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
This is the latest in a series of articles on the infamous TransPerfect case.
This case originally caught my attention because it involved newly-appointed Chief Chancellor
Andre Bouchard. I had previously written an article about Bouchard and his apparent political cronyism in the Sussex County Registrar of Wills office and how he appointed three different clerks, who were completely incompetent. Bouchard surprisingly responded to my article in writing, which indeed was highly unusual. There was no doubt that I had struck a significant nerve. His message was filled with non-answers and circular reasoning and it was obvious he was way off-base. You have to ask yourself, has he gotten himself in the same boat in the TransPerfect case?
Now, we are close to a year-and-a-half later with the TransPerfect case still not yet certified for an appeal. We have the appointment of a custodian, who is, of course, a former law partner of Bouchard’s. Since that time, TransPerfect has been forced to incur an incredible and outrageous $8 million dollars in fees — and the number grows daily! This boggles the mind!? Let’s think about this, folks… Phillip Shawe is running a $500-million-dollar company for 24 years and
has never had an unprofitable year. Now the Court comes in with no experience in this business and forces TransPerfect to spend $8 million dollars on Bouchard’s cronies to date and this case continues and the millions mount! How and why can this blatant stealing from this company continue?
Additionally, the very employees who made this company a success are expressing their outrage at the Chancellor’s decision! They work in fear of being fired by this custodian. One courageous employee had the nerve to stand up to the Chancellor’s unlawful violations of the employees’ First and Fourth amendment rights — and filed a Federal Lawsuit against the Chancellor and the custodian!
Apparently Judge Bouchard and his custodian went after personal e-mail accounts and potentially cell phones of TransPerfect employees, and if they refused, the workers could be terminated! Folks, I don’t know what you call this, but I call it unconstitutional, illegal, and grounds for impeachment! I have never heard of or seen a worse case of judicial overreach, cronyism, and possible corruption in any Delaware Court in my life time.
In my opinion, Chancellor Bouchard has cast a dark shadow over the once pristine reputation of the Chancery Court and the great state of Delaware, as the nation’s corporate capital. The press is watching, folks! Last Sunday’s Delaware News Journal ran a front page cover story shedding light on Bouchard’s shenanigans, but this just scratches the surface. There is much more to tell, and the future of Delaware as the incorporation capital of the world, and therefore its economy, is seriously at stake.
It appears that Bouchard is playing favorites with Plaintiff Elizabeth Elting’s local counsel, his 20-year friend, Kevin Shannon of Potter Anderson. You are reading it here first, folks… soon I predict many companies will be refusing to do business in Delaware because of this case! Bouchard’s insidious actions in The Chancery Court and his apparent efforts to enrich his buddies at the expense of the hardworking people of TransPerfect must stop. Bouchard’s decisions have weakened the credibility of Delaware’s Equity Court and the world is watching.
It is time for the people of Delaware to call their local legislator and say no to cronyism and no to obvious improprieties. We must demand an investigation, folks, and somehow we must stop this! No one is above the law, and this includes Andre Bouchard. We must send a strong message to corporate America that Delaware is still a place to do business before it’s too late. Stay tuned……..much more to come!
As always, your comments are welcome.
SOURCE:
http://hubpages.com/business/The-Appearance-of-Corruption-and-Cronyism-Continues
Should Chief Chancellor Andre Bouchard be impeached?
Chief Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard and his court
appointed custodian of TransPerfect Global, Inc, Robert Pincus are being sued in the United States Southern District Court of New York by a high level executive,
Timothy Holland, who claims Bouchard and Pincus have violated his constitutional rights-specifically his 1
stand 4
th amendment rights. The right to free speech and the right to be secure in your papers and possessions are basic human rights that we Americans cherish and are fundamental to our freedoms as Citizens of the United States. When these rights are violated, there definitely could and should be civil and criminal consequences.
