This post is about three significant business decisions from courts in other jurisdictions. They involve an issue of attorney-client privilege for limited liability companies, whether an LLC member can waive his statutory right to seek dissolution of an LLC, and board duties in a merger context.
First, if there’s litigation between a member-manager of an LLC and the LLC, does the LLC have an attorney-client privilege to assert against its own member-manager? This issue hasn’t arisen in any case before the North Carolina Business Court, but it undoubtedly will.
A federal court in Nevada confronted that question recently and held in Montgomery v. eTreppid Technologies, LLC, 2008 WL 1826818 (D. Nev. 2008), that the LLC should be treated, for privilege purposes, like a corporation. It determined that the privilege belonged to the entity alone, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to discovery of privileged information even though he was a member of the LLC and a former manager. Thanks to Peter Mahler and his New York Business Divorce Blog, where I read about this case.
Second, can a member of an LLC waive his or her right to dissolution by an anti-dissolution provision in the Operating Agreement? The answer is yes, at least under Delaware law, as held by the Delaware Court of Chancery last week in R & R Capital, LLC v. Buck & Doe Run Valley Farms, LLC, 2008 WL 3846318 (Del.Ch., Aug. 19, 2008). You can read the summary of the case, from the Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog, here. The Court rejected the argument that a member’s agreement not to seek dissolution violated the public policy of Delaware, stressing instead the freedom of contract afforded those forming a limited liability company.
Third, also from Delaware, is a decision late last month about director duties in a merger context, Ryan v. Lyondell Chemical Co. The Court of Chancery held that a shareholder could proceed to trial against the directors of Lyondell on a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, even though the action challenged was the consummated sale of the company for a "blowout" market premium. The Court found a "troubling board process," in the board’s determination after only seven days to approve the sale of the company without any market check, without any post-agreement "go shop" period, and their approval of a merger agreement with strong deal protection measures and a substantial breakup fee.
The Court said it was unable to find on the summary judgment record that that Board had satisfied its Revlon duties, or that the deal protection measures were reasonable and necessary to secure the offer per Unocal. This case is also courtesy of the Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog.
The picture of the Cook Out hamburger at the top of this post is by my daughter, Juliet, a sophmore at UNC-Chapel Hill.
I’ve been having trouble recently with the pictures and links on my blog, so if they are not working when you first read this please check back later.