1. Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights, III found a fully executed stock purchase warrant agreement to be unenforceable in the case of Stacey Kotler v. Shipman Associates, LLC.
2. The case involved a dispute over the validity of a stock purchase warrant agreement allegedly granted to Stacey Kotler in 2007, giving her the right to acquire up to 5% of the company’s equity.
3. The agreement had gone through several drafts over a period of approximately eight months in 2007, but ultimately was deemed unenforceable. 1. Oliver Brahmst did not communicate regularly with Ms. Kotler’s attorney during the warrant agreement negotiations.
2. Ms. Kotler sent her comments and suggested changes to Robert Shipman at the company, not directly to Mr. Brahmst.
3. Ms. Kotler and her attorney had memory lapses during the litigation, affecting their ability to recall key facts.
4. Corporate recordkeeping practices of the company were described as “careless,” and many records disappeared after the 2007 warrant agreement negotiations.
5. The parties agreed on the warrant covering approximately 5% of the company’s stock, but did not agree on company requested restrictive covenants.
Note: The requested restrictive covenants included “no compete” and “no solicit” provisions, with automatic total forfeiture of the warrant’s stock purchase rights for violation. 1. Ms. Kotler initially objected to any restrictive covenants after her relationship with the company ended.
2. Eventually, Ms. Kotler seemed agreeable to a no compete and no solicit while she was an independent contractor and a no solicit that would survive for 18 months after she and the company ended their relationship.
3. Neither side could recall having changed from their initial positions regarding the no compete covenant.
4. The court recounted in detail the multiple drafts and negotiating positions and arguments.
5. Chancellor Slights’ factual summary occupies most of the opinion.
6. The opinion is augmented by 206 footnotes, many of which provide more facts or reference to specific pages of the trial transcript, joint trial exhibits and pretrial stipulation.
7. The parties’ memory lapses and modest records outside the drafts leave events and issues shrouded in uncertainty. – Stacey Kotler made changes to the September 12 draft, including reducing the number of shares and making the no solicit, no compete, and forfeiture provisions less restrictive.
– Stacey Kotler sent the September 17 draft to Robert Shipman without explaining the changes made.
– Robert Shipman did not review the document carefully and did not send a copy to Mr. Brahmst at White & Case.
– Marissa Shipman signed a signature page on or about September 17 and returned it to Stacey Kotler without retaining a copy of the signature page or any accompanying agreement.
– Mr. Brahmst was unaware of these events and was not informed at that time. 1. Ms. Kotler executed the signature page of the warrant agreement a few days after September 17, 2016 and referred to it as the “wet ink” fully executed warrant agreement.
2. Ms. Kotler’s relationship with theBalm ended in 2009 after the company rejected her demands for more compensation, equity, and responsibility.
3. In 2013, a draft executed by Ms. Kotler was found in the company’s records, and in 2016, questions arose regarding the validity of Ms. Kotler’s warrant.
4. Ms. Kotler’s counsel provided the company with a copy of the “wet ink” fully executed warrant agreement in 2016 as the company pursued a possible sale.
5. Ms. Kotler failed to prove the existence of a binding warrant agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, according to Chancellor Slights’ ruling. 1. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, citing the lack of evidence and reliability of the plaintiff’s testimony.
2. The court enforced the signed warrant agreement, stating that written agreements will be upheld in the absence of fraud or extenuating circumstances.
3. The burden of proof was placed on the plaintiff to establish a meeting of the minds in 2007, and the defendant ultimately benefited from the parties’ significant memory lapses.
4. The case provides practical lessons for corporate transaction lawyers regarding the importance of clear and reliable evidence in legal disputes. 1. Orphan signature pages can lead to confusion and potential fraud if not handled carefully. It is important to have written agreements and clear procedures in place when using orphan signature pages to ensure they are attached to the correct final agreements.
2. Cautious counsel may decide to always use the complete document for execution to avoid the potential for executing the wrong final agreement. Using redline programs can help ensure the correct agreement is being executed. – It is important to redline the executed agreement against the last draft to ensure that the signed agreement hasn’t been changed.
– Knowing the members of the working group and keeping track of the players in a transaction is crucial for effective communication and document distribution.
– Using a working group list with established distribution instructions can help avoid confusing exchanges and potential litigation in negotiations. 1. Ms. Kotler and Mr. Brahmst were revising the draft warrant agreement without informing each other.
2. Negotiations for the transaction documents were done mainly through email, stretching from February to September.
3. Face-to-face negotiations were not utilized, which may have led to unresolved issues in the transaction documents. 1. Robert Shipman instructed Mr. Brahmst to stop working on the warrant agreement in September 2007.
2. There is no indication in the court record if Mr. Brahmst communicated with his client about the status of the deal, such as whether binding agreements had been signed and the terms of any provisions.
3. End of deal communications between counsel and the client should be documented in writing (email) and preserved. 1. The company was originally incorporated in 1999 as “The Balm.com” but later changed its name to “Shipman Associates, Inc.”
2. The warrant purchase agreement drafts prepared in 2007 covered shares of common stock of Shipman Associates, Inc.
3. The company completed a complex holding company reorganization in 2014.
4. The projected valuation of the company was reported in The Wall Street Journal.
5. The parties in the litigation ultimately agreed to 502 shares, or approximately 5% of the company’s undiluted common stock.
6. The first draft of the warrant agreement in February 2007 omitted any no compete or no solicit provisions.
7. Despite the apparent impasse on the no compete and no solicit provisions, the court reported that both sides believed they had in September 2007 reached agreement and signed a binding warrant agreement.
8. All the documents exchanged at the time were limited to paper versions; no digital copies of these materials were provided to the parties in the exchanges.
9. A party signing an agreement without reading it, in the absence of fraud, is likely to find the agreement enforceable.
10. The court found it unnecessary to rule on the allegations that Ms. Kotler defrauded the Shipmans; nevertheless, Chancellor Slights’ dicta about this issue indicates such allegations most likely would have been unsuccessful.
Leave a Reply