Having investigated this TransPerfect case and written about it frequently, there are some very disturbing issues about Chancellor Bouchard’s actions that need to be examined in regard to his rulings. Let me be specific about what has occurred so far in relation to the established and legal
“DELAWARE JUDGES’ CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS” : Under Canon 1: A judge should uphold the integrity, independence, and impartiality of the judiciary. Rule 1.1 Compliance with the law. Rule 1. 2 Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary. Rule 1.3 Avoiding abuse of the prestige of the Judicial office.
Chancellor Bouchard from the legal opinions I have gleaned and from the Court records has not been in compliance with the law. The law clearly states that a company can only be sold by order of the Judge when disagreements occur in a company that has only 2 stockholders. TransPerfect has 3 stockholders. Bouchard in his order to sell this very profitable company is violating Delaware’s business law. If anything, Bouchard has put the prestige of his judicial office at risk. Nobody who is in business with a Delaware corporation right now feels any confidence in Delaware’s Judiciary. As to Canon 1, Bouchard has failed miserably and is suspect in my opinion.
Under Canon 2:
A Judge should perform his duties of judicial office impartially, competently and diligently. Rule 2.1 Giving Precedence to the Duties of Judicial Office. Rule 2.2 With Impartiality and Fairness. Rule 2.3 Without Bias, Prejudice and Impropriety. Rule 2.4 With No External Influences on Judicial Conduct. Rule 2.5 With Competence, Diligence and Cooperation. Rule 2.6 Ensuring the Right of All Parties to be Heard.
Chancellor Bouchard has in no way been fair or impartial without bias, prejudice and impropriety. If anything he has been the exact opposite. He has exhibited grotesque bias against Phillip Shawe in favor of the Plaintiff Elizabeth Elting. Bouchard has not allowed testimony to be presented or all parties to be heard in regard to Phillip Shaw’s position in this remarkable case. Bouchard’s former business relationship with Elting’s attorney Keven Shannon and appearing together with him on an educational panel in New Orlean’s reeks of impropriety. Indeed as to Canon 2, Chancellor Bouchard fails miserably and is suspect in my opinion.
Canon 3 and Canon 4: A Judge should regulate extra judicial activities to minimize the risk of conflicts with judicial duties. Rule 3.1, A Judge should be careful with Extrajudicial activities in general. Rule 3.2 Avoid Appearances before Governmental Bodies and Consultation with Governmental Officials. Canon 4: A judge should refrain from political activity inappropriate to the judge’s judicial position.
Again, Chancellor Bouchard appeared with the plaintiff’s attorney in a public forum during the decision stage of this trial. This attorney is an old buddy and business associate of
Andre Bouchard. This is a violation of the Chancellor’s direction of avoiding improprieties. Bouchard appeared at Legislative Hall in Dover on May 18th, lobbying for a bill to do away with the Sussex County Register of Wills. This was a political action that violates his judicial direction and was totally inappropriate. As to Canon 3 and 4, Chancellor Bouchard has failed miserably and is suspect in my opinion.
Back to the lawsuit against Bouchard in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK by TIMOTHY HOLLAND. Chancellor Bouchard appointed Robert Pincus as a Custodian to run the business and set up the sale of the company, costing the company approximately
$8,000,0000 so far in audits and salaries-clearly lining the pockets of Bouchard’s cronies. Bouchard gave Pincus unlimited power in his duties, way beyond what would be normal in private industry. By order of Pincus, all the employees including the Plaintiff were forbidden to talk about the case with the threat of their jobs being terminated- a clear violation of the 1
st amendment. Additionally many of the e-mails of the employees were searched, including cell phone records-a clear violation of their 4
th amendment rights. Robert Pincus, as an agent of Bouchard’s Court and apparent direction as to how to proceed, with unlimited governmental powers, creates a definite cause for a constitutional alarm and concern over judicial impropriety in this controversial case.
An objective observer (possibly a Delaware Legislator), taking into consideration Chancellor Bouchard’s seemingly controversial acts in regard to the official Delaware Code of Judicial Conduct, could be deeply concerned. Additionally, if it is proven in US District Court that Bouchard violated Timothy Holland’s civil rights, an objective observer (possibly a Delaware Legislator) might think all of these in combination would be grounds for Bouchard’s removal from the bench. It is possible to impeach a Delaware Judge by way of the legislature. It takes a majority of the House of Representatives and a 2/3 majority of the Senate to get it done. Perhaps it should be considered? We will see.
