M&A/Private Equity

friedfrank.com

LLC Directors’ and Managers’ Obligations—Key

Principles, Practice Points and the Recent Delaware
Decisions

There are now more than twice as many entities formed in Delaware as LLCs and other alternative
entities as are formed as corporations. Private equity funds and hedge funds often are formed as LLCs or
limited partnerships to take advantage of the structural flexibility and tax treatment available. A key
advantage is the ability to modify or eliminate traditional corporate-type fiduciary duties and, specifically,
to facilitate conflicted transactions which arise due to the fund managers’ various roles in managing
multiple funds. Below we outline the key principles relating to the obligations of LLC directors under
Delaware law, offer related practice points, and briefly discuss the relevant recently issued Delaware
decisions. (Where we refer to LLCs, the same generally pertains to other alternative entities such as
limited partnerships; where we refer to LLC directors, the same generally pertains to LLC managers and
to general partners of limited partnerships.)

Key Principles

 Broad authority of LLC directors. LLC agreements typically expressly confer very broad
authority on LLC directors to operate the LLC in their discretion, including with respect to
transactions in which they and/or the controlling member who appointed them is self-
interested. The underlying judicial premise in these cases (often reiterated by the court in its
opinions) is that, when an investment is made in a non-corporate entity, the investor is
“consciously choosing” to give up the protection of fiduciary duties in exchange for specifically
negotiated contractual protections. Thus, the courts have been disinclined to “read in”
obligations that are not clearly stated in the agreement. (We note that, in an article published
in 2014, Chief Justice Strine and Vice Chancellor Laster questioned the validity of this
premise; argued that minority investors in alternative entities typically do not actually
negotiate terms; and advocated that the Delaware statute should be amended to make the
duty of loyalty non-waivable.)

 Difference from the corporate context. As is well known, in Delaware, in the corporate
context, the common law has established that directors owe fiduciary duties of due care and
loyalty to the corporation and its stockholders, and these duties cannot be disclaimed or
modified by agreement. Although LLC directors have fiduciary duties pursuant to statute,
given that the entities are themselves created by contract, the duties can—and typically are—
modified or entirely disclaimed by agreement. When an LLC agreement clearly disclaims all
statutory fiduciary duties of the directors, the directors’ duties are limited to (i) those expressly

Copyright © 2018 Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP

A Delaware Limited Liability Partnership
06/06/18
 Fried Frank M&A/Private Equity Briefing

set forth in the agreement and (ii) those that a court deems to arise under the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing (which adheres to every contract and, by statute,
cannot be waived or modified).

 Limited application of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Generally, the
implied covenant of good faith is deemed applicable by the Delaware courts only under quite
limited circumstances—thus, typically, LLC directors’ only obligations are those that are
expressly set forth in the LLC agreement. The implied covenant has been deemed applicable
only if there is (a) a “gap” in the agreement because the parties did not consider an
unanticipatable event that has arisen and (b) evidence as to what the parties would have
agreed had they considered the possibility of that event arising. (However, in a recent case
involving an alternative entity, the Court of Chancery expanded the applicability of the implied
covenant to a forseeable event when the parties failed to express the terms that would apply
only because they were “too obvious to need expression.”)

