• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

McCarter & English Logo

  • People
  • Services
  • Insights
  • Our Firm
    • Leadership Team
    • Social Justice
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Client Service Values
    • Alumni
  • Join Us
    • Lawyers
    • Summer Associates
    • Patent Professionals
    • Professional Staff
    • Job Openings
  • Locations
    • Boston
    • Philadelphia
    • East Brunswick
    • Indianapolis
    • Stamford
    • Hartford
    • Trenton
    • Miami
    • Washington, DC
    • New York
    • Wilmington
    • Newark
  • Share

Share

Browse Alphabetically:

  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • K
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • Q
  • R
  • S
  • T
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • All
Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation
Blockchain, Smart Contracts & Digital Currencies
Business Litigation
Cannabis
Coronavirus Resource Center
Corporate
Crisis Management
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Design, Fashion & Luxury
E-Discovery & Records Management
Energy & Utilities
Environment & Energy
Financial Institutions
Food & Beverage
Government Affairs
Government Contracts & Global Trade
Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
Healthcare
Hospitality
Immigration
Impact Investing
Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Life Sciences
Manufacturing
Products Liability, Mass Torts & Consumer Class Actions
Public Finance
Real Estate
Renewable Energy
Sports & Entertainment
Tax & Employee Benefits
Technology Transactions
Transportation, Logistics & Supply Chain Management
Trusts, Estates & Private Clients
Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Companies
  • Broadcasts
  • Events
  • News
  • Publications
  • View All Insights
Search By:
DE Corporate Law
Main image for Court of Chancery Holds Investor Is Not One of the “Fellers”
Publications|Article

Court of Chancery Holds Investor Is Not One of the “Fellers”

Delaware Law Update

9.14.2020

In a recent opinion by the Delaware Court of Chancery, the court found after a trial on the merits that the plaintiff’s breach of contract claims failed because a joinder agreement adding the plaintiff as a party to a purchase agreement was not executed by all parties necessary to amend that purchase agreement. Therefore, the joinder agreement was facially invalid and unenforceable. Braga Inv. & Advisory, LLC v. Yenni Income Opportunities Fund I, L.P., C.A. No. 2017-0393-AGB, 2020 WL 3042236 (Del. Ch. June 8, 2020). The bottom line takeaway from the court’s decision in Braga Inv. is that parties, and their counsel, need to take care to ensure that where there is a separate agreement amending a purchase agreement or other contract, all necessary parties required to amend the original contract are signatories to the other contract. This may seem elementary, but parties have to pay close attention to details or proceed at their own peril.

The action arose out of an investment that the plaintiff, Braga Investment & Advisory, LLC (“Braga”), made to acquire 23.3% of the membership interests of Steven Feller, P.E., LLC (“New Feller”) as part of an underlying transaction where New Feller acquired the business of Steven Feller P.E., PL (“Old Feller”). Yenni Income Opportunities Fund I, L.P. (“the Fund”), was the private equity investment firm that put the transaction together and became the managing investor of New Feller. As in many deals, there were several contracts at play in this matter, and Braga’s failure to properly navigate all the moving parts led to its downfall here.

First, the Fund (as the buyer) executed a purchase agreement with Old Feller and Old Feller’s principals (the “Sellers”) to facilitate New Feller’s acquisition of Old Feller. Plaintiff Braga was not a party to and never signed the purchase agreement. Second, Braga and the Fund entered into a separate, later, co-investment agreement related to the acquisition that brought Braga into the deal to acquire membership interests in New Feller and gave Braga a position as a board observer. This co-investment agreement also referenced athirdjoinder agreement under which Braga would be deemed a “Buyer” under the purchase agreement between Old Feller and the Sellers. Also pursuant to this joinder agreement, Braga would be entitled to the rights and obligations of the purchase agreement. Braga signed the joinder agreement, which was then countersigned on behalf of New Feller around the time of closing. However, shortly before  closing, the Fund, Old Feller, and the Sellers entered into a fourthside-letter agreement amending the purchase agreement to exclude the transfer of certain Old Feller assets to New Feller.

Braga brought suit for breach of contract in the Court of Chancery, alleging that the Fund breached the purchase agreement by agreeing to amend its terms shortly before the closing to exclude certain assets from being transferred to New Feller without Braga’s consent. Braga argued, inter alia, that an amendment to the purchase agreement required “an agreement in writing signed by the Buyer [the Fund], the Company [Old Feller], and the Sellers,” and that it was a Buyer as a result of the joinder agreement. Braga also claimed the Fund breached the co-investment agreement by depriving Braga of its right as a board observer to receive “board packages.”  After trial, the court found in favor of the Fund on all claims. The court held that the Fund was not required to obtain Braga’s signature when it entered into the side-letter agreement, which amended the purchase agreement, because the joinder agreement that supposedly added Braga as a Buyer was not executed by any of the parties necessary to amend the purchase agreement (i.e., it was not executed by or ratified by the Fund, Old Feller, or the Sellers). Thus, Braga was not a Buyer under the purchase agreement, and its signature was not necessary to amend it. The court also found that Braga failed to show it suffered any damages. In addition, the court held the Fund did not breach the co-investment agreement by denying Braga access to certain materials in connection with its position as a board observer because the term board packages as used in the co-investment agreement entitled Braga to less information than Braga claimed, and Braga did receive the information it was entitled to, including materials distributed to New Feller’s board members that enabled the board members to perform their duties in an informed manner.

sidebar

pdfemail

Related People

Media item: Alexandra M. Joyce
Alexandra M. Joyce

Associate

Related Services

Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Corporate
Subscribe to our Insights
McCarter & English, LLP
Copyright © 2023 McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
  • Login
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Privacy
  • Awards Methodology
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Sitemap

The McCarter & English, LLP website is for informational purposes only. We do not provide legal advice on this website. We can provide legal advice only to our clients in specific inquiries that they address to us. If you are interested in becoming a client, please contact us, but do not send any information about your specific legal question. We cannot serve as your lawyers until we establish an attorney-client relationship, which can occur only after we follow procedures within our firm and after we agree to the terms of the representation.

Accept Cancel