Controller’s Breach of Fiduciary Duties Leads To Novel Remedy
Vice Chancellor Laster’s opinion in In re Dura Medic Holdings, Inc. is a helpful reminder of potentially bespoke equitable remedies available for breaches of fiduciary duties. The case involved claims brought by a co-founder of Dura Medic, Inc. (“Dura Medic” or “Company”) against affiliates of Comvest, a private equity backer that acquired Dura Medic in 2018 […]
Connor P. Wise is a Law Clerk and Alex J. Kaplan is a Partner at Sidley Austin LLP. This post is based on their Sidley memorandum, and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.
Vice Chancellor Laster’s opinion in In re Dura Medic Holdings, Inc. is a helpful reminder of potentially bespoke equitable remedies available for breaches of fiduciary duties. The case involved claims brought by a co-founder of Dura Medic, Inc. (“Dura Medic” or “Company”) against affiliates of Comvest, a private equity backer that acquired Dura Medic in 2018 through subsidiary affiliates. The claims focused in particular on Comvest’s subsequent extension of debt and equity financing to the Company without approval by disinterested and independent decisionmakers. Ultimately, the Delaware Court of Chancery held that these controller-interested transactions implicated the entire fairness standard, that Comvest failed to satisfy it (and therefore breached fiduciary duties as a controlling stockholder). This led the Court to hold that Comvest’s financings were equitably subordinated to the Seller Note.