 Meaning of “good faith” in the context of the implied covenant. Importantly, “good faith”
in the context of the implied contractual covenant has been viewed by the court differently
than “good faith” as part of the corporate fiduciary duty of loyalty. In the context of the implied
contractual covenant, the concept has been limited to a requirement that a party not take
action to defeat the expectations clearly implied by the explicit terms of an agreement—and
has not encompassed the concept applicable in the corporate fiduciary context of acting as a
loyal fiduciary to advance the best interests of the stockholders. In recent cases, the court
has reiterated that, even if there is a gap in the agreement, the implied covenant “does not
establish a free-floating requirement that a party act in some morally commendable sense.”
Rather, “good faith” in this context “entails faithfulness to the scope, purpose, and terms of
the parties’ contract”; and “fair dealing” “does not imply equitable behavior…[; rather,] it
simply means actions consonant with the terms of the parties’ agreement and its purpose.”
Moreover, the court has written, the implied covenant does not impose “obligations from [the
court’s] own notions of justice or fairness,” but, instead, determines whether, from the
contract terms, it can be determined “what the parties themselves would have agreed to had
they considered the issue in their original bargaining positions at the time of contracting.” (We
note that, nonetheless, in the infrequent cases in which the court, in the context of an LLC
agreement in which fiduciary duties have been disclaimed, has found the implied covenant of
good faith to be applicable, the backdrop has been alleged facts that have indicated that the
challenged conduct constituted “arbitrary” or “deceitful or manipulative” conduct the purpose
of which was “to harm” the other investors or “to deprive them of the fruits of their bargain.”)

 Meaning of a general “good faith” standard expressed in an agreement. An LLC

agreement frequently includes a provision stating that the directors must “act in good faith.”
Critically, the meaning of “good faith” in this context will be whatever it is defined as being in
the agreement. For example, an agreement may define “good faith” for this purpose as the
directors acting in what they believe to be the best interests of the LLC (a “subjective good
faith” standard, which is satisfied so long as the directors actually had such belief; or it may
be defined as the directors acting in what they reasonably believe to be the best interests of
the LLC (an “objective good faith” standard, which is satisfied if the directors had a
reasonable basis for the belief). In many agreements, although there is a general good faith
standard, there are safe harbor procedures set forth which, if satisfied, provide a conclusive

2
 Fried Frank M&A/Private Equity Briefing

presumption of good faith under certain circumstances (for example, for approval of conflicted
transactions).

 Risk of ambiguity based on the interrelationship of provisions. LLC agreements often

include a disclaimer of fiduciary duties, a general standard of subjective good faith for the
directors, exculpation for directors other than for acts taken in bad faith, a conclusive
presumption of good faith for actions taken in reliance on experts (such as reliance on a
fairness opinion), and safe harbor provisions (providing a conclusive presumption of good
faith with respect to self-interested transactions if they have been approved by a conflicts
committee). When the court has found an LLC agreement to be unclear or ambiguous, it has
most often been as a result of a lack of clarity with respect to the interrelationship among
these various provisions relating to the directors’ obligations.

 Lack of awareness by minority investors. In our experience, notwithstanding disclosure to

minority investors at the time they invest, they often are surprised—for example, when the
board approves a transaction in which the directors (and/or the controller who appointed
them) are self-interested—that the directors not have fiduciary duties to the LLC or the
investors, that the general good faith standard of conduct does not require that the directors
act in the best interests of the investors expected, and that the directors have broad authority
to approve conflicted transactions.

 Importance of drafting. As the judicial focus in these cases is on the precise terms of the
entity’s governing agreement, the most critical factor in seeking to avoid future disputes and
litigation uncertainty is to ensure that the agreement includes “state-of-the-art” provisions that
reflect the parties’ intent. As reflected in the discussion of recent cases that follows, most of
the litigation in this area relates to LLC agreements that do not reflect modern forms of LLC
or limited partnership agreements. State-of-the-art provisions, which take into account the
most recent judicial contractual interpretations, will clearly: disclaim all fiduciary duties; define
any general “good faith” standard of conduct; not include language in the exculpation or
indemnification provisions that can suggest that some fiduciary duties may continue; and
provide safe harbor procedures for approval of conflicted transactions (with a well-defined
standard for evaluation of the transaction and specified requirements with respect to eligibility
for committee members). The specific drafting is critical and small wording differences can
lead to very different judicial results. Chief Justice Strine and Vice Chancellor Laster have
written that, while LLC agreements “coalesc[e] around particular features and concepts,” this
“superficial standardization” is “overwhelmed by diversity in implementation,” which “limits the
efficacy of precedent and creates fertile opportunities for future litigation.”

