Kahn v. Portnoy

2008 WL 5197164 (2008)

From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Kahn v. Portnoy

Delaware Court of Chancery
2008 WL 5197164 (2008)

Play video

Facts

Delaware limited-liability company (LLC) TravelCenters of America, LLC (TA) (defendant) operated truck stops nationwide. Hospitality Properties Trust (HPT) (defendant) leased properties to TA. Barry Portnoy (defendant) was a director of both TA and HPT. In 2007, HPT acquired Petro Stopping Holdings, which owned truck-stop real estate, and TA acquired Petro Stopping Centers, which operated those truck stops. HPT leased the acquired property to TA. Alan Kahn (plaintiff), a TA shareholder, filed a derivative suit against Portnoy, the other TA directors (defendants), and TA. Kahn alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duty to TA by approving the HPT-to-TA lease, because the lease required TA to pay allegedly above-market rents, which benefited Portnoy as an HPT director. TA’s LLC agreement stated that the company’s directors owed the same fiduciary duties as corporate directors under Delaware law, except as otherwise stated. The agreement included certain modifications to the default duty rules. One modification created a presumption that directors acted pursuant to their fiduciary duties even in interested transactions absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. In context, the provision could be understood two ways. The presumption could apply to all board decisions, even those in which a director had a conflict of interest. Alternatively, it could apply only to board decisions involving a shareholder conflict with the board or company. Adopting the first interpretation and also relying on an exculpatory provision insulating directors from personal liability when acting in good faith, TA and the directors moved to dismiss, arguing that Kahn had failed to state a viable claim.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Chandler, 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 788,000 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 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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 788,000 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
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 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