SV Investment Partners v. ThoughtWorks, Inc.
Delaware Supreme Court
37 A. 3d 205 (2011)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
ThoughtWorks, Inc. (defendant), a tech company, issued preferred stock in exchange for investment funds. SV Investment Partners, LLC, and an affiliated group (collectively, SVIP) (plaintiff) acquired nearly 3 million shares of the preferred stock in exchange for $26.6 million. ThoughtWorks amended its certificate of incorporation to give the preferred shareholders a right of redemption, effective after five years. The amended certificate provided that the redemption would be made using funds legally available to ThoughtWorks, which excluded funds necessary to meet the requirements of operation. Five years later, ThoughtWorks was unable to afford redemption of the preferred stock in its entirety. However, SVIP repeatedly demanded full redemption. ThoughtWorks was able to make only partial redemptions of the preferred shares—including 214,484 of SVIP’s shares—over the next few years. SVIP brought an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery for a declaratory judgment of the meaning of “funds legally available,” which SVIP asserted meant “surplus.” SVIP relied on the Delaware code, which prohibited corporations from redeeming stock if capital was impaired and defined impairment as redemption costs exceeding a surplus. SVIP also presented an expert who used various methodologies to assess the value of ThoughtWorks’ equity but did not take into account ThoughtWorks’ costs of operation. The court ruled in favor of ThoughtWorks, holding that SVIP had failed to carry its burden. SVIP appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ridgely, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.