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      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       

A CONCERNED DELAWARE ATTORNEY

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

The Implications of the TransPerfect Forced Sale

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

TransPerfect has 3 Shareholders, Not Two

1. THE COMPANY IS NOT 50%/50%

The company is 50%-49%-1%. Why is this important? Because Bouchard is using a history of voting patterns (rather than true ownership) to invoke Section 273 principles which the legislature has made clear should only apply in a two shareholder situations.TransPerfect has three shareholders, but because Shirley Shawe is Philip Shawe’s mother Bouchard is saying that because they vote together, he can treat them as the same shareholder. This is a reckless and dangerous precedent to set, and a formula for a vast increase in litigation by stockholders who will view the Chancery Court’s broad equitable powers as a way to get a better deal than what they negotiated for in their shareholder agreement. Simple example: Huge investing groups vote the same on Board and Shareholder decisions all the time. In applying new law Bouchard proposes to create to a scenario where there are, hypothetically, four hedge funds that each have shares in a profitable company with 10%, 17%, 33%, 40%, stakes respectively and litigation is commenced between the shareholders, there would be a strong likelihood of a disastrous and inequitable result. If the 10% shareholder and the 40% shareholder have always voted in a consistent pattern then, for purposes of dissolution, the Court (i.e. the government) could seize control of a profitable private company, with capable management, and auction it off to the highest bidder.

Unprecedented Ruling by Bouchard

What Bouchard’s unprecedented ruling in the TransPerfect case does is turn Delaware’s law (and reputation) on its head creating substantial uncertainty for the corporate world which looks to Delaware for stability and predictability. It is telling that if TransPerfect had been an LLC (rather than a corporation), it would have been beyond Bouchard’s power to dissolve it as long as it could continue to fulfill its purpose.

