In re P3 Health Group Holdings, LLC ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •        IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    IN RE P3 HEALTH GROUP                       )      Consol. C.A. No. 2021-0518-JTL
    HOLDINGS, LLC                               )
    ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE OFFICER
    DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS IX AND X
    1.     Hudson Vegas Investment SPV, LLC (“Hudson”) was a minority investor in
    P3 Health Group Holdings, LLC (the “Company”). In this litigation, Hudson has asserted
    various claims based on a transaction between the Company and a special purpose
    acquisition company, commonly known as a SPAC.
    2.     The defendants filed a surfeit of motions to dismiss on various grounds,
    including Rule 12(b)(6). The court has issued a decision addressing the breach of contract
    claims that Hudson asserted. Dkt. 172 (the “Contract Opinion,” cited as “Op.”). This order
    incorporates that decision by reference.
    3.     In Counts IX and X of its complaint, Hudson has asserted a claim for breach
    of fiduciary duty against Kazarian, Abdou, Bacchus, Glisson, and Puathasnanon, in their
    capacity as officers (the “Officer Defendants”), based on their conduct in connection with
    the de-SPAC merger. Counts IX and X do not address Kazarian’s acceptance of the
    opportunity to invest in Foresight II, which is the subject of Count VII. See Dkt. 175.
    4.     The LLC Agreement expressly preserves the fiduciary duties of the
    Company’s officers. Ex. 1 § 5.6(d). The operative language states: “The Officers, in the
    performance of their duties as such, shall owe to the Company and the Members duties of
    the type owed by the officers of a corporation to such corporation and its stockholders
    under the laws of the State of Delaware.” Id.
    5.     It is reasonably conceivable that the Officer Defendants breached their duty
    of loyalty and acted in bad faith by withholding information from Hudson, providing
    different sets of information to different members of the Board, and excluding the Hudson
    Managers from the governance process.
    a.      The Delaware Supreme Court has held that corporate officers owe the
    same fiduciary duties as corporate directors. See Gantler v. Stephens, 
    965 A.2d 695
    , 708–
    09 (Del. 2009). Directors of a Delaware corporation owe two fiduciary duties—loyalty and
    care. Stone ex rel. AmSouth Bancorporation v. Ritter, 
    911 A.2d 362
    , 370 (Del. 2006). At a
    minimum, officers owe those duties. Gantler, 
    965 A.2d at
    708–09.
    b.      The duty of loyalty includes a requirement to act in good faith, which
    is “a subsidiary element, i.e., a condition, of the fundamental duty of loyalty.” Stone, 
    911 A.2d at 370
     (cleaned up). “A failure to act in good faith may be shown, for instance, where
    the fiduciary intentionally acts with a purpose other than that of advancing the best interests
    of the corporation.” In re Walt Disney Co. Deriv. Litig. (Disney II), 
    906 A.2d 27
    , 67 (Del.
    2006) (cleaned up).
    c.      Like directors, officers must “place the interests of the corporation and
    shareholders that they serve before their own.” TVI Corp. v. Gallagher, 
    2013 WL 5809271
    ,
    at *25 (Del. Ch. Oct. 28, 2013). And like directors, officers have a duty to act “loyally by
    trying to do their job for proper corporate purposes in good faith,” rather than disloyally by
    in bad faith putting other interests, such as the self-interest of a superior, ahead of the
    -2-
    corporation’s best interest. Hampshire Gp., Ltd. v. Kuttner, 
    2010 WL 2739995
    , at *12 (Del.
    Ch. July 12, 2010).
    d.      An officer’s duty of loyalty, however, has additional dimensions
    beyond the directors’ duty of loyalty because officers act as agents for the entity. See
    Lebanon Cnty. Empls.’ Ret. Fund v. AmerisourceBergen Corp., 
    2020 WL 132752
    , at *21
    (Del. Ch. Jan. 13, 2020) (“Officers also are fiduciaries in their capacities as agents who
    report to the board of directors.”), aff’d, 
    243 A.3d 417
     (Del. 2020). “Under a particularly
    well-developed body of fiduciary law, agents owe additional and more concrete duties to
    their principal.” Metro Storage Int’l LLC v. Harron, 
    275 A.3d 810
    , 843–44 (Del. Ch. 2022).
    e.      “An agent owes the principal a duty to provide information to the
    principal that the agent knows or has reason to know the principal would wish to have.”
    Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 (Am. L. Inst. 2006), Westlaw, (database updated
    Oct. 2022). “That duty exists because a principal’s decisions may also be affected by
    information about an agent and the agent’s conduct once the agent has been retained by the
    principal.” Metro Storage, 275 A.3d at 851 (cleaned up). Officers, as agents, “owe a duty
    to disclose relevant information if they have notice of facts which they should know may
    affect the decisions of their principals as to their conduct.” Triton Constr. Co., Inc. v. E.
    Shore Elec. Servs., Inc., 
    2009 WL 1387115
    , at *14 (Del. Ch. May 18, 2009), aff’d, 
    2010 WL 376924
     (Del. Jan. 14, 2010) (ORDER). An officer of a Delaware entity has “the
    responsibility to disclose to their superior officer or principal material information relevant
    to the affairs of the agency entrusted to them.” Hampshire Gp., 
    2010 WL 2739995
    , at *13
    (internal quotations omitted).
    -3-
    6.     Hudson alleges that the Officer Defendants engaged in a knowing,
    affirmative, and systematic campaign to sideline the Hudson Managers, exclude them from
    communications, deprive them of information, and prevent them from participating in the
    governance of the Company. As detailed in the Contract Opinion, the level of exclusion
    was extreme and supports an inference of intentional breach. Op. at 70. Hudson has stated
    a claim against the Officer Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty based on the exclusion
    of the Hudson Managers.
    7.     Hudson also alleges that the Officer Defendants breached their fiduciary duty
    by “failing to engage in an adequate auction or sales process.” AC ¶ 158. That
    responsibility rested with the Board. It is possible to imagine situations in which officers
    might have an obligation to undertake an adequate auction or sales process and fail to fulfill
    it, but Hudson has not articulated a cognizable factual account that could support a claim
    on which relief can be granted.
    8.     Hudson similarly alleges that the Officer Defendants breached their fiduciary
    duty by “taking on expensive debt for P3 rather than permitting Hudson to fund a capital
    raise.” 
    Id.
     And Hudson alleges that the Officer Defendants breached their fiduciary duty
    by “using P3’s resources to advance their own interests to the detriment of P3 and other
    members of the Board.” 
    Id.
     Both of those allegations sound bad, but I do not know what
    Hudson is talking about. Once again, Hudson has not articulated a cognizable factual
    account that could support claims on which relief can be granted.
    -4-
    9.    Counts IX and X state claims on which relief can be granted, but only to the
    extent acknowledged in this order. The motion to dismiss those counts is GRANTED IN
    PART and DENIED IN PART in accordance with the rulings herein.
    /s/ J. Travis Laster
    Vice Chancellor Laster
    November 7, 2022
    -5-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: C.A. No. 2021-0518-JTL

Judges: Laster V.C.

Filed Date: 11/7/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/9/2022