Computer Sciences Corp. v. Pulier ( 2019 )

COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
ANDRE G. BOUCHARD LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER
CHANCELLOR 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734
Date Submitted: March 5, 2019
Date Decided: May 21, 2019
Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Esquire Martin S. Lessner, Esquire
Jacob R. Kirkham, Esquire Elisabeth S. Bradley, Esquire
Jay G. Stirling, Esquire Daniel M. Kirshenbaum, Esquire
Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
1313 North Market Street Rodney Square
Wilmington, DE 19899 1000 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19899
RE: Computer Sciences Corporation v. Eric Pulier, et al.
Civil Action No. 11011-CB
Dear Counsel:
This letter constitutes the court’s decision on the motion of Computer
Sciences Corporation (“CSC”) for partial summary judgment on Count IX of its
Verified Second Amended Complaint. For the reasons explained below, the motion
will be denied.
I. Background1
CSC is a publicly held Nevada corporation that provides information
technology and professional services. In 2013, CSC acquired ServiceMesh, Inc. for
1
The facts recited herein come from the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint
that are not in dispute as well as affidavits and documents submitted in connection with
CSC’s motion for partial summary judgment.
Computer Sciences Corp. v. Pulier, et al.
C.A. No. 11011-CB
May 21, 2019
over $260 million under the terms of an Equity Purchase Agreement, dated as of
October 29, 2013 (the “EPA”).2 The transaction closed on November 15, 2013.3
After receiving an initial cash payment, the former equityholders of
ServiceMesh received an earnout payment of approximately $98 million based on
revenue generated by ServiceMesh during a “measurement period” that ran from
January 1, 2013 through January 31, 2014.4 Relevant to the pending motion, the
equityholders agreed in Section 10.1 of the EPA to indemnify and hold CSC and
ServiceMesh harmless, severally and not jointly, for certain categories of losses.
On May 12, 2015, CSC filed this action against Eric Pulier, the founder and
former Chief Executive Officer of ServiceMesh, and Shareholder Representative
Services LLC (“SRS”), in its capacity as the exclusive agent and attorney-in-fact for
the former equityholders of ServiceMesh.5 As the court explained in deciding a
previous motion in this case, the gravamen of the Second Amended Complaint is
that Pulier, acting on behalf of ServiceMesh, entered into a secret “side agreement”
with executives at Commonwealth Bank of Australia Limited that allegedly involved
2
Second Am. Compl. ¶ 1 (Dkt. 53); Stirling Aff. Ex. 2.
3
Second Am. Compl. ¶ 33.
4
Id. ¶ 1; EPA § 3.1(e) (providing for an earnout payment) & Sched. 3.1(e) (defining the
“measurement period”) (Stirling Aff. Ex. 2).
5
Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5-6, 12.
2
Computer Sciences Corp. v. Pulier, et al.
C.A. No. 11011-CB
May 21, 2019
paying them bribes to enter into contracts with ServiceMesh in order to artificially
inflate ServiceMesh’s revenue during the measurement period and trigger the
earnout payment.6 According to CSC, no earnout payment would have been due but
for these actions.7
In August 2015, Pulier demanded that CSC and/or ServiceMesh advance the
fees and expenses he had incurred in defending this action.8 By letter dated
September 2015, CSC notified SRS of Pulier’s advancement demand and explained
that if CSC was required to provide advancement to Pulier, the former equityholders
may be required to indemnify CSC under several subsections of Section 10.1 of the
EPA.9
In February 2016, Pulier filed a separate action (C.A. No. 12005-CB) seeking
advancement from CSC and ServiceMesh for expenses he had incurred and would
incur in the future in defense of this action.10 On May 12, 2016, the court granted in
part and denied in part Pulier’s motion for summary judgment on his advancement
6
See Dkt. 82 at 7-8 (Apr. 29, 2016).
7
Id.
8
Stirling Aff. Ex. 3.
9
Stirling Aff. Ex. 4.
10
Pulier v. Computer Sciences Corp., C.A. No. 12005-CB, Verified Compl. for
Advancement (Dkt. 1).
3
Computer Sciences Corp. v. Pulier, et al.