1. DELAWARE DIRECTORS MAY NO LONGER HAVE RIGHTS TO BOOKS & RECORDS

It is undisputed that Elting took $21 million in unilateral unauthorized distributions (the word for dividends in an S-Corp), that she claims she was justified because it was for her individual taxes. Bouchard whitewashed this conversion of funds, as well as Elting’s subsequent raiding of the company coffers to pay her personal lawyers and advisors (Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel and Kidron Advisors). Once familiar with the facts, even the Chancellor’s hand picked Custodian would not condone such avaricious behavior and forced Elting to repay the absconded funds. When Shawe entered Elting’s office to investigate the unauthorized distributions, as Delaware law requires him to do as a Director and Officer when suspecting fraud, he was with a professional Fraud Examiner while doing so. Yet, the court was deceived into ruling that Ms. Elting’s company-owned office was somehow her private personal property. Shawe had every right (and duty) to examine her emails stored on the company equipment and enter her company for an investigation, once he suspected fraud. Now, he faces unwarranted sanctions for doing so. Additionally, these emails contain information which would have exonerated Shawe. Yet, the Chancellor improperly refused to allow them into evidence. Instead of reviewing the emails in camera, the proper course for a judge when fraud is alleged, Bouchard is now threatening to sanction Shawe by paying millions of dollars in Elting’s legal fees. This is another disastrous precedent Bouchard has hoisted upon the Chancery Court. Can anyone imagine a world in which a Director or Officer (in this case Elting), empowered by the Company Handbook, cannot be investigated for fraud if suspected by her Co-Directors and Officers—for fear of an unwarranted multi-million sanction? This aspect of Bouchard reasoning alone is spine-chilling, impractical, and defies logic. III. PUNITIVE SANCTIONS Bouchard has stated he believes it is within his powers to sanction Shawe punitively for the full amount of legal fees Elting has run up in the case—even for causes of action that Elting dropped at trial. Therefore, he contemplates having Shawe reimburse Kevin Shannon (Potter Anderson) for bringing baseless claims and causes of action that could not be proved at trial. I cannot think of a precedent that would encourage more frivolous litigation. The more claims Elting brings that she can’t prove, the more it costs Shawe in reimbursing Kevin Shannon and Potter Anderson. One might argue that Bouchard was being fair because he sanctioned Kramer Levin$135,000 for failing to answer deposition questions. However, this argument is a red herring. From the public record, the deposition testimony of Ronald Greenberg of Kramer Levin is plainly critical to proving Shawe’s claim that deadlocks were manufactured and that in a well thought out plan he masterminded a scheme to use dissolution as a vehicle to maximize Elting’s exit value. What Shawe needed was an order that Elting’s attorney answer the questions. Instead the court sanctioned them $135,000 for the cost of the deposition and shielded Greenberg from ever having to answer the questions. I’m sure Shawe would have preferred to soak up the cost to expose the Elting’s fraud, but Bouchard forestalled this line of inquiry. This hollow gift from Bouchard to Shawe, appears calculated to allow Bouchard to appear even-handed, while doling out his pre-ordained sanction on Shawe. Judson, I could keep going and going, helping you analyze the obvious travesty of justice, destruction to Delaware’s reputation, and the detrimental effect that Chancellor Bouchard’s decision has had all the stakeholders of this thriving business (except Ms. Elting and Kevin Shannon). And I have not even reached the most shocking material—including Bouchard’s new definition of the 226 “irreparable harm to the business” standard that he used to empower himself to takeover TransPerfect. However, as I close PART #1, I just want you to know one thing: There are many attorneys and members of the Bar in Delaware who feel the same way that you do, and want to see this company left alone from Bouchard’s bias, activism, and judicial overreach, but are too afraid to sacrifice the next 12 years of their career to speak out against him. Thank you, Judson, for having the courage to say what others will not, and for your journalistic integrity. A Concerned Delaware Attorney Respectfully submitted Respectfully Submitted, JUDSON Bennett-Coastal Network     Source: http://hubpages.com/business/Shocking-Legal-Analysis-of-the-TransPerfect-Case    What is the Court of Equity in Delaware? Dear Friends, The Delaware Court of Chancery is supposed to be Delaware’s Equity Court. What is the definition of the word “Equity”? Equity is defined by Webster’s dictionary as “ the quality of being fair and impartial.” When there is a corporate dispute, involving a Delaware corporation, the Delaware Court of Chancery decides the case. The decision is supposed to be based on objective fairness involving reasonable decisions based on the evidence provided. All relevant evidence should be objectively considered. If it is not, then there is something radically wrong. So how does TransPerfect Fit in? This brings me to the TransPerfect Global case of which I have been writing aboutwhere there are obvious improprieties involving a questionable decision. Let’s put everything in a very simple perspective. The company is a translation company that nets over $500 million dollars per year. It employs about 4000 people. It has 90 offices world- wide. It is a Delaware Corporation. There are two equal owners who were once lovers. The owners Elizabeth Elting and Phil Shawe are at odds and do not get along. Now, the case: Elizabeth Elting (who vindictively) wants the company to be sold and Phil Shawe (who loves his company and cares about his employees) does not. Shawe has offered Elting 300 million dollars for her share which is more than she would get at a public action. If the company is sold, there is a good chance that many of the 4000 employees would lose their jobs. The presiding Judge is the Chief Chancellor named Andre Bouchard. Elizabeth Elting who brought the complaint before the court refuses to make a counter offer or agree to any reasonable negotiations out of what appears to be pure spite. It certainly looks as if she wants the company to go to public auction just to hurt Shawe. Chancellor Bouchard has ordered a temporary custodian (one of his buddies) to run the company during the interim. Elting’s attorney Kevin Shannon is a friend of the Chancellor and they appeared on a legal panel together in New Orleans while in the heart of this lawsuit. This custodian has threatened employees with job terminationthrough inter office directives not to discuss the case. Millions of dollars have been unnecessarily spent with this custodian at the helm (<$5 mIllion) usurping Shawe’s successful leadership which has been clearly proven by the company’s financial success over the years and by the testimony of many employees. There was no testimony on behalf of Elting. Evidence indicating some irregularities by Elting has not been allowed to be presented. Other substantial evidence on behalf of Shawe has been ignored. Granted, under normal circumstances, when two owners of a company cannot agree and there is no written agreement in place (which there isn’t), then the assets have to be sold or one partner buys out the other? However in this case, you have one partner who is willing to buy out the other for more than what her share is worth. Let me mention one more fact. Elting lied in a recent Forbes piece where she stated that in response to Shawe’s offer she told the custodian that she would offer more. It is a lie, and she is not offering to buy, nor is she willing to sell to Shawe. This is the key fact Bouchard ignores. He can force the mediation by telling the parties he will install a third board member to break any tie and then leave the case alone. The Questions Not Being Asked Therefore I ask the following questions:

