Serving as a Shareholder Representative is No Joke. . .

Apr 1, 2014

Reading Time : 2 min

A recent holding by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Mercury Systems v. Shareholder Representative Services LLC (D. Mass. February 14, 2014) is instructive. In that case, the plaintiff buyer attempted to include both the shareholder representative service company and the selling stockholders as defendants in a class action suit. And in support of its motion, the plaintiff pointed to documentary evidence arguably showing that certain shareholders and a “shareholders committee” were directly involved in the review of the plaintiff’s claims and dictated how the shareholder representative services company should respond to the plaintiff’s allegations. The court nevertheless denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and dismissed the individual shareholders from the case, holding that “all the certification of a class of defendant security holders will accomplish is an escalation of the procedural complexity of this litigation and its cost, while eviscerating the salutary purpose of having appointed a shareholder representative in the first place.” Id. at 1. (citing Ballenger v. Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. (Del. Ch.  April 24, 2002) (noting common practice of appointing shareholder representative as helpful mechanism for resolving post-closing disputes efficiently)).

Clearly, you want a strong shareholder representative to represent your interests and those of the other selling stockholders. You want to keep your money and mount a strong defense. But does your PE shop really want key employees’ attention diverted by haggling over representations and warranties, perhaps only to be named in a lawsuit and possibly positioned against someone you might want to do business with again?

Before you agree to take on the role of a shareholder representative, be sure to think about the risks and the rewards and whether outsourcing is a better choice for your fund. Are you raising capital in the near future? Could being a named defendant adversely impact that fundraising? Will you possibly see this buyer again in another context? Do you have the right human resources? Ask your deal lawyer—and a litigator who has been through post-closing drama—to discuss your options with you. Is there a suitable professional service company that can represent the sellers’ interest while limiting your fund’s litigation exposure?

Make your decision thoughtfully. Being dragged into litigation is no joke.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

Read More

Deal Diary

2022-12-15

On December 14, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. The amendments aim to strengthen investor protections concerning insider trading and to help shareholders understand when and how insiders are trading in securities for which they may at times have material nonpublic information (MNPI). In light of these amendments, issuers should review and revise, if needed, their insider trading policies and equity grant policies.

Read more.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.