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...
Oct. 6 — A stockholder failed to establish a proper purpose to inspect Monster Beverage Corp.'s books and records because she was time-barred from bringing the derivative lawsuit she sought to bolster through those records, according to an Oct. 3 Delaware Chancery Court opinion.
Vice Chancellor John W. Noble held that the passage of seven years from the books and records request and the last of the events underlying the plaintiff's derivative lawsuit “would unjustifiably prejudice Monster.”
In September 2008, a federal securities class action was filed alleging that Monster insiders sold common stock with the benefit of nonpublic information during 2006 and 2007. The instant plaintiff was not a member of the class, and the case eventually settled in April 2014.
In October 2008, other shareholders, including the plaintiff, brought a derivative claim involving the alleged insider trading. This case, however, was dismissed because of an inability to establish demand futility.
The plaintiff in February 2012 made a demand on Monster's board to bring claims related to the alleged insider trading, which a board-appointed special committee rejected.
In March 2013, the plaintiff made a books and records demand under 8 Del. C. § 220 for the purpose of determining whether to bring another derivative action regarding the alleged insider trading. She listed as her purposes for inspection: (1) evaluating the board's refusal to act on her litigation demand and whether it constituted a reasonable exercise of the board's business judgment; and (2) evaluating the decisionmaking process behind the board's refusal to act on her litigation demand.
Monster rejected this demand, arguing that the plaintiff did not have a proper purpose because the derivative claims she wanted to bring would be “time-barred.”
The court noted that the plaintiff “concedes that her ultimate goal in pursuing her books and records request is ‘to determine whether there is a basis to bring a derivative suit' based on the ‘wrongs alleged in' the earlier derivative action.”
Under this “specific factual setting,” Vice Chancellor Noble found that the plaintiff's purpose to advance her derivative claims is not proper because those claims are time-barred
A potential affirmative defense to an anticipated action “will not necessarily defeat a books and records effort” because the books and records request can “inform consideration of other potentially wrongful conduct that is not yet time-barred,” he noted.
However, “in a specific factual setting , a time bar defense … would eviscerate any showing that might otherwise be made in an effort to establish a proper shareholder purpose.”
According to the court, the seven-year delay in this case was “unreasonable” considering that the plaintiff had “constructive knowledge” of the transactions by 2007 and participated in an earlier-filed derivative action.
Additionally, Vice Chancellor Noble rejected the argument that Monster had to identify how it would be prejudiced by the delay. Instead, he found that the delay was presumptively prejudicial under the circumstances “because of fading memories and protracted distractions diverting management's attention from the needs of the corporation.”
Vice Chancellor Noble additionally found that the federal securities litigation did not toll the statute of limitations or the period for evaluating a laches defense because the plaintiff was not a member of that class action.
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/Wolst_Anastasia_vs_Monster_Beverage_Corp_2014_BL_277533_Del_Ch_Oc.
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)