Justia Professional Malpractice & Ethics Opinion Summaries

Appellants in this derivative action, who are shareholders of Primedia, Inc., appealed the Court of Chancery's decision granting the Primedia Special Litigation Committee's ("SLC") Motion to Dismiss claims arising out of a series of alleged violations of fiduciary duty by defendants. As a preliminary matter, the court invoked the exception to mootness doctrine in this case because it was a matter of public importance that was capable of repetition yet could evade review where other litigants have raised the Brophy v. Cities Co. issue in actions now pending before the Court of Chancery. The court held that Brophy did not require an element of harm to the corporation before disgorgement was an available remedy and to the extent Pfeiffer v. Toll conflicted with this holding, it was wrong. In Brophy, the court relied on the principles of restitution and equity and as the Brophy court recognized, it was inequitable to permit the fiduciary to profit from using confidential corporate information. The court also held that the Vice Chancellor's analysis of the SLC's Motion to Dismiss under Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado's second prong could not be affirmed in the shadow of Pfeiffer's incorrect holding. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Chancery was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff, a significant stockholder in a holding company managed by the individual defendants, alleged, both on behalf of a class and derivatively, breaches of fiduciary duty regarding defendants' adoption of a stock buyback plan, their adoption of an options plan, issuance of the options to themselves, and the decision by the company to vote in favor of a transaction involving the sale of a subsidiary's interest in a third entity. At issue was whether the court should grant defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss Count II only with regard to the claim that defendants' vote of Winmill & Co. Incorporated's ("Winmill") interest in Bexil Corporation in favor of the York Insurance Services Group, Inc. sale was self-interested and unfair to Winmill. The court otherwise granted defendants' motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff, a shareholder in Avenir Corporation ("Avenir"), brought a shareholder derivate suit naming Avenir and its three principal officers ("principals") as defendants and alleged that the principals engaged in various forms of financial misconduct as Avenir's managers. At issue was whether the district court properly granted attorney's fees for abuse of discretion to plaintiff where plaintiff originally filed in Superior Court and defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under 28 U.S.C. 1441, where Avenir's primary place of business was in D.C., and where the district court found removal improper under section 1441(b). The court held that the district court improperly awarded attorney's fees to plaintiff where Avenir was a nominal defendant and defendants' reasoning had at least some logical and precedential force behind it.

Plaintiff sued a former employee after a number of the former employee's clients left plaintiff's wealth management and investment advisory firm for the firm that the former employee currently works at. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following question for the court: "What degree of participation in a new employer's solicitation of a former employer's client by a voluntary seller of that client's good will constitutes improper solicitation?" In answering the certified question, the court continued to apply its precedents in Von Breman v. MacMonnies and Mohawk Maintenance Co. v. Kessler and held that the "implied covenant" barred a seller of "good will" from improperly soliciting his former clients. The court also held that, while a seller may not contact his former clients directly, he may, "in response to inquiries" made on a former client's own initiative, answer factual questions. The court further held that the circumstances where a client exercising due diligence requested further information, a seller may assist his new employer in the "active development... of a plan" to respond to that client's inquires. Should that plan result in meeting with a client, a seller's "largely passive" role at such a meeting did not constitute improper solicitation in violation of the "implied covenant." As such, a seller or his new employer may then accept the trade of a former client.