Practice Points

 More flexibility than in the corporate context. While Delaware law relating to corporate
fiduciary duties and exculpation for personal liability has been transformed over the past
several years, resulting in even less potential than previously for liability of corporate
directors, the LLC (or other alternative entity) format still offers even more flexibility for
directors when the governing agreement is properly drafted and followed.

 Minority investor awareness before investing. Persons considering a minority investment

in a non-corporate entity should read and understand the offering materials and the

3
 Fried Frank M&A/Private Equity Briefing

governing agreement before investing. Often, under the governing agreement, directors,
managers and general partners have no fiduciary duties to the other investors and have very
broad discretion, including with respect to conflicted transactions.

 Definition of the scope of the board’s discretion. The scope of the board’s discretion
(including “sole discretion”) should be defined as clearly as possible to avoid any ambiguity. A
grant of discretion to a board generally will be subject to exercise in good faith unless the
agreement clearly specifies a different standard. In Miller (discussed below), where “sole
discretion” was granted to the directors, a critical factor in the court’s finding that the implied
covenant was not applicable was that the agreement language, in the court’s view, indicated
that the parties had considered the potential for action by the controller that might favor the
controller’s interests and had specifically addressed it by limiting the board’s discretion with
respect to a sale to a controller, but not limiting the board’s discretion with respect to any sale
to an unaffiliated party. If “sole” discretion is granted, any limitations on that discretion should
be clearly stated; and a controller should seek to include a statement that the specified
limitations are the only ones intended by the parties.

 Limiting the role of the implied covenant of good faith. As noted, the implied covenant
adheres to every contract and cannot be waived or modified; however, as discussed, the
covenant is rarely invoked by the court to “read in” provisions that the parties did not
expressly set forth in the agreement. All reasonably anticipatable events should be
considered any intended protections for the minority investors should be expressly included.
While we have not seen this provision in any agreement, in an effort to further limit the
potential of the implied covenant being invoked, a provision could be included that states that
the agreement reflects all of the minority protections intended by the parties, that they parties
believe that there are no “gaps” in the agreement, and that, to the extent that any gap may
develop, the parties mutually intend that any gap be filled by the directors in their sole
discretion and notwithstanding any possible self-interest.

 Need to seek to eliminate ambiguity arising from the interrelationship of provisions.

Any ambiguity in the drafting of an alternative entity governing agreement can lead not only to
future disputes between the parties but also opens the door to possible invocation by the
court of the implied covenant of good faith. A frequent source of ambiguity is the
interrelationship among the various provisions relating to disclaimer of fiduciary duties, a
general good faith standard, exculpation and indemnification provisions, and provisions
governing conflicted transactions. State-of-the-art provisions—which clearly and
unambiguously reflect the parties’ intentions and which take into account the most recent
judicial pronouncements on these types of provisions—should be utilized. The duties of LLC
directors will be most clearly circumscribed where the LLC operating agreement expressly
disclaims all fiduciary duties; states that any good faith standard is limited to subjective good
faith or to good faith only as required under the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing; excludes from exculpation or indemnification only actions not taken in accordance
with the good faith standard set forth in the agreement; and provides clear safe harbors for
conflicted transactions, with conclusive presumptions of good faith for reliance on experts or
approval by a conflicts committee (with a subjective good faith standard for the committee’s
determination, and without any qualifications relating to the reliance on experts).

4
 Fried Frank M&A/Private Equity Briefing

 Wide latitude in crafting safe harbors, but compliance with the process is key. While an
LLC agreement can provide for very limited obligations of the directors in connection with
affiliated transactions, the process established in the agreement must be followed; and the
directors will be advantaged to the extent that, notwithstanding the elimination of fiduciary
duties by contract, the conflicts committee takes its job seriously and functions well. Conflict
committee members should:

 meet the independence requirements for membership set forth in the LLC agreement;

 know the standard set forth in the LLC agreement for the committee's approval of the
transaction;

 ensure that they have the information necessary to make a determination that meets the
standard for approval;