C.A. No. 11011-CB
May 21, 2019
claims. In brief, the court found that Pulier was entitled to advancement from
ServiceMesh (but not CSC) arising from his position as an officer of ServiceMesh
before the closing for certain (but not all) of the claims in this action under (i)
ServiceMesh’s bylaws and (ii) an indemnification agreement Pulier had entered into
with ServiceMesh in November 2011.11
In February 2017, Pulier filed a second action (C.A. No. 2017-0081-CB)
seeking advancement from ServiceMesh, this time to cover “the expenses he has
incurred and continues to incur to defend against investigations instituted by the
United States and Australian Governments.”12 On August 7, 2017, the court granted
Pulier’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the criminal
investigations relate to “the same earnout bribery scheme that is the subject of CSC’s
allegations in the Underlying Action [C.A. No. 11011-CB], and that puts Pulier’s
conduct as an officer of ServiceMesh squarely at issue.”13
From July 20, 2017 until January 30, 2019, this action was stayed at the
request of the United States Government during the pendency of a federal criminal
11
Pulier v. Computer Sciences Corp., C.A. No. 12005-CB, at 20, 27-28 (Del. Ch. May 12,
2016) (TRANSCRIPT).
12
Pulier v. CSC Agility Platform, Inc., C.A. No. 2017-0081-AGB, Verified Compl. ¶ 1
(Dkt. 1).
13
Pulier v. CSC Agility Platform, Inc., C.A. No. 2017-0081-AGB, at 14, 25-26 (Del. Ch.
Aug. 7, 2017) (TRANSCRIPT).
4
Computer Sciences Corp. v. Pulier, et al.
C.A. No. 11011-CB
May 21, 2019
proceeding against Pulier, which ultimately was dropped. On February 7, 2019, after
the stay was lifted, CSC filed its motion for partial summary judgment on Count IX
of its Second Amended Complaint, seeking to recover a portion of the amount it had
advanced to Pulier on behalf of ServiceMesh under the advancement orders entered
in C.A. Nos. 12005-CB and 2017-0081-AGB. According to CSC, that amount
exceeds $18 million.14
II. Analysis
Under Court of Chancery Rule 56(c), summary judgment “shall be rendered
forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”15
“[T]he court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party.”16 “When interpreting a contract, the role of a court is to effectuate the parties’
intent. In doing so, [the court is] constrained by a combination of the parties’ words
and the plain meaning of those words where no special meaning is intended.”17
14
Deckelman Decl. ¶ 4 (Stirling Aff. Ex. 1).
15
Del. Ch. Ct. R. 56(c).
16
Merrill v. Crothall-Am., Inc., 606 A.2d 96, 99 (Del. 1992).
17
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Am. Legacy Found., 903 A.2d 728, 739 (Del. 2006).
5
Computer Sciences Corp. v. Pulier, et al.
C.A. No. 11011-CB
May 21, 2019
Additionally, as our Supreme Court has said, “indemnity provisions are to be
construed strictly rather than expansively” under Delaware law.18
Count IX of the Second Amended Complaint seeks a declaration determining
the validity and amount of CSC’s indemnification claims against SRS and certain
former equityholders of ServiceMesh.19 CSC seeks partial summary judgment on
Count IX, contending that it is entitled to indemnification as a matter of law for a
portion of the amounts it has advanced to Pulier to date on behalf of ServiceMesh
under Section 10.1(d)(ii) of the EPA.20 That provision states that the equityholders
of ServiceMesh:
shall, severally and not jointly, indemnify and hold [CSC and
ServiceMesh] harmless from and against any and all . . . losses . . .
arising out of or resulting from:
*****
(d) any claims . . . (ii) by any officer, director, employee or other
agent of [ServiceMesh] for indemnification or advancement of
expenses required under the Company’s Organizational Documents or
under any indemnification agreement or otherwise to the extent such
indemnification or advancement of expenses obligations relate to the
authorization and approval of this Agreement [the EPA] and the
18
Winshall v. Viacom Int’l, Inc., 76 A.3d 808, 824 n.42 (Del. 2013) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
19
Second Am. Compl. ¶ 211.
20
Pl.’s Opening Br. ¶ 31(a).
6
Computer Sciences Corp. v. Pulier, et al.
C.A. No. 11011-CB
May 21, 2019
transactions contemplated hereby by the [ServiceMesh] Board of
Directors.21
Focusing on the language italicized above, defendants (Pulier and SRS) argue that
CSC’s motion must be denied because the plain language of this provision does not
cover the advancement obligations at issue here. The court agrees.22
As I read Section 10.1(d)(ii), it imposes an indemnification obligation on the
former equityholders of ServiceMesh only for advancement obligations that “relate
to the authorization and approval” by the ServiceMesh Board of Directors of (i) the
EPA or (ii) “the transactions contemplated” by the EPA.23 In other words, to trigger
an indemnification obligation on the equityholders for the advancement expenses
that ServiceMesh has paid for litigation defense, the underlying claims must
challenge the ServiceMesh Board’s authorization and approval of the EPA or the
transactions contemplated by the EPA. An example would be a lawsuit for breach
21
EPA § 10.1(d)(ii) (emphasis added). The term “Organizational Documents” is defined
to include ServiceMesh’s bylaws. Id. § 1.1. Thus, those bylaws fall within the scope of
Section 10.1(d)(ii) along with the second source of Pulier’s right to advancement, i.e., his
November 2011 indemnification agreement with ServiceMesh.