The lawsuit 1:16-cv-05936
When the TransPerfect employees began openly questioning the Chancery Court’s decision to forcibly sell a profitable company, Chancellor
Andre Bouchard became enraged and asked his lawfirm buddy, former co-partner at Skaden Arps, his now appointed custodian Robert Pincus to excise the employees who were behind it. Bouchard appoints Pincus for many of these cases.
On May 23, 2016, the very same date that Citizens’ release was published, written instructions were issued to all TransPerfect employees, including Plaintiff and many other TransPerfect employees working at TransPerfect’s offices in the City, County, State and Southern District of New York, stating as follows:
It has come to our attention that some of our employees have recently spoken with the media about the pending litigation between the shareholders of TransPerfect, and in some instances
seemingly have sought to attempt to pressure the Delaware court. We believe that those actions are counterproductive and that they should stop.
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
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
I Won’t Stop Telling the Story of this Travesty
Dear Friends,
The TransPerfect Global case going on in Delaware’s Court of Chancery has become a huge controversy, and it is not going to go away. Chief Chancellor
Andre Bouchard, has in the wake of innumerable appearances of impropriety, made an arbitrary and capricious decision–
forcing the sale of an extremely profitable company (putting thousands of jobs at risk).
I intend to exercise my first amendment rights on this issue until the legislature opens again in January 2017. The job of this Court is to administer Equity (Fairness). When there is the slightest possibility for fairness to not be properly administered, then something is wrong. This being said, why would anybody wish to incorporate in the State of Delaware, when the corporation could immediately and legally be at risk by potential Chancery Court action? Rhode Island and Nevada have competitive incentives for businesses to incorporate in their states. Delaware’s corporate franchise brings millions of dollars into its coffers.
When the possibility of losing that long- standing income stream becomes apparent, then it is time for legislators to act to protect Delaware and its citizens. According to Harvard Business Services owner Rick Bell (one of the world’s top Delaware incorporators), incorporations were down by almost 2% in Delaware in 2016. Has anybody noticed that Delaware’s economy is not exactly booming?
Senate Concurrent Resolution 91
Senate Concurrent Resolution 91 was proposed and introduced by Senator Colin Bonini (R) to open discussion, and evaluate ways to legally make Delaware’s Chancery Court better. I give Senator Bonini tremendous credit for recognizing the importance of opening this dialogue. Although this harmless and positive resolution was not voted on by the Senate as this legislative session has ended until next January– no doubt a huge message has been sent. Next year, when there is more time, hopefully it will be voted on with bipartisan support in both houses of the Delaware legislature.
This has become a political issue now for the voters to consider when voting in future Delaware elections. Most of Delaware’s lawmakers are open-minded and willing to listen and I am hopeful that next year some changes in the mandate of the Chancery Court will be implemented. I have enclosed in the body of this email Senate Concurrent Resolution 91 for you to consider and evaluate. I think you will agree that it would be a positive step toward actual legislation. As always, your comments are welcome.
Because the matter deals with a member of the court and a local politician (yes, a judge is a politician too), when it looked like the issue was getting some attention and even some traction, the powers that be sought to silence the protest. This is an important matter and it needs to be addressed in an objective way.
How can a court ordering the sale of a functional and successful company because one owner wants more money than was initially agreed upon not impact other businesses that are incorporated or may incorporate in Delaware?
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
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.
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 t
hat 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:
- Why does Chancellor Bouchard not order Elting to settle or become a silent partner?
- Why would he order the sale of a viable company possibly costing thousands of employees their jobs?