 be appropriately engaged in the process of considering the transaction;

 consider retaining independent financial and legal advisors (and, if advisors are retained,
consider retaining them before the financial terms of the transaction are "fully baked");
ask questions to ensure that the advice and analyses are understood; consider obtaining
a fairness opinion or legal opinion; and remain in control of the committee process;

 consider whether to negotiate the terms of the conflicted transaction with the parent
company (unless the determination is clear, some level of negotiation is often advisable
as a basis for forming a good faith judgment about the transaction); and

 make a determination that meets the standard for approval (tracking the language set
forth in the LLC agreement with respect to the standard of approval), and memorialize
their determination in the formal record of the committee's deliberations.

Notwithstanding the definition of independence set forth in the LLC agreement, the more
independent (and the more experienced) the members of the conflicts committee are, the
more protective the process may be from a legal point of view. If the agreement provides a
clear safe harbor process (based on conflicts committee approval or otherwise) and that
process is followed—and, as highlighted in Dieckman (discussed below), there is no
“deception” in obtaining the conflicts committee approval—then, based on compliance with
the safe harbor, any challenge to the transaction should be dismissed at the pleading stage
of litigation.

 Attention to specific phrases when drafting. Drafting of an alternative entity governing

agreement should take into consideration the most recent judicial pronouncements on these
types of agreements, including with respect to the interpretation of specific phrases. For
example, we note the following:

 “Unless the board otherwise determines”: When a specified procedure for making a
determination is subject to the caveat “unless the board otherwise determines,” that
phrase may be interpreted by the court as suggesting some implied fiduciary-type duty of
the board (as discussed below relating to Capone).

5
 Fried Frank M&A/Private Equity Briefing

 “Sole discretion”: There is a possibility of the court finding that the implied covenant of
good faith applies when a provision authorizes a board to use “sole discretion”—unless it
is clear that the parties considered and addressed the potential for self-interested action
inherent in an exercise of sole discretion (as discussed below relating to Miller).

 “Gross negligence” exclusion: The court possibly could interpret an exclusion from the
exculpation or indemnification provision for “gross negligence” as suggesting that the
parties may have intended corporate law fiduciary duty concepts to apply (given that
gross negligence is the traditional standard for pleading and proving a breach of the
fiduciary duty of care under business judgment rule review). Under this interpretation, an
LLC manager could be sued for a breach of the duty of care notwithstanding the waiver
of fiduciary duties (and, ironically, notwithstanding the fact that in the corporate context
the claim would not survive the pleading stage based on an exculpatory provision in the
charter). Accordingly, where fiduciary duties are disclaimed, concepts that could suggest
that they may persist should be avoided.

Recent Delaware Decisions

ETE (May 17, 2018)—The decision underscores that the protections of a safe harbor provision for
conflicted transactions may be lost if the board does not comply with the precise terms of the
provision. The Court of Chancery ruled that the conflicts committee safe harbor was not available as the
committee had initially been established with three members, two of whom were ineligible to serve under
the terms of the limited partnership agreement—and, although only the one eligible member actually
served, the committee had never been formally reconstituted. We note that the court may have been
influenced in this case by the overall negative factual context, including the inexperience and
ineffectiveness of the sole director who served on the committee. The court found that (i) absent the safe
harbor protection, the LPA terms required that conflicted transactions be “fair and reasonable” to the
partnership and (ii) the defendants had not established that the transaction (a private offering of securities
primarily to insiders) was fair. The court awarded only nominal damages, however, because the
unitholders were not actually harmed (as the value of their units had increased significantly after the
challenged transaction due to an improvement in conditions in the energy market).