22
Given the court’s conclusion that the plain language of Section 10.1(d)(ii) does not apply,
the court does not address Pulier’s other arguments.
23
EPA § 10.1(d)(ii).
7
Computer Sciences Corp. v. Pulier, et al.
C.A. No. 11011-CB
May 21, 2019
of fiduciary duty challenging the ServiceMesh Board’s approval of the EPA as being
the product of a flawed sale process under Revlon and its progeny.24
The fact that a transaction broadly relates to the EPA—such as by implicating
the earn-out provision therein—does not mean that it falls within Section 10.1(d)(ii).
Rather, the provision is meant to target advancement for lawsuits specifically
relating to the ServiceMesh Board’s authorization and approval of either the EPA or
transactions arising from the EPA.25
CSC argues that Section 10.1(d)(ii) should be read to encompass “not only
advancement claims dealing directly with the ServiceMesh Board’s authorization
and approval of the EPA and the transactions contemplated thereby, but also any
advancement claims that touch on or derive from that authorization and approval.”26
This construction is unreasonable in my opinion. The language from Section
24
See Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Hldgs., Inc., 506 A.2d 173, 185 (Del. 1986)
(affirming a preliminary injunction where the directors breached their fiduciary duties by
“allow[ing] considerations other than the maximization of shareholder profit to affect their
judgment” in the course of a sales process).
25
The parties disagree about the meaning of “relate to” and how broadly or narrowly it
should be read, with both sides marshalling cases to support their positions. The scope of
the term “relate to” does not control the result here. Even if “relate to” were given its
broadest meaning, Pulier and other former equityholders of ServiceMesh would not have
an indemnification obligation with respect to the claims for which Pulier has received
advancement because of the narrowing effect of the language “authorized and approved”
and “by the Board of Directors” that appears in Section 10.1(d)(ii).
26
Pl.’s Opening Br. ¶ 22.
8
Computer Sciences Corp. v. Pulier, et al.
C.A. No. 11011-CB
May 21, 2019
10.1(d)(ii) italicized above begins with the phrase “to the extent,” which serves as a
limitation on the circumstances under which the equityholders will be required to
indemnify ServiceMesh for advancement expenses it has paid. To repeat, to impose
such an obligation, the claim for which advancement is provided must “relate to” an
act of Board “authorization and approval.”
CSC’s interpretation focuses on whether there is a nexus between the claims
for which advancement was provided and the EPA or its related transactions rather
than whether there is a nexus between the Board’s approval of the EPA or its related
transactions and the claims for which advancement was provided. In other words,
CSC’s interpretation effectively reads out of Section 10.1(d)(ii) the phrases
“authorized and approved” and “by the Board of Directors,” contrary to the basic
principle that “a contract should be interpreted in such a way as to not render any of
its provisions illusory or meaningless.”27
Turning to the facts here, as discussed previously, the claims for which Pulier
has received advancement from CSC relate to the “side agreement” that Pulier
allegedly authorized (as an officer of ServiceMesh) in order to inflate revenues
during the measurement period and trigger the earnout as part of an illegal bribery
27
Sonitrol Hldg. Co. v. Marceau Investissements, 607 A.2d 1177, 1183 (Del. 1992); see
also Kuhn Constr., Inc. v. Diamond State Port Corp., 990 A.2d 393, 396-97 (Del. 2010)
(stating that the court must not “render any part of the contract mere surplusage”).
9
Computer Sciences Corp. v. Pulier, et al.
C.A. No. 11011-CB
May 21, 2019
scheme. CSC does not contend that the ServiceMesh Board ever authorized or
approved the side agreement or that the side agreement was one of the transactions
contemplated by the EPA. Nor could it. This is because the claims for which Pulier
obtained advancement from ServiceMesh all proceed from the premise that Pulier
engineered the side agreement to circumvent the earnout provision in the EPA
through an illegal scheme that the ServiceMesh Board never authorized.28
III. Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, the advancement of funds to Pulier at issue
here does not trigger an indemnification obligation under Section 10.1(d)(ii) of the
EPA. Accordingly, CSC’s motion for partial summary judgment on Count IX of its
Second Amended Complaint is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sincerely,
/s/ Andre G. Bouchard
Chancellor
AGB/gm
28
See Dkt. 82 at 19 (explaining that the alleged side agreement had “been undertaken to
circumvent certain provisions of the EPA and not for the purpose of performing obligations
arising under the EPA”).
10