- 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,
J
UDSON Bennett-Coastal Network
Typically in corporate legal disputes, mergers, acquisitions or sales, the company’s employees are like the children of divorce: severely affected but little heard from. Well, amidst a contentious corporate battle going on in a Delaware courtroom, the employees of TransPerfect Translations are demanding that their voice be heard and taken into consideration
One April 26, the employees of the New York-based translation services company sent two letters to Delaware Chief Chancellor Andre G. 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. And to inform the public of their situation, a group called 610 Employees of TransPerfect Globally ran radio ads on local Delaware stations and placed a two-page advertisement in the Delaware News Journal that reprinted the contents of each letter
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. The case revolves around Elizabeth Elting, the co-chief executive officer of TransPerfect, who is suing the other co-CEO, Philip Shawe. Elting claims the two can’t work together anymore and that the company is unable to operate because of their dysfunction.
Elting wants out of the private company she co-created and has co-owned with Shawe for the past 24 years. In 2013, TransPerfect became the third-largest translation services company in the world, the second largest in the U.S. and the largest privately held company in the $35 billion translation services industry. The firm has more than 4,000 employees in 100 cities on four continents. These experts translate more than 170 languages for a high-profile client list that includes USPS, IKEA, Johnson & Johnson, and Hilton Worldwide.
Shawe offered to buy her out and pay for her share of the company, which shockingly has no debt. However, Elting doesn’t believe she’s getting a fair offer for the company that last year posted revenues of $500 million and a profit of $80 million.
In order to get a what she considers a fair market price, Elting wants the company sold to the highest bidder. Unable to find a judge receptive to her case in New York state, she filed the lawsuit in Delaware, where the non-jury trial is now being decided by Bouchard.
Both sides in the case have rested and in October Bouchard issued a preliminary ruling in which he appointed a custodian to create an exit strategy for Elting that will get her the most money. The strategy consists of selling the company against Shawe’s wishes.
This means that for the first time in U.S. history, a private, profitable, and highly-successful company that has not been accused of any wrongdoing or impropriety is being taken over by the government. The judge is placing a middleman in charge of the situation for the purpose of dissolving the company and having it force-sold against the wishes of two out of three shareholders. Elting owns half, while Shawe and his mother own the other 50%.
It also appears to be against the wishes of the employees who fear losing their well-paying jobs in a niche industry. 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.
This case could have far-reaching repercussions for companies throughout the U.S.
Bouchard’s actions have found little support and have actually drawn fire across the country. The Chancellor’s toughest and most notable critic to date has been former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Giuliani, who also served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, called Bouchard’s ruling an “un-American” decision, offering the notion that more time should be granted before the draconian “dissolution” and “force sale” decision becomes final.
With more than 850 jobs in New York, 2,300 jobs in the U.S. and 4,000 worldwide at stake, the world is watching and waiting for Bouchard to make his next move.
Chief Chancellor Excuses Potential Fraud and Could Force a Sale of a Viable Multi-million Dollar Company?
Delaware’s rookie Chief Chancellor,
Andre Bouchard, is casting a dark shadow over his 2-year run as the Chief Chancery Court Judge. This was evident in one of his most recent decisions where he ignored overwhelming evidence and a pattern of behavior that I wonder could border on the
illegitimate? Instead, he chose to rule in favor of a single party (Elizabeth Elting) who happened to be represented by his buddy Kevin Shannon. This culminated in a decision that has the potential to ruin a company and destroy the jobs and careers of 4,000 hardworking employees worldwide, 2,300 of them in the United States, nearly 1,000 in the northeast, and set a chilling precedent that could destroy Delaware’s longstanding reputation as the capital of corporate America.
Bouchard wasted no time in leaving his mark on the court with one of his first big cases, Elting v. Shawe C.A. No. 9700-B. It makes it clear that Bouchard is going to do things his way whether or not the law and evidence agrees with him. This decision is not so surprising considering Bouchard’s history of cronyism at the Register of Wills office in Sussex County. This case couldn’t help but remind me about the piece I wrote, on April 8, 2016, when I learned that one of the attorneys was Kevin Shannon from Potter, Anderson and Corroon. Mr. Shannon and Chancellor Bouchard have an illustrious history together, both working on the infamous case “In Re The Walt Disney Company Derivative Litigation” when Bouchard was a practicing attorney. In that case, a derivative action was brought on behalf of the shareholders disputing the $100 million payout Disney gave to Michael Ovitz after he was fired. Bouchard represented Disney and Mr. Shannon represented a fellow Board member Sanford Litvack.