MHS Capital v. Goggin (May 10, 2018)—The decision highlights the importance of careful drafting
of the LLC agreement given that ambiguity in the interrelationship of the provisions can provide a
basis for the court to reject dismissal of breach of contract claims. The Court of Chancery, at the
pleading stage, rejected dismissal of the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim against the LLC manager, who
allegedly had diverted LLC interests and funds to enrich himself and his friends. The LLC was entitled to
receive certain assets it had purchased in a bankruptcy sale but the LLC manager allegedly had (a)
directed the bankruptcy court to deliver some of the assets to other companies owned by the manager
and his friends and (b) used LLC funds to pay significant fees to an attorney who represented the
manager’s (and not the LLC’s) interests. The manager contended that the breach of contract claims
should be dismissed on the basis that the exculpatory clause of the LLC agreement provided that he
could not be liable for monetary damages. The court rejected the motion to dismiss, finding that it was
unclear under the agreement how the provision setting forth the general standard of care required of the
manager (“good faith and ordinary care”) was “meant to work with the exculpatory clause, which purports
to eliminate all damages.”

6
 Fried Frank M&A/Private Equity Briefing

Eames v. Quantlab (May 1, 2018)—The decision reflects the ambiguity that can arise with respect
to the interrelationship of various provisions within and among agreements relating to a general
partner’s duties—as well as the court’s general predilection for narrow interpretation of the rights
of minority investors in non-corporate entities. The Court of Chancery granted the defendants’ motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims that, under (i) the limited partnership agreement and (ii) the LLC
agreement governing the general partner, the limited partners had the right to remove and replace the
general partner. The LPA provided that admission of a new general partner required the consent of the
limited partnership units and the consent of the existing general partner. The LPA also provided that,
absent removal for cause, a general partner could not be removed unless there was at least one
remaining general partner. The LLC agreement governing the general partner (GP) provided that each of
GP’s managers (B and Eames) could act alone to transact business “for the benefit” of GP—but could
not, without the consent of the other, take any act that would make it impossible for GP to carry on its or
the limited partnership’s ordinary business or make a major change in the principal business of either.
The court held that Eames’ purported consent on behalf of GP to the appointment of a new general
partner was invalid, as the consent of both managers of GP was required because the removal was not
for GPs benefit and changed its business. The court reasoned that adding a general partner caused GP
to cease being the general partner, and to become instead just a general partner, of the limited
partnership. The court wrote: “While certain of the limited partners may now be displeased with their
inability to direct [the limited partnership]’s day-to-day business, this arrangement reflects a bargained-for
allocation of interests and influence.”

Capone v. LDH (Apr. 25, 2018)—The decision reflects that, notwithstanding the disclaimer of
fiduciary duties in the agreement, inclusion of certain types of phrases can be interpreted by the
court as suggesting an intention of the parties that the directors have duties beyond those
specified in the agreement. The Court of Chancery reasoned that, although the LLC agreement
provided that membership units to be purchased from terminated employees would be valued by the LLC
board as of a specified date, when new information (which became available after the specified date but
before the units were purchased) clearly indicated that the board’s valuation had significantly undervalued
the units, the board had an implicit duty to revise the valuation. The court, at the pleading stage, denied
the defendants’ motion to dismiss, emphasizing that the valuation provision included the caveat that the
valuation was to be produced as specified “unless otherwise determined by the board” (which, according
to the court, suggested that the board had discretion that perhaps should have been exercised).

Leaf Invenergy v. Invenergy Wind (Apr. 19, 2018)—The decision highlights the importance of
expressly memorializing the parties’ expectations in specific terms in the LLC agreement (in this
case, with respect to a liquidated damages remedy for a breach of the agreement). The LLC
agreement provided that the company could not engage in a sale of assets without the consent of certain
of its members unless those members would achieve at least a specified agreed rate of return (the “target
multiple”). The Court of Chancery found, at the pleading stage, that the agreement had been breached by
the LLC board when it sold assets without the consent of one of these members; and that the clear
expectation of the LLC and that member had been that, if such a breach occurred, the company would
pay the member an amount equal to the target multiple. However, after a trial to determine the proper
remedy for the breach, the court awarded the member only nominal damages of $1 because (i) the LLC
agreement itself did not contain a provision clearly stating what the damages would be and (ii) the
member did not suffer harm from the breach (because the asset sale that had been effected without its
consent was at an “attractive price” that increased the value of its LLC interest). The court wrote: “The
parties’ subjective beliefs about a remedy are not controlling unless they are implemented in a remedial

7
 Fried Frank M&A/Private Equity Briefing

provision in an agreement, such as a liquidated damages clause.” Here, “the parties did not memorialize
their subjective beliefs about the expected remedy in a contractual provision.”

