Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Dieckman v. Regency General Partner LP

155 A.3d 358 (2017)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 26,900+ case briefs...

Dieckman v. Regency General Partner LP

Delaware Supreme Court

155 A.3d 358 (2017)

Play video

Facts

Regency Energy Partners LP (Regency) (defendant) was a publicly traded limited partnership. Regency General Partner LP (general partner) (defendant) was the general partner of Regency. The partnership agreement eliminated the general partner’s common-law fiduciary duty. The general partner proposed a merger of Regency with Energy Transfer Partners L.P. (ETP). Both Regency and ETP were indirectly controlled by Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. Given this conflict, certain provisions of Regency’s partnership agreement applied to the merger review. The agreement contained two safe-harbor provisions, which, if met, validated a conflicted transaction. First, a transaction was valid if approved by a majority of the members of an independent conflicts committee. Second, the transaction was valid if approved by a majority of unaffiliated Regency unit-holders. The general partner appointed Richard Brannon (defendant) to a two-person conflicts committee. Brannon was a member of the board of Sunoco LP (Sunoco), an ETP subsidiary, when he was appointed to the committee. Brannon resigned from the Sunoco board four days after his appointment, but rejoined the Sunoco board on the day the Regency-ETP merger closed. The partnership agreement also required the general partner to provide to unit-holders the merger agreement or a summary thereof prior to the vote. To satisfy this requirement, the general partner sent unaffiliated Regency unit-holders a proxy statement describing the merger. The proxy statement did not disclose Brannon’s conflicts. The conflicts committee and a majority of the unaffiliated Regency unitholders approved the merger. Adrien Dieckman (plaintiff), a Regency unit-holder, brought suit claiming that the merger breached the partnership agreement. The general partner moved to dismiss based on the safe-harbor provisions. The Delaware Court of Chancery granted the motion, finding that the approval by unaffiliated Regency unitholders validated the merger. The chancery court found that the safe harbor provisions displaced any implied requirement to disclose conflicts in the proxy statement. Dieckman appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Seitz, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 541,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 541,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 26,900 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 541,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 26,900 briefs - keyed to 983 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership