In re TransPerfect Global, Inc.

Court of Chancery of Delaware·Decided April 14, 2021·No. C.A. Nos. 9700, 10449-CB·Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

)

In re: TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL, INC. ) C.A. No. 9700-CB )

)

ELIZABETH ELTING, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) C.A. No. 10449-CB )

PHILIP R. SHAWE and SHIRLEY SHAWE, )

Respondents, )

)

and )

)

TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL, INC., )

Nominal Party. )

ORDER OF DISCHARGE

WHEREAS, at the request of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Robert B. Pincus volunteered to serve as the Custodian of TransPerfect Global, Inc. (the “Company” or “TPG”), for purposes of overseeing a Court-ordered sale of the Company;

WHEREAS, at the time of his appointment as Custodian, Mr. Pincus was a partner of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP;

WHEREAS, the Court of Chancery, in its order directing the sale of the Company, recognized that Mr. Pincus “has significant experience negotiating and overseeing corporate transactions, including mergers and acquisitions and other forms of corporate transactions”;

WHEREAS, in 2018, the Court of Chancery approved the proposed sale of the Company, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed that decision, and the sale was consummated;

WHEREAS, in its opinion approving the sale, the Court of Chancery stated that Mr. Pincus “deftly and firmly handled a challenging assignment to create a competitive dynamic” that maximized the value for the stockholders while simultaneously preserved the Company as a going concern;

WHEREAS, following the consummation of the sale, Mr. Pincus, in his capacity as Custodian, remained responsible for certain post-closing events, including certain tax matters and a post-closing purchase price adjustment process;

WHEREAS, Mr. Pincus, who retired from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP in 2018, has now completed the sale and post-closing duties related to the sale;

WHEREAS, Mr. Pincus has respectfully moved the Court of Chancery to approve an Order of Discharge;

WHEREAS, as part of and following any discharge, it is essential that Mr. Pincus be assured of a continuation of the “judicial immunity and robust indemnification and advancement rights” (as described in the Court’s opinion approving the sale) that he received in the sale order and other orders issued by the Court of Chancery;

WHEREAS, this Order serves to discharge Mr. Pincus as Custodian and to assure that he and his advisors continue to receive, following the discharge, protections afforded them under various Court orders, agreements and Delaware law, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Pincus will no longer serve in the capacity as Custodian;

* * *

WHEREAS, on March 9, 2015, the Court entered an order (the “March 9 Order”) appointing Mr. Pincus as custodian of the Company for purposes of serving as a mediator to assist Elizabeth Elting and Philip R. Shawe in negotiating a resolution of the disputes giving rise to the above-referenced actions (the “Actions”);

WHEREAS, the March 9 Order provided, among other things, that “[t]he Custodian and the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, its partners and employees (collectively, ‘Skadden’) are entitled to judicial immunity and to be indemnified by TPG, in each case, to the fullest extent permitted by law”;

WHEREAS, on August 13, 2015, the Court issued an opinion and an order (the “August 13 Opinion” and the “August 13 Order,” respectively) in the Actions, which, among other things, granted Ms. Elting’s petitions under 8 Del. C. §§ 226(a)(1) and (a)(2), denied Ms. Elting’s demand for equitable dissolution of the Company, appointed Mr. Pincus to serve as Custodian of the Company for purposes

of overseeing a judicially ordered sale of the Company, and directed the Custodian to provide a report to the Court concerning a proposed plan of sale;

WHEREAS, the August 13 Order also appointed Mr. Pincus to serve as a third director of the Company with the authority to vote on certain matters on which Ms. Elting and Mr. Shawe could not agree and which rose to the level that Mr. Pincus deemed significant to managing the Company’s business and affairs;

WHEREAS, the August 13 Order provided, among other things, that “[t]he Custodian and the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, its partners and employees (collectively, ‘Skadden’) are entitled to judicial immunity and to be indemnified by TPG, in each case, to the fullest extent permitted by law”;

WHEREAS, the August 13 Order also provided that “[t]he Custodian may retain counsel (including Skadden) or other advisors to assist him in the performance of his duties under this Order”;

WHEREAS, on July 18, 2016, the Court entered an Order for the Custodian to Undertake a Sale Process (the “Sale Order”), which, among other things, granted the Custodian “full and exclusive authority to . . . implement (subject to Court approval of the recommendation) a Sale Transaction,” to “act through and in the name of the Company to carry out his duties,” and to “execute and deliver (or cause to be executed and delivered) on behalf of the Company and its stockholders (i) a definitive sale agreement, a merger agreement, a stock purchase agreement or

any other form of similar agreement . . . and (ii) any other document related to the Definitive Sale Agreement (and the transactions contemplated therein), including, without limitation, contracts, deeds, other documents of title, and regulatory, administrative, and governmental filings . . . .”;

WHEREAS, the Sale Order provided that “[t]he Custodian is authorized to utilize the services of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (the ‘Firm’) and may use attorneys from the Firm as counsel”;

WHEREAS, the Sale Order also provided that “[t]he Custodian, the Firm, and the Firm’s partners and employees (together with the Firm, ‘Skadden’) are entitled to judicial immunity and to be indemnified by the Company (or its successor in interest), in each case, to the fullest extent permitted by law”;

WHEREAS, on February 13, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the August 13 Opinion, the August 13 Order and the Sale Order;

WHEREAS, on November 19, 2017, the Company, Mr. Pincus (solely in his capacity as custodian of the Company (pursuant to the Sale Order) and on behalf of the Seller (pursuant to the Sale Order)), Ms. Elting (the “Seller”), PRS Capital LLC, Mr. Shawe and Shirley Shawe (solely for purposes of specific provisions) entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement (the “Securities Purchase Agreement”);

WHEREAS, on February 15, 2018, the Court issued an opinion and an order (the “February 15 Opinion” and the “February 15 Order,” respectively), which, among other things, approved the Securities Purchase Agreement and related agreements (including a form of Escrow Agreement);

WHEREAS, the Securities Purchase Agreement, related agreements (including the Escrow Agreement, as executed), the Letter Agreement, dated as of May 7, 2018, by and between the Custodian, the Company, the Seller, PRS Capital LLC, Mr. Shawe and Shirley Shawe, and the Director Indemnification Agreement dated as of August 19, 2015, by and between the Company and Robert B. Pincus, are referred to herein as the “Agreements”;

WHEREAS, an appeal was taken from the February 15 Opinion and the February 15 Order, and on May 3, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the February 15 Opinion and the February 15 Order;

WHEREAS, the February 15 Order provided, among other things, that “[w]ithout limitation, the Custodian and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (and its partners and employees) are entitled to judicial immunity and to be indemnified by the Company (or its successor in interest), in each case, to the fullest extent permitted by Law”;

WHEREAS, the transactions contemplated by the Agreements were consummated on May 7, 2018 (the “Closing”);

WHEREAS, on May 7, 2018, Mr. Pincus resigned as a director of the Company and from all positions he held as a director of any of the Company’s subsidiaries;

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re TransPerfect Global, Inc., (Del. Ct. App. 2021).

In re TransPerfect Global, Inc. (In re TransPerfect Global, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

§ 226
Delaware § 226(a)(1)