Litigation

Court Of Chancery Upholds NOL Pill

By Edward M. McNally

Selectica Inc. v. Versata Enterprises, Inc., C.A. 4241-VCN ( February 26, 2010)

In a case with an unusual factual setting, the Court of Chancery has upheld a poison pill with a 5% trigger. The very low trigger is explained by the need to protect a NOL that might be adversely affected by the acquisition of 5% of a company's stock.

In its discussion of the Unocal standard of review that applies to defensive measures, the Court applied a very differential approach to the board's decisions. Arguably, that is not the higher standard of review that had been suggested by Moran as applicable to the adoption of a poison pill.

This decision illustrates the Court's limited role in reviewing board's decisions that are not affected by any conflict of interest on the part of directors. Briefly, unless there is a duty of loyalty issue involved, directors just will not be second guessed in Delaware. 

Full post as published by Delaware Business Litigation Report on February 26, 2010 (boomark / email).