Alaska Electrical v. Lyons Homes

CONCLUDED

Oral Argument
10/14/09 – 10/14/09

Play button overlay 45f08f27c7337d189e8c31e635b5d0a0781b273131135cd77ee8b6f12366e7a2
Play button overlay 45f08f27c7337d189e8c31e635b5d0a0781b273131135cd77ee8b6f12366e7a2

Summary

Case Description: The action originated with a tender offer by General William Lyon of $93 per share for the outstanding shares of Lyon Homes, Inc., a Delaware corporation. On the same day the tender offer was announced, Plaintiff Intervenor-Appellant Alaska Electrical Pension Fund (“Alaska”) filed a class action suit in the Superior Court of California. Two days later, individual stockholders filed two separate class actions in the Delaware Court of Chancery. All three suits alleged similar breaches of fiduciary duty and disclosure claims relating to the tender offer. Lyon and the other Defendants reached an initial settlement with the Delaware Plaintiffs, agreeing to, inter alia, increase the offer price from $93 to $100. Alaska refused to join in the initial settlement. The tender offer was eventually increased by Lyon to $109 per share. Alaska filed a motion to intervene in the Delaware action to recover its attorney’s fees and cost. The Court of Chancery refused to award Alaska any fees after finding “that Defendants and the Delaware Plaintiffs have rebutted the presumption that Alaska and its attorneys were a cause of the second price increase. Alaska and its attorneys did not in any way contribute to the higher price.”

Proceeding Description: On this appeal Alaska contends that the Defendants did not rebut the presumption of causation in its favor. Alaska also contends that the Court of Chancery erred in permitting the Defendants to shield three emails from discovery under the attorney-client privilege.

Outcome: The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Chancery applied the proper legal percepts in placing the burden on the Defendants to demonstrate that Alaska was in no way a cause of the tender increase. The court also found no abuse of discretion by the Vice Chancellor in denying Alaska’s motion to compel discovery. The court affirmed.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.delawarebusinesslitigation.com%2Fuploads%2Ffile%2Falaska%2520electrical.pdf

Case Information
Attorneys
Witnesses
Plaintiff
Defense
Case Number
240, 2009
Industry
Legal
Practice Area
Securities, Business Organizations, Commercial Law
Expert Witnesses
    Lay Witnesses

      Recording Disclaimer: This proceeding was recorded in full.

      Suggest a Trial

      Want to see a trial that you don't see in our list of upcoming trials?

      Suggest a Case

      CVN Essentials

      The most important and informative moments of each trial

      CVN Essentials

      Video Library

      Unlimited access to thousands of hours of past coverage of high stakes civil litigation

      Video Library

      • Follow Us
      • Contact Us
      • 3901 Roswell Road
      • Suite 302
      • Marietta, GA 30062
      • 877-838-9067

      Copyright 2020 Courtroom Connect.