Egan v. First Opportunity Fund Inc. (Cir. Ct. Balto. City)

Filed: April 22, 2016

Opinion by: Judge W. Michel Pierson

Holding: Stockholders of a Maryland corporation were not entitled to payment of fair value for their shares of stock (commonly referred to as “appraisal” rights) under the Maryland General Corporation Law (the “MGCL”), § 3-202, where the corporation’s charter was amended to expressly divest the stockholders of any appraisal rights in connection with a subsequent consolidation of the fund into another fund because (i) appraisal rights are not “contract rights” nor were they “expressly set forth” in the corporation’s charter as required under MGCL § 3-202(a)(4), and (ii) the amendment of the charter to divest the stockholder appraisal rights occurred prior to the consolidation and thus, at the time of the vote on the consolidation, the charter had eliminated appraisal rights in accordance with MGCL § 3-202(c)(4).

Facts: First Opportunity Fund, Inc., was a registered closed-end investment fund formed as a Maryland corporation (“FOFI”).  In 2014, the stockholders of FOFI and the stockholders of two other funds managed by affiliated directors and fund advisors were asked to approve a plan of reorganization (the “Consolidation”), under which the assets of those three funds would be transferred to Boulder Growth and Income Fund, Inc. (“BIF”).  Of all the funds involved in the Consolidation, FOFI was the only corporation whose stockholders enjoyed Maryland’s statutory appraisal rights under MGCL § 3-202 (because the other funds were publicly traded and thus excepted from the appraisal rights requirement pursuant to MGCL § 3-202(c)(1)).  Therefore, prior to submitting the proposed Consolidation to the stockholders for their consideration, the board of directors of FOFI proposed that the charter of FOFI be amended to divest FOFI’s stockholders of any appraisal rights (“Proposal 1”).

The proxy statement issued by the directors of the four funds disclosed that if Proposal 1 was approved, the stockholders meeting would be temporarily adjourned and FOFI would file articles of amendment to amend the charter to include Proposal 1.  If Proposal 1 was not approved, the proposal to consider the Consolidation would not be considered.

At the FOFI stockholders meeting, Proposal 1 was approved.  The meeting then adjourned and articles of amendment containing Proposal 1 were accepted for record by the State Department of Assessments and Taxation.  The meeting then resumed and the transfer of assets from FOFI to BIF was approved by the FOFI stockholders.  Following these actions, two of FOFI’s stockholders (the “Plaintiffs”) submitted a written demand for the fair value of their shares and otherwise complied with the statutory requirements for perfecting appraisal rights under the MGCL.  FOFI and BIF denied the demand and the Plaintiffs filed suit, seeking fair value of their stock pursuant to MGCL § 3-202.  The defendants moved to dismiss the action, and, for the reasons detailed below, the Court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claims.

Analysis: MGCL § 3-202 provides that stockholders of a Maryland corporation may demand and receive payment of fair value of their stock in the event of certain fundamental corporate changes.  The statute also provides a number of circumstances where a dissenting stockholder has no such appraisal right.  See MGCL § 3-202(c).  In Egan, the Plaintiffs alleged that two fundamental changes occurred in connection with the Consolidation process, thus triggering their appraisal rights under the MGCL.  First, in Count I of the Plaintiffs’ complaint, based on the Consolidation of FOFI into BIF, the Plaintiffs asserted appraisal rights arising under MGCL § 3-202(a)(1), which provides for appraisal rights in the event a “corporation consolidates or merges with another corporation.”  Second, in Count II of their complaint, the Plaintiffs asserted appraisal rights arising under MGCL § 3-202(a)(4), which provides for appraisal rights if a “corporation amends its charter in a way which alters the contract rights, as expressly set forth in the charter, of any outstanding stock and substantially adversely affects the stockholder's rights, unless the right to do so is reserved by the charter of the corporation.” 

As to Count I, the Court found that, although there was “no dispute” that the Consolidation of FOFI into BIF was a consolidation or merger under MGCL § 3-202(a)(1), the Plaintiffs’ claims were subject to the provisos of MGCL § 3-202(c).  Among other things, that subsection provides that “a stockholder may not demand the fair value of the stockholder’s stock and is bound by the terms of the transaction if: … [t]he charter provides that the holders of the stock are not entitled to exercise the rights of an objecting stockholder under this subtitle.”  MGCL § 3-202(c)(4).  The Court found that the amendment to FOFI’s charter was adopted in accordance with the literal requirements of the MGCL and, consequently, pursuant to MGCL § 3-202(c)(4), the Plaintiffs had no appraisal rights by virtue of the Consolidation.  In reaching this conclusion, the Court rejected the Plaintiffs’ arguments that the adoption of Proposal 1 and the consolidation were really one and the same transaction and that the amendment of FOFI’s charter should therefore be ignored for purposes of determining the Plaintiffs’ appraisal rights.  Rather, the Court held that the independent nature of the adoption of Proposal 1 and the approval of the Consolidation could not be ignored by the Court in search of a higher equity under the guise of a substance over form analysis.