1. Why does Chancellor Bouchard not order Elting to settle or become a silent partner?
2. Why would he order the sale of a viable company possibly costing thousands of employees their jobs?
3. That being the case, why would someone want to incorporate in Delaware when this is the possible result?

I am a writer who has an interest in many things. I love to expose inequities when they are obvious. Having followed this case very carefully, there is no doubt in my mind that there have been suspicious irregularities in the way this case has been handled. There is certainly the appearance of improprieties. There has been no objective fairness, impartiality, or reasonable consideration which is the duty of this court. Elting’s lawyers even bragged about how this judge awarded everything to Elting and ignored Shawe, saying they felt it was not usual. There is certainly grounds for appeal to Delaware’s Supreme Court if this case is not equitably resolved. What a shame to have a successful business decimated because of a personal vendetta by one of the partners apparently supported for whatever reason by the Chief Chancellor. I hope justice prevails and TransPerfect remains intact as a shining example of the success of an American dream. These success stories are few and far between these days. Always on Delaware’s Side As always your comments are welcome and subject to being forwarded. Respectfully Submitted, JUDSON Bennett-Coastal Network  Rick Bell of Harvard Business Services Speaks Dear Friends, I received this e-mail from Rick Bell in response to the TransPerfect articleabout Chancellor Bouchard’s controversial ruling. Rick Bell, a former Lt Governor candidate, is Delaware’s foremost specialist on forming Delaware corporations worldwide. Rick also tells me that incorporations in Delaware are down 1.5 % and new business growth is way off. Bouchard’s actions will definitely hurt Delaware’s credibility. Below Rick Bell’s message is a News Journal article by Jeff Mordock. Please become aware of this disaster in the making by reading these articles. Call your state legislators and let them know how you feel. Harvard Business Services Rick Bell’s Delawareinc.com | Source Rick Bell “Jud, As you know, we form Delaware companies for people. In fact, we form more than 15,000 new Delaware companies per year for people from all across the USA and all around the world. On a good day, we’ll form more than 50 new Delaware companies. There are many companies like ours, except we are different in that we form ONLY Delaware companies. Most of the other companies in this business will form a company in all 50 states. The Court of Chancery decision you are referring to is one of the most significant stumbling blocks to many entrepreneurs choosing Delaware. The decision may be justifiable to the chancellor, but it is a disaster for Delaware’s image. When people are making a decision as whether to choose Delaware or their home state, they take a leap of faith that Delaware will be better for them. Specifically, they perceive Delaware as protecting Directors and treating stockholders fairly. This case has everyone thinking that Delaware is unpredictable and makes rogue decisions that could literally assassinate your company even if you’ve been successful in the marketplace. If it is reversed by the Supreme Court Delaware will be better off.” Richard H. (Rick) Bell, II Chairman & CEO Harvard Business Services, Inc. 16192 Coastal Highway Lewes, Delaware 19958   Delaware is the Corp Capital   What should Judge Bouchard do?    This TransPerfect Case Just Gets More Tangled I have written several times about the TransPerfect Global fiasco; the one where Delaware’s Chief Chancellor Andre Bouchard ordered the sale of this very profitable company. A decision that will most likely result in the loss of jobs and even destabilization of the entire company. Here you have an American success story, and a Delaware Judge who has overstepped his authority by making an arbitrary and capricious decision, which is resulting in an un-American situation. This decision is not only bad for Delaware, butbad for America. What is even more interesting and disconcerting, the temporary custodian of the company appointed by Chancellor Bouchard has now decided to apparently inhibit/prevent employees of TransPerfect from exercising their First Amendment rights. Apparently, 600 employees of TransPerfect are openly speaking out about the Court’s decision and the happenings within the company. Please read the memo below that was sent to the Management Team of TransPerfect requiring spin to be propagated to employees and threatening disciplinary action including job termination. I was copied with this threatening memo by my internal source. Custodian: TransPerfect is Doing Very Well   Custodian Robert Pincus says TransPerfect is doing well. If so, why is Bouchard looking to auction the firm?   Robert Pincus to TransPerfect Staff To the Management Team: TransPerfect is performing exceptionally well and growing quickly, thanks to your hard work. We are committed to keeping it that way, and our highest priority is supporting you and the continued success of the business. 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. If you receive a call from a reporter or member of the media, our Company policy is now that you must refer that person to Joel Mostrom, who will respond directly or designate another spokesperson. We want to remind you, and we ask you to remind your colleagues, that: this policy covers all forms of responses to the media, including, without limitation, off-the-record and anonymous statements. Any deviation from this policy may lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination. Your strict adherence to this policy is expected, as well as appreciated by management and your colleagues. [TransPerfect Employee Handbook] The purpose of this policy is to avoid media and other actions that may negatively impact TransPerfect’s business. Please be mindful of the policy and its importance going forward. We ask each of you as our key managers and leaders to continue to focus on your responsibilities and serving the needs of our clients. All of our efforts should be aligned in that direction. To the extent that your colleagues have questions regarding the litigation, we have included the attached FAQs. Thank you. Frequently Asked Questions for Employees

