The Frederick Hsu Living Trust v. ODN Holding Corp.

2017 WL 1437308 (2017)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

The Frederick Hsu Living Trust v. ODN Holding Corp.

Delaware Court of Chancery
2017 WL 1437308 (2017)

  • Written by Robert Cane, JD

Facts

Frederick Hsu cofounded Oversee.net. In 2008, Oak Hill Capital Partners (Oak Hill) (defendant) invested $150 million in Oversee.net. ODN Holding Corporation (ODN) (defendant) was formed as a holding company for Oversee.net. Oak Hill received shares of preferred stock with a right to require ODN to redeem the stock in five years. The terms of the agreement required ODN to redeem shares only with funds that were legally available to the company. Until 2011, ODN had been in acquisition mode and growing rapidly. However, in 2011, ODN stopped investing for growth, started liquidating its assets, and began hoarding cash. ODN’s board of directors comprised three Oak Hill representatives and four other directors. In 2012, one of the non-Oak Hill directors, Debra Domeyer, Elizabeth Murray (ODN’s CFO), and Todd Greene (ODN’s general counsel), were provided bonus agreements that entitled them to a special payment if at least $75 million of preferred stock was redeemed. In anticipation of Oak Hill’s impending redemption right, ODN’s board formed a special committee to evaluate options for raising capital for redemptions and to negotiate the terms of redemptions. The committee comprised Domeyer, Murray, and Greene. In 2013, Oak Hill exercised its redemption right. ODN paid Oak Hill $45 million for a partial redemption. The cash did not cover all of Oak Hill’s preferred stock, so ODN sold off more of its assets to fund the next redemption. In 2014, Oak Hill again exercised its right to redemption; ODN redeemed another $40 million of preferred stock. ODN’s annual revenue dropped from $141 million before 2011 to $11 million in 2015. Hsu’s trust (plaintiff) brought an action against ODN and Oak Hill for breach of duty of loyalty. ODN and Oak Hill moved to dismiss the complaint before the Delaware Court of Chancery for failure to state a claim.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Laster, 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 812,000 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 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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 812,000 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
  • 46,300 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