Mr. Shannon and Chancellor Bouchard as recently as March 16, 2016 were co-panelists together in New Orleans at a Tulane University law panel. Considering Chancellor Bouchard’s history, it comes as no shock that Mr. Shannon’s client not only won the case but as far as I can see, every motion as well. He even held a hearing to sanction Mr. Shawe for, in part, reading his partner’s emails that were open and available on the company server – stating that the company privacy rules did not apply to her. Could this have been done as a means to make Shawe pay Elting’s outrageous buyout demands? For the record, as a few publications reported this week, Shawe offered her $300 million this week and if she declines or refuses to make a counter offer, this should tell any reasonable person which party wants to come to a settlement and which one is playing games?
While I have fervently criticized Chancellor Bouchard in the past, it seems he has truly gone off his mandate in this instance by ignoring evidence indicating the possibility of tampering, and intent to take down a company from within? Instead he has focused on intemperate emails between the two partners to dissolve a thriving and profitable company, while ignoring suspicious irregularities whereby there were, according to Phil Shawe’s defense team, serious breaches of fiduciary duty?
Employee Campaign
In case you haven’t seen the case, which I’ve written about twice in recent weeks, let me sum it up for you here: Bouchard’s Delaware Court of Chancery ordered the sale of a $500 million profitable translation business because one of the partners who has a very limited role at the company claimed there was a deadlock. The fact that the company has been and continues to make record profits makes this decision all the more disturbing because this has never happened before in the history of Delaware!
After reading the various papers in the court file it is very obvious in my opinion that Ms. Elting seems to be manufacturing deadlock and using the court to gain a payout she could never get if she sold her shares on the open market. So why is this a concern for the people and the great state of Delaware? Chancellor Bouchard is sending a message to corporate America that if you are having any squabbles at a board meeting then by incorporating in Delaware you risk the court selling your company out from under the rightful owners.
The decision was so outrageous that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani chimed in and has been strongly critical of the decision. Giuliani said, “it is unAmerican for the court to break up a thriving successful company just because two directors are having some disagreements.” The last thing Delaware needs with all of its other economic problems is a mass exodus by corporate America.
I applaud Giuliani’s efforts because someone needs to come to Delaware with a big broom and sweep out this mess. I said it before and I’ll say it again… the bottom line is that a very well politically connected lawyer who was appointed Chief Chancellor of the State of Delaware’s Chancery Court — even though he never served a single day on the bench, is in my opinion, making arbitrary decisions that seem to have no basis in law or fact. He apparently favors a single litigant (the plaintiff) whose attorney has a long-standing relationship with the Chancellor himself. This is indeed the appearance of an impropriety and most likely will be part of an appeal by Shawe’s legal team, if they so desire.
From my perspective, I believe it is no coincidence that Chancellor Bouchard either got this totally wrong, or is making sure “his” people are taken care of. Nothing could be more compelling than the dissatisfaction of more than 600 employees of TransPerfect themselves who took out two full page ads in the Delaware News Journal expressing their opinion that there was no dysfunction at TransPerfect and that the Chancellor’s decision will inevitably result in the loss of many jobs, if not the total downfall of this extremely successful business.
Chancellor Bouchard should know and care that people’s livelihoods are at stake and the corporate world is watching. This is his first big case, and it will not only define his career, but risks the future of Delaware as the state of choice for corporate America.
Open Letter to Chancellor Bouchard
600 TransPerfect employees are urging Chancellor Bouchard to maintain the company management and leadership teams | Source
Prepared by Judson Bennett
Contact Judson Bennett
References:
Website for TransPerfect Global:
http://www.transperfect.com/
Link to Conference in New Orleans:
http://www.law.tulane.edu/tlsLifeAfterLS/Files/CLIAgenda-Revised.pdf
Respectfully Submitted,
JUDSON Bennett-Coastal Network
What Should Chancellor Bouchard Do?