As to Count II, the Court found that the Plaintiffs had no appraisal rights as a result of the amendment of FOFI’s charter because, after reviewing the legislative history of MGCL § 3-202(a)(4), the Court concluded that appraisal rights are not “contract rights” as used in the statute but that the statute instead refers to “contractual attributes of the stock itself, and does not mean every contract right included in the corporate charter.”  The Court also found that, even if appraisal rights were contract rights, FOFI’s charter made no mention of such rights and thus they were not “expressly set forth” in FOFI’s charter prior as required under MGCL § 3-202(a)(4).  In reaching this conclusion, the Court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that appraisal rights should be deemed to be expressly set forth in FOFI’s charter because a corporation’s charter is a contract between the corporation and its shareholders and statutory law is incorporated into a contract under Maryland law.  On this issue, the Court concluded that “treating an object ‘as though’ it is expressly set forth is not equivalent to that object actually being expressly set forth.”

The full opinion is available in PDF.

John Poling v. Caplease, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Balto. City)

Filed: May 13, 2015

Opinion by: Judge W. Michel Pierson

Holdings: (1) The conversion of preferred stock to cash in connection with a cash-out merger does not violate the redemption provisions of the preferred stock, when the transaction at issue does not constitute a redemption. (2) The conversion of preferred stock to cash in connection with a cash-out merger does not violate the provisions of the preferred stock that establish a limitation upon the right of preferred stockholders to convert their stock.

Facts: Plaintiff was a holder of preferred shares in defendant corporation.  Defendant's charter authorized the corporation to issue shares of Series B Preferred Stock and Series C Preferred Stock. The Articles Supplementary classifying the preferred stock included the following terms:

[Section 3 provides for the payment of cumulative dividends at the yearly rate of 8.375% of the $25.00 per share liquidation preference of the Series B Preferred Stock (equivalent to a fixed annual amount of $2.09375 per share). The Series C Articles Supplementary contains similar terms, with an interest rate of 7.25% (equivalent to a fixed annual amount of $1.8125 per share). The Charter further provides that the Series B Preferred Stock is not redeemable prior to April 19, 2017, while the Series C Preferred Stock is not redeemable prior to January 25, 2018.]

On May 28, 2013, defendant entered into a Merger Agreement with an acquirer. According to the agreement, the acquirer would pay an amount in cash equal to $8.50 per share for each outstanding share of defendant's common stock, and each share of preferred stock would be converted into the right to receive the sum of $25.00 in cash plus an amount equal to any accrued and unpaid dividends up to but excluding the closing date of the merger.

Plaintiff felt aggrieved because holders of the preferred stock would lose their right to receive future dividends after the merger. On October 8, 2013, Plaintiff sued the defendant and alleged that the merger was a breach of the company’s contract with its preferred stockholders and that the directors had violated fiduciary duties.

Analysis: The complaint of plaintiff contained four counts, each denied by the court.

For Count I, plaintiff asserted a breach of contract claim alleging the transaction violated the redemption provisions of the Articles Supplementary. The court discussed the following: (1) While section 6 of the Articles Supplementary does limit defendant’s right to redeem the preferred stock, which would restrict the conversion of the preferred stocks, the transaction at issue did not constitute a redemption, because defendant did not acquire the stock. In addition, the Maryland General Corporation Law ("MGCL") authorizes a Maryland corporation to merge into another entity. The MGCL provides that in such a merger stock may be converted into money. See MGCL Section 3-103. (2) Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, Section 9 of the Articles Supplementary does not prevent the conversion of the preferred shares to cash upon a merger. The court interpreted this provision of the Articles Supplementary to establish a limitation upon the right of preferred stockholders to convert their stock, distinguishing the preferred stock at issue from convertible preferred securities. (3) The court declined to speculate about the possible ramification of Section 7(b) of the Articles Supplementary, related to voting rights, which had not been expressly argued.

For Count II, the court held that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim based on the defendant’s breach of fiduciary duty. The breach of fiduciary duty claim largely relied upon the allegations that defendants’ conduct contravened the Articles Supplementary. However, the court already rejected plaintiff’s contention that the merger violated the Articles Supplementary.

The court briefly discussed plaintiff’s claims for declaratory relief and aiding and abetting for Count III and Count IV, before granting defendant’s motion to dismiss.

The full opinion is available in PDF. 

A Guy Named Moe, LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC (Ct. of Special Appeals)

Filed:  May 29, 2015

Opinion by Krauser, C. J.

Holding:  A foreign limited liability company that had its right to do business in Maryland forfeited, but nonetheless continued to do business in Maryland, cannot maintain a suit in Maryland and the filing of a petition for judicial review filed during that time of forfeiture is void ab initio.

Facts:  A foreign limited liability company filed a petition requesting the circuit court review a decision of the City of Annapolis Board of Appeals.  The petition was filed within the 30-day period for filing a petition under Rule 7-203(a); however, the petition was filed several years after the company’s right to do business in Maryland had been forfeited.  An affidavit of a business manager of the company asserted that articles of revival and the accompanying payment were submitted prior to the filing of the petition.  The manager also asserted that four months after filing the petition with the circuit court, the company learned that the articles of revival were rejected.  The company subsequently obtained a certificate of good standing.