Miller v. HCP (Feb. 1, 2018)—The decision highlights the contrast between LLC and corporate law,
with the court commenting that if the case had been decided in the corporate context, the
directors would have had a fiduciary duty under Revlon to seek to maximize the price of the
company on its sale (and the judicial standard of review for the challenged transaction would
have been entire fairness). The Court of Chancery rejected the plaintiff’s contention that the implied
covenant of good faith required that the controller-dominated board had to seek to maximize the price of
the company on its sale to an unaffiliated third party. Although the sale was to an unaffiliated third party,
the controller’s interests allegedly were not aligned with the other investors’ interests, as the LLC
operating agreement’s “waterfall” provisions allocated to the controller almost all of the proceeds up to
$30 million on a sale of the company and almost none of the proceeds above that (resulting in the
controller having no incentive to obtain a price above $30 million). The LLC agreement granted “sole
discretion” to the board with respect to a sale of the company so long as the sale was to an unaffiliated
third party. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that, under the implied covenant of good faith, the
manager had a duty to seek to maximize the price when the company was sold to the unaffiliated third
party. The court reasoned that there was no gap in the agreement as to the board’s discretion relating to
a sale to an unaffiliated third party—to the contrary, sole discretion was expressly granted under the
agreement for sales other than to insiders. Moreover, the court stated, even if there had been a gap, it
was anticipatable that the board might not conduct an auction in connection with a sale to an unaffiliated
third party given that, based on the waterfall provisions in the LLC agreement itself, it was clear that the
controller had no incentive to obtain a sale price above $30 million.

Morris v. Spectra Energy (June 27, 2017)—The decision reflects the potential that the court may
find a breach of the implied covenant in the context of a conflicted transaction that is, on its face,
“patently unfair and unreasonable.” The Court of Chancery found it likely, at the pleading stage, that
the general partner of a master limited partnership had breached its express contractual obligation to act
in good faith in connection with a sale, by the MLP to the indirect parent of its general partner, of an asset
that the purchaser already had publicly committed to contribute to a joint venture at a much higher
valuation than it was paying the MLP for the asset. The difference between the two prices was about half
a billion dollars. Although the transaction had, we note, apparently been approved as specified under the
MLP agreement, the court found that the large facial disparity between the alleged value of the asset sold
and the price paid for it gave rise to a reasonable inference that the general partner had approved the
transaction in bad faith. The MLP agreement required that the general partner (GP) make determinations
“in good faith,” which was defined as a subjective belief by GP that the action taken was in the best
interests of the MLP. The agreement provided a rebuttable presumption of good faith by GP with respect
to any conflicted action that was approved by a conflicts committee and provided a conclusive
presumption of good faith by GP with respect to any action taken in reliance on an expert opinion. The
court identified the threshold issue as whether the rebuttable presumption applicable to conflicted
transactions or the conclusive presumption relating to reliance on expert opinions governed with respect
to the transaction. The court acknowledged the general contract interpretation principle that more specific
provisions (such as a provision relating to conflicted transactions) override more general provisions (such
as an “overarching” good faith standard), and acknowledged Delaware Supreme Court precedent holding
that a general conclusive presumption of good faith arising from reliance on advisors trumps a specific
conflict provision’s rebuttable presumption of good faith. The court emphasized, however, that the judicial
precedents do not represent “totemic statements,” as the court’s interpretation of an agreement in any

