Special Litigation Committee, a Self-Dealing CEO, and a 46/46 Deadlock
Northline Analytics, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with three shareholders: founders Anwar and Bexley hold 46% each, and CEO Chen holds 8% and is the only inside director. Chen selected the two outside directors, both personal acquaintances, and all three sit on the board. In June, Chen caused Northline to buy a 12,000-square-foot office building from Chen's own LLC for $3.2 million. An independent appraisal commissioned by Anwar valued the building at $2.4 million, and the board's approval came after a 25-minute meeting at which no appraisal was circulated. Anwar delivered a written demand that the board sue Chen for the $800,000 difference. Two weeks later, the board expanded to five members by appointing two new directors, formed a Special Litigation Committee from those two, retained outside counsel, and after a 90-day investigation recommended that the demand be rejected. Meanwhile, Anwar and Bexley are deadlocked over a proposed merger - Anwar wants to sell, Bexley refuses - and Chen has not called a shareholder meeting in 14 months.
1. What standard governs judicial review of the Special Litigation Committee's recommendation, and what must Anwar show to defeat it?
Read the worked answer
Effect of making demand. By delivering a written demand instead of filing suit immediately, Anwar concedes the board's ability to consider the matter and forfeits any argument that demand would have been futile. The issue is therefore not demand futility but the board's response to the demand.
The committee framework. Under the two-step approach associated with Zapata, the committee bears the burden of showing that its members are independent, acted in good faith, and conducted a reasonable investigation supported by a reasonable process. If it carries that burden, the court then exercises its own business judgment about whether dismissal serves the corporation's interests.
Anwar's attack points. The committee members were appointed by a board dominated by Chen, the very person whose transaction is under scrutiny, and were appointed only two weeks after the demand. Independence turns on whether the directors' decision-making could be based on the merits rather than on Chen's influence. Further grounds: no valuation expert retained despite the $800,000 gap; the appraiser was never interviewed; the 90-day timeline was compressed; committee members' indemnification and continued board service depend on Chen's goodwill; and the committee's counsel was selected with management's involvement.
If the burden is not carried. The derivative claim proceeds, and the merits are reviewed for entire fairness rather than under the business judgment rule. Anwar should also consider a direct claim: a 46% holder harmed by a dilutive or value-destroying transaction may sue individually in some circumstances.
2. Is Chen a controlling shareholder, and what does the entire fairness standard require here?
Read the worked answer
Control without a majority. Chen holds only 8% of the equity, but control can be actual rather than mathematical. Chen is the sole inside director, hand-picked both outside directors, sets the board agenda, and dominates the company's information flow. Combined with the structural inability of the two founders to outvote him on board matters, Chen had working control over this transaction.
Entire fairness. The standard has two intertwined components. Fair dealing examines how the transaction was initiated, timed, structured, negotiated, disclosed to the directors, and approved by them. Fair price examines the economics, including assets, market value, and any synergies. A 33% premium over an independent appraisal is strong evidence of unfair price, and the 25-minute meeting with no appraisal circulated is strong evidence of unfair process.
Burden. The defendants bear the burden. They can shift it to Anwar only by obtaining approval from a fully informed majority of disinterested and independent directors, or an informed majority-of-the-minority shareholder vote. Neither occurred: the outside directors are Chen's acquaintances, and no shareholder vote was taken. The burden therefore stays with Chen.
Remedy. Rescission of the purchase or damages equal to the $800,000 overpayment plus pre-judgment interest. The board's failure to disclose the appraisal also supports a disclosure-based claim and undermines any argument that the transaction was fully informed.
3. What remedies are available for the shareholder deadlock and the failure to hold a meeting?
Read the worked answer
The deadlock. Anwar and Bexley each hold 46%, so neither can control ordinary shareholder votes, and a merger requires affirmative approval. If the charter or bylaws impose a supermajority requirement, the deadlock is structural; if not, the two founders could in principle combine, but their disagreement is substantive rather than mechanical.
Meeting failure. Most corporation statutes require an annual shareholder meeting and permit a shareholder to petition the court to order one when directors fail to convene it. Fourteen months without a meeting supports such a petition and also evidences a broader breakdown of governance. Anwar can also use the statute's written-consent provisions, if the charter allows, to act outside a meeting.
Remedies for deadlock. Depending on the statute, a court may appoint a custodian or provisional director to break the deadlock, or order dissolution where the shareholders are deadlocked and the corporation is suffering or will suffer irreparable injury. Anwar and Bexley could also negotiate a buy-sell with an appraisal mechanism, which usually produces better value than a judicial dissolution forced sale.
Strategic caution. Dissolution is a blunt instrument: the assets may fetch less on a forced sale, and Anwar's 46% interest would be valued accordingly. Anwar's leverage comes from combining the derivative claim over the $800,000 overpayment with a credible dissolution petition. The best outcome is typically a negotiated purchase of one founder's stake at an agreed valuation, backed by the credible threat of judicial relief.