Bloomberg BNA’s Corporate Law & Accountability Report is available on the Corporate Law Resource Center. This news service keeps corporate practitioners informed of legal developments of...
By Michael Greene
Feb. 2 — To bring a claim for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the plaintiff must identify a gap in the agreement that must be filled by implying terms, according to a Jan. 30 Delaware Chancery Court ruling.
Because the parties had carefully negotiated the contours of the defendant's obligation in the merger agreement, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard dismissed the plaintiff's claim for breach of the implied covenant.
Accordingly, he found that the defendant's failure to achieve earn-out revenue thresholds must be analyzed within the confines of the express contractual obligations in the merger agreement.
The court also dismissed the plaintiff's fraud claims.
As part of a merger agreement, Dialog Semiconductor PLC agreed to acquire iWatt Inc. for $310 million.
The agreement included earn-out payments of up to $35 million that were conditioned on Dialog's Power Conversion Business Group exceeding certain post-merger revenue thresholds.
After Dialog's business group fell well short of the thresholds, Fortis Advisors LLC, a representative of the former equity holders of iWatt, alleged that Dialog breached a provision of the merger agreement requiring it to use “commercially reasonable best efforts” to achieve and pay the earn-outs in full.
In addition to its claim for breach of contract, the plaintiff alleged that Dialog breached an implied covenant of good faith and fail dealing.
Under Delaware law, this implied covenant attaches to every contract by operation of law and requires a contracting party to refrain from unreasonable conduct “‘which has the effect of preventing the other party to the contract from receiving the fruits' of the bargain.”
However, this implied covenant only applies when the contract does not speak directly about the issue in dispute, Bouchard noted.
And the court found that the plaintiff did not identify any gaps or ambiguity in the merger agreement as a basis for implying an additional obligation on the defendant. Instead, the plaintiff argued that the count “should survive just in case ‘the Court may disagree' down the road of this litigation.”
Because the merger agreement included a contractual standard by which to evaluate Dialog's failure to achieve and pay the earn-outs, Chancellor Bouchard found there was no implied contract term for the court to read into the agreement.
The court also granted a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for fraud on the grounds that it was not pled with the requisite particularity.
The misrepresentations allegedly occurred during the approximately three-and-a-half-month time frame the parties began negotiating the merger agreement.
Chancellor Bouchard found this to be “the functional equivalent to providing no time parameter at all because the misrepresentations logically could not have occurred during any other period of time.”
He additionally ruled that the plaintiff failed to particularly state who made the alleged misrepresentation, where and by what means.
“The lack of these details, in isolation, may not warrant dismissal,” he opined.” But when the lack of any such details is considered together with the failure of the complaint to identify when any of the alleged misrepresentations were made and who made any of them, the complaint fails in my view to apprise Dialog of sufficient information concerning the circumstances of the alleged fraud.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Michael Greene in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Ryan Tuck at email@example.com
The opinion is available at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Fortis_Advisors_LLC_v_Dialog_Semiconductor_PLC_No_9522CB_2015_BL_.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)