“What’s going on in Delaware”

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

• Who Decides ‘Fair Value?’ In Dell’s Case, a Judge Andrew Sorkin writes about the difficulties in Delaware’s Chancery Court’s control. In a story about Dell, the Delaware Chancellor determines fair value, not the market.

Always on Delaware’s Side Respectfully submitted, JUDSON Bennett-Coastal Network Getting along?  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

• Giuliani steps into ‘business divorce case in Chancery – Delaware Business Times Former NYC mayor tries to prevent dissolution of TransPerfect.

Jeffrey Mordock’s Article on the Hearing

• Giuliani blasts Delaware court for decision in lover’s spat A Delaware Court has come under fire for ordering the sale of a successful company started by warring former lovers.

      SOURCE: http://hubpages.com/travel/Dear-Chancellor-BouchardAn-unAmerican-decision-that-hurts-Delawares-corporate-credibility