8
 Fried Frank M&A/Private Equity Briefing

case will depend on the “precise language” of the specific agreement and a reading of the agreement as
a whole. In this case, the court ruled, the rebuttable presumption applicable to conflicted transactions
applied. The court stated that, given the “broad contractual freedoms” afforded to alternative entities and
the limited bargaining power of unitholders, ambiguities in the agreement should be resolved in favor of
the unitholder. Perhaps most tellingly, the court wrote: “[W]hen sophisticated entities intend to provide a
conclusive presumption in a conflicts situation, they know how to draft such a provision.” Thus, the court
found a pleading stage inference of a breach of GP’s contractual obligation of good faith. (The court also
ruled that the implied covenant of good faith was not applicable as there was no gap to be filled in the
agreement because GP’s conduct was to be evaluated under the good faith standard set forth in the
agreement.)

Brinckerhoff v. Enbridge Energy (Mar. 20, 2017)—The case involved interpretation of a non-state-
of-the-art limited partnership agreement (which did not provide safe harbors for affiliated
transactions). The Delaware Supreme Court, overturning the Court of Chancery decision below,
interpreted the limited partnership agreement as imposing a “fair and reasonable” standard for self-
interested transactions, and thus ruled that the Court of Chancery’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims at
the pleading stage was improper. The master limited partnership had re-purchased from its general
partner an asset that it had recently sold to the general partner at a significantly lower price—despite
strong evidence that the value of the asset had actually significantly declined since the time of the sale to
the general partner. The Court of Chancery, in the decision below, held that the LPA’s general good faith
standard modified and overrode the separate, more specific provisions such as the “fair and reasonable”
standard for affiliated transactions). The court interpreted the general good faith standard as requiring a
subjective belief by the general partner that an action was in the best interests of the MLP—and as
therefore requiring, for the plaintiff to prevail, that the board’s actions were taken in bad faith and
amounted to the equivalent of “waste.” The Supreme Court overruled the decision below and held that the
general good faith standard operated in the spaces between the LPA’s specific provisions—that is, was
applicable only to the extent that there was not a more specific applicable provision. Therefore, the
Supreme Court ruled, the affiliated repurchase transaction was governed by the provision that imposed
the specific obligation that affiliated transactions be objectively fair and reasonable. Moreover, the
Supreme Court interpreted the general good faith standard differently—finding that it was more consistent
with the overall terms of this particular agreement that it meant a reasonable belief that the action taken
was in, or not inconsistent with, with best interests of the MLP (rather than the lower standard for good
faith used by the Court of Chancery, which would have required that the action was so beyond the
bounds of reason as to be inexplicable other than by bad faith and, so, was similar to “waste”). The
Supreme Court also held that the board’s reliance on a fairness opinion did not result in a conclusive
presumption of good faith under the LPA, as the LPA provided that “reasonable reliance” was required—
and, given the alleged errors of the banker, whether the reliance in this case had been reasonable
presented a question of fact requiring discovery.

Importance of the factual context. While, as discussed, the court extends a high degree of deference to
LLC and partnership agreement provisions, importantly, the facts and circumstances can very much
affect the court’s result. For example, in El Paso (2015), in the context of extremely negative facts relating
to the conflict committee’s process, the court concluded that the committee did not satisfy the safe harbor
requirement of a subjective belief that the transaction at issue was in the best interests of the MLP. The
transaction involved a purchase of assets by the MLP from its general partner’s parent—at a price
significantly higher than the MLP had paid for the same type of assets from the general partner’s parent
only months earlier and notwithstanding a significant decline in the market for this type of asset.

9
 Fried Frank M&A/Private Equity Briefing

Emphasizing the incomplete, inaccurate, and “manipulative” nature of the information provided to the
committee by its financial advisor, as well as the committee’s ignoring the fact that information it had
relating to the MLP’s other recent dropdown transactions, and the committee members apparently not
even understanding the terms of the transaction, the court’s view appeared to be that the committee did
not have a base of information upon which it was even possible to form a subjective belief as to whether
the transaction was in the MLP’s best interests. It is to be noted that, in addition, there were
contemporaneous emails among the committee members that indicated that they actually believed that
the transaction would not be in the best interests of the partnership.