[polldaddy poll=9549700]
Chancellor Andre Bouchard
Misguided Delaware Chancery Court Chancellor Andre Bouchard | Source
Other News Stories on TransPerfect
Article about Rudolph Giuliani and Chancellor Bouchard
Dear Chancellor Bouchard—An unAmerican decision that hurts Delaware’s corporate credibility
The article
linked here was written by Jeffrey Mordock at Delaware Online, and is a follow up to the looming decision that had been scheduled for Wednesday, April 27th by Delaware’s Chief Chancellor
Andre Bouchard – who initially had seemed to be siding with one party, rather than take an equitable stance. The Court of Chancery is Delaware’s equity court and decides what is to happen when there are disputes or legal problems involving a Delaware Corporation. From the rulings so far, the indication was that Bouchard was going to make an extreme decision where a successful company will be forced to be sold.
What would you call a situation where a Delaware Corporation named TransPerfect Global, a very successful $500 million dollar company operating in New York City, that hires 4000 people, is being forced by the Chancery Court to be sold, just because one stockholder chooses to be ridiculously unreasonable?
What if it is apparent that Delaware’s Chief Chancellor, Andre Bouchard refused to address the evidence presented to him? I call it inequitable, especially when the company will most likely be put up for sale and the many jobs may go overseas, thus risking putting 4,000 people out of work. Does this sound equitable? He balked at it instead.
Is it right, is it fair to force a company to be sold and to put sanctions on one of the owners based on irrelevant and misleading information that has nothing to do with fairness. Is it not suspicious or at least the appearance of an impropriety when the presiding Judge who is the sole decision maker on this company’s outcome sits on an educational panel with the plaintiff’s attorney?
The bottom line is that a single Judge named Andre Bouchard, Chief Chancellor of the State of Delaware’s Chancery Court is able to arbitrarily make or break a viable company. Seems un-American to this writer. Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani agrees—read the fascinating article below.
Samuel Waltz, a writer for the Delaware Business Times, also wrote on this topic and explained the fact of Elizabeth Elting’s desire for a
control premium, and how it seemed as if Chancellor Bouchard was considering offering it.
Contact Judson Bennett
References:
Website for TransPerfect Global:
http://www.transperfect.com/
Link to Conference in New Orleans:
http://www.law.tulane.edu/tlsLifeAfterLS/Files/CLIAgenda-Revised.pdf
Respectfully Submitted,
JUDSON Bennett-Coastal Network
Employees Rally to Save Company
As the story continues, 600+ employees of TransPerfect rallied to save the company.
They signed and mailed a public letter to Chancellor Bouchard begging not to permit the company the sale to an outsider, and paid for a two page ad featuring the public letter in a Delaware newspaper.
On April 27, 2016, Chancellor Bouchard seemed to have yielded a little and taken heed of the various warnings. He blasted the idea of imposing an arbitrary non-compete on half owner Phillip Shawe and suggested he would not allow one. Bouchard also pushed his decision off 30 days and demanded that the parties settle it outside of his courtroom.
Court Involvement
Should Chancellor Bouchard Demand the two parties settle outside of court?
Top of Form
- Yes – Force them into a settlement and do not impose a sale by the courts
- No – Just force a dissolution because the two cannot agree
Bottom of Form
See results without voting
Elizabeth Elting’s Position
One Elizabeth Elting, 50% owner of TransPerfect, seems to be holding up the equitable sale of TransPerfect. Phillip Shawe, the other owner, has offered her 50% of the value and Elting turned it down. She wanted Chancellor Bouchard to offer the control premium, impose a noncompete and force the company to an open sale – hoping to command higher than the $300M offered (higher than 50%).
Link to Rudolph Giuliani Article
Jeffrey Mordock’s Article on the Hearing
Full Page TransPerfect Employee Ad to Bouchard
SOURCE:
http://hubpages.com/travel/Dear-Chancellor-BouchardAn-unAmerican-decision-that-hurts-Delawares-corporate-credibility