1. Is the Company definitely being sold and, if yes, when?
   1. The Delaware Court of Chancery ruled that the Company should be sold, and the Court is expected to make a determination about a sales process in the near future; however, the Court’s decisions will be subject to appeal, so there are no definitive answers to these questions at this time.
2. I heard that the Company could potentially be “dissolved”—is that true?
   1. No—at least not in the conventional sense. While the Company’s ownership structure may change, the Company is expected to continue with business as usual. That is the best path to future value creation, and the Court has clearly indicated its intentions along those lines.
3. Is any of this likely to impact the Company’s day-to-day business?
   1. No! A third director has been appointed by the Delaware Court of Chancery to help resolve any disagreements between the Company’s shareholders and to facilitate the continuation of TPG’s strong growth and success. A final resolution of the dispute between the shareholders will only help the Company. In the meantime, it is important that we all remain focused on serving the needs of our customers.

There you have it folks, your comments are welcome. Respectfully Submitted, JUDSON Bennett-Coastal Network Should Chancellor Bouchard Mandate a Sale of TransPerfect or Allow Parties to Settle? Top of Form

•  Parties have already indicated possible settlement terms, let them do it.
•  No, Mandate a sale and force a profitable company into Dissolution

Bottom of Form See results without voting Elting and Shawe Both Made Offers Shawe Offered $300M and Elting said she would Pay Shawe More | Source Important Stories to Sum up TransPerfect Case

• Feuding ex-lovers Phil Shawe and Liz Elting inch closer to a TransPerfect divorce | Crain’s New York Slator article on Phil Shawe’s Offer
• TransPerfect Co-CEO Phil Shawe in USD 300m Buyout Offer | Slator As the clock ticks on the forced sale of TransPerfect, co-CEO Phil Shawe’s lawyer confirms his client offered $300m for 50% stake held by co-CEO Liz Elting

 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