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;

2 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

3 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

4 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”);

5 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

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)