Dieckman (2016) provides another example. The Delaware Supreme Court ruled that, although the
conflicts committee members technically had met the independence requirements of the safe harbor
provision, the committee’s approval of the transaction at issue was not effective because of “deceptive,”
“manipulative” and “misleading” conduct by the general partner. As one example, to satisfy the
independence requirement for committee members that they not be directors of any affiliates of the
general partner, the general partner had one MLP director selected to serve on the committee resign his
directorship with one of the general partner’s affiliates just before the committee was formed and to rejoin
just after the committee process ended. The court also held that the safe harbor based on approval by the
unaffiliated unitholders had not been satisfied because the disclosure that an “independent” conflicts
committee had approved the transaction did not reveal the members’ conflicts of interest. The court
rejected the lower court’s determination that the express obligation of the general partner to act “in good
faith” did not impose any disclosure obligation beyond the minimal disclosure requirement specifically set
forth in the agreement. The court stated that, once the general partner went beyond the minimal
disclosure requirements set forth in the partnership agreement and instead issued a comprehensive
proxy statement, it had an obligation under the implied covenant of good faith not to mislead the
unitholders to “induce” them to approve the transaction. The court focused on the safe harbor process in
its entirety and found that the language implicitly required the general partner to act in a manner that
would not undermine the (minimal) protections afforded to the unitholders in connection with the safe
harbor process. Finally, in one 2018 decision, the Court of Chancery found that the implied covenant of
good faith was applicable where, in the court’s view, the controller of an LLC was responsible for the gap
in an agreement and held that it therefore would be inequitable for the controller to benefit from the gap.

* * *

Authors:

Andrew J. Colosimo Randi Lally David L. Shaw

Warren S. de Wied Mark H. Lucas Peter L. Simmons
Steven Epstein Scott B. Luftglass Matthew V. Soran
Christopher Ewan Brian T. Mangino Steven J. Steinman
Arthur Fleischer, Jr. Brian Miner Gail Weinstein
Andrea Gede-Lange Philip Richter Maxwell Yim
David J. Greenwald Robert C. Schwenkel

10
 Fried Frank M&A/Private Equity Briefing

This Briefing is not intended to provide legal advice, and no legal or business decision should be based
on its contents. If you have any questions about the contents of this Briefing, please call your regular
Fried Frank contact or an attorney listed below:

Contacts:

New York

Andrew J. Colosimo +1.212.859.8868 [email protected]

Warren S. de Wied +1.212.859.8296 [email protected]

Steven Epstein +1.212.859.8964 [email protected]

Christopher Ewan +1.212.859.8875 [email protected]

Arthur Fleischer, Jr.* +1.212.859.8120 [email protected]

Andrea Gede-Lange +1.212.859.8862 [email protected]

David J. Greenwald +1.212.859.8209 [email protected]

Randi Lally +1.212.859.8570 [email protected]

Mark H. Lucas +1.212.859.8268 [email protected]

Scott B. Luftglass +1.212.859.8968 [email protected]

Philip Richter +1.212.859.8763 [email protected]

Steven G. Scheinfeld +1.212.859.8475 [email protected]

Robert C. Schwenkel +1.212.859.8167 [email protected]

David L. Shaw +1.212.859.8803 [email protected]

Peter L. Simmons +1.212.859.8455 [email protected]

Matthew V. Soran +1.212.859.8462 [email protected]

Steven J. Steinman +1.212.859.8092 [email protected]

Gail Weinstein* +1.212.859.8031 [email protected]

Maxwell Yim +1.212.859.8214 [email protected]

Washington, D.C.

Brian T. Mangino +1.202.639.7258 [email protected]

Brian Miner +1.202.639.7340 [email protected]

*Senior Counsel

New York Washington, DC London Frankfurt friedfrank.com

11