has been to use attorneys to create infighting and the illusion of problems at TransPerfect, and ask the court to force Mr. Shawe and his mother to exit their positions involuntarily. An un-American proposition under any circumstances.

6) Defendant, Phillip Shawe, was not allowed to present key evidence, because Bouchard intentionally suppressed it. This evidence was alleged to show Elting and her attorneys participating in Crime-Frauds, yet Bouchard would not allow the evidence to be used or even look at it in private.

Shawe is being sanctioned for the investigating of his own computer servers — as the employee handbook allows him to do. He is also facing sanctions for lying when there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that he did so. Bouchard paid no attention to the minor and immaterial differences in Shawe’s 10 witnesses vs. Elting’s 0 witnesses. Bouchard accused Shawe of destroying records, when indeed he did not. Shawe made a mirror image to preserve all computer evidence; what’s the difference whether it is employee X (Elting) (out of 4,000) or employee Y — the material point is all evidence was preserved. Bouchard seems incapable of understanding that once something is preserved, it cannot be destroyed, spoilated, or even deleted. Bouchard drones on and on (in his opinion) speaking of how Shawe “deleted” files, when in actuality, he did not. He made a mirror image and all was preserved. Three experts verified this in the hearing.

Plaintiff’s attorney Kevin Shannon is an old friend of Chancellor Bouchard. During the deliberation phase, while Bouchard was supposed to be weighing evidence adduced at trial, he instead went to “boondoggle” in New Orleans and co-paneled together with Shannon in a PUBLIC FORUM. If a member of a jury did this in deliberations, they’d be dismissed. An obvious appearance of an impropriety? This investigative reporter is convinced that it is more than that.

Sanctions imposed on Phillip Shawe in the amount of $7.1 million dollars. High? I wonder what your family gets if you get hit by a Delaware bus? … probably a lot less. This amount is obscene and biased. Bouchard’s miscarriages of justice keep adding up. Singularly, they could possibly be justified? Together, they do not pass the laugh test.

The custodian, appointed to run the company is a member of Chancellor Bouchard’s former law firm and has already run up an $8 million dollar tab and is being sued in federal court along with Bouchard for violating the employees’ 1st and 4th amendment rights. And that $$ meter is still running!

The legal fees to date for both parties are estimated to be around $42 million dollars, plus $8 million in costs mandated by the court ordered custodian. That’s $50 million the Chancery Court has forced a DE corporation to spend on cronies and cronies of cronies. This calls out for judicial reform by the legislature and must stop.

Frankly, from what I have gleaned from this case, which I have devoted countless hours to studying, the only person who should be sanctioned is Chancellor Andre Bouchard. Let’s say you incorporate in Delaware, you fulfill the American dream of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by creating a successful business, but then you have a judge order the company to be sold, fine one of the owners to the tune of 7.1 million dollars, fleece the company out of $ 8 million (or arguably $50 million) bucks, and ultimately risk its destruction. Wow, doesn’t make incorporating in Delaware very attractive, does it?

This is an issue that all Delawareans must be aware of, must be concerned about, and must take a stand on. I will say it again, why the hell would anybody want to incorporate in Delaware under Bouchard’s unprecedented, unpredictable and “no evidence” rulings? Make no mistake: Nevada and Rhode Island are salivating at the possibility of usurping Delaware from its main economic driver of corporate revenue, and Andre Bouchard is giving our competitor states all the ammo they need.

As always your comments are welcome and subject to being forwarded.