The circuit court dismissed the action citing lack of standing under Section 4-401(a) of the Land Use Article.  The court affirmed on different grounds.

Analysis:  The court agreed that the Maryland LLC Act allows a foreign limited liability company to “cure the infirmity” of forfeiture to maintain suit.  Yet, the court disagreed that securing the right to maintain suit permitted the company to rely on a petition it filed when it had no right to do so.  While no direct precedent was available, the court noted precedent recognizing that the forfeiture to do business in Maryland does not prevent a limited liability company from defending any action.  The court also noted that Section 4A-1009(a) of the Maryland LLC Act “expressly bars a foreign limited liability company from maintaining suit when it is doing business in Maryland with no right to do so.”

The court then reviewed corporate cases involving charter forfeitures, which support the notion that a limited liability company may not revive a suit, though timely filed, when the suit was initiated by an entity after the entity had lost the right to do business in Maryland and yet persisted in doing business in Maryland.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Ohio Learning Centers, LLC v. Sylvan Learning, Inc. (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed July 24, 2012

Opinion by Judge Richard D. Bennett

Held:  (1) A forfeited corporation may defend against a lawsuit and file counterclaims arising out of the same subject matter as the underlying suit.  (2) Courts employ a totality of the circumstances approach in reviewing a jury trial waiver provision, including factors such as the parties' bargaining power, the conspicuousness of the waiver provision and whether the provision is comprehensible.
 

Facts:  Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into an asset purchase agreement, a license agreement and two promissory notes pursuant to which Plaintiffs would purchase and operate a  franchise.   The license agreement also contained a non-compete clause.  Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs were unable to make payments on the promissory notes.  Defendants sent two notices of default and intent to terminate license agreement to the Plaintiffs. 

The Court ordered Plaintiffs to "not use any or all of the trademarks, service marks, or trade names associated" with the Defendants.  The Court also held that the agreements were valid and enforceable and that Plaintiff breached those agreements.  The Court withheld ruling on any damages in order to adjudicate the remaining claims, set forth below. 
 

Analysis:  Plaintiffs argued that because two of the Defendants had forfeited their charters for failing to file personal property tax returns with the State Department of Assessments and Taxation, the defendants were prohibited from maintaining or defending any lawsuit in the state.  The Court disagreed and stated that “it is well established in Maryland that a forfeited corporation may defend against a lawsuit and file counterclaims arising out of the same subject matter as the underlying suit.”  Finch v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 57 Md. App. 190 (1984) and Price v. Upper Chesapeake Health Ventures, 192 Md. App. 695 (2010) ("an LLC whose rights have been forfeited...may only defend an action in court, not prosecute one"). 

Defendants moved to strike Plaintiffs' demand for a jury trial because the promissory notes and the asset purchase agreement contained a jury trial waiver.  The Court agreed that three of the four agreements at issue contained jury waiver clauses.  But, the Court highlighted that the main contract governing the claims in litigation did not.  The Court employed a totality of the circumstances approach.  It denied the motion after review of the superior bargaining power of the Defendants, the integrations clause in the license agreement and the inconspicuous location of the waiver clause in the promissory notes and the asset purchase agreement.   

Defendants' also moved to dismiss with respect to several fraud claims, including claims involving Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law.  The Court stated "a plaintiff can successfully bring a tort action for fraud that is based on false pre-contract promises by the defendant even if (1) the written contract contains an integration clause and even if (2) the pre-contractual promises that constitute fraud are not mentioned in the written contract."  Next Generation Group, LLC v. Sylvan Learning Ctrs, LLC, No. CCB-110986 (2012).  Because the materiality of any alleged omissions are factual questions inappropriate for determination at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court denied the motion.

The Court briefly reviewed other claims, including tortious breach of good faith, unfair competition, defamation, tortious interference in contractual relations, deceptive trade practices and antitrust conspiracy.

The full opinion is available in pdf. 

Tri-County Unlimited, Inc. v. Kids First Swim School, Inc. (Ct. of Special Appeals)

Filed: March 31, 2010.
Opinion by Judge Alexander Wright, Jr.

Held: A complaint filed by a forfeited corporation is a nullity, even if the corporation’s charter is subsequently revived.

Facts: A forfeited corporation filed a complaint. The defendant brought a motion to dismiss, asserting that the corporation lacked capacity to bring suit because its charter had been forfeited. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss even though the charter had been revived prior to the filing of the motion.

Analysis: The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding that the revival of the charter did not restore the lawsuit. In so holding, the court noted that other Maryland decisions have made clear that a complaint filed by a forfeited corporation is a legal nullity. The fact that a corporation’s right to sue is restored when a charter is revived does not imply that prior invalid lawsuits are somehow restored as well.

The full opinion is available in PDF.