• 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:
Insights Publication Magazine Corner
Main image for PECO Logistics, LLC v. Walnut Investment Partners, LP
Publications|Alert

PECO Logistics, LLC v. Walnut Investment Partners, LP

Delaware Law Update

2.25.2016

Drafting LLC Agreements for Undesirable Outcomes: Sophisticated investor holds a “put right” but has no basis to challenge valuation on the units that are being “put.”

A Delaware Court of Chancery opinion addresses a dispute arising from two sophisticated investors’ (“Walnut Investors”) challenge of the valuation methodology used in determining the fair market value of the Walnut Investors’ preferred units in PECO Logistics, LLC (“PECO Logistics”).

PECO Logistics is a Delaware LLC managed by a seven-person board. PECO Logistics’ sole asset was its equity interest in PECO Pallet Holdings, Inc., a provider of pallet rental services. PECO Pallet rents pallets to manufacturers who use the pallets to ship grocery products and consumer goods to retailers.

In March 2011, PECO Pallet was acquired. As part of the transaction, certain pre-acquisition stockholders of PECO Pallet, including the Walnut Investors, “rolled over” their existing shares into preferred units of PECO Logistics and became parties to the PECO Logistics, LLC Limited Liability Company Agreement dated as of March 14, 2011 (the “LLC Agreement”).

The LLC Agreement, which was governed by Delaware law, afforded the Walnut Investors a voluntary right to require PECO Logistics to purchase their preferred units (the “Put Units”) during a window of time commencing on the three-year anniversary of the LLC Agreement. Furthermore, the LLC Agreement provided that following written notice of the Put Right, PECO Logistics must engage a nationally recognized valuation firm to determine the fair market value of the Put Units, such determination to be binding on the holder of the Put Right.

The LLC Agreement did not contain any mechanism for judicial, arbitral or any other form of review of the valuation firm’s determination. Neither did it afford the Walnut Investors any right to participate in the selection of the valuation firm or in the valuation process itself after the valuation firm had been selected. (Assuming that both parties had similar bargaining leverage, it may have been helpful to include language that granted the Walnut Investors the right together with PECO Logistics to appoint by mutual agreement a valuation firm.)

The Court held that the parties to the LLC Agreement unambiguously agreed to be bound by the determination of value that the valuation firm made in response to the Walnut Investors’ exercise of the Put Right, and thus that the Court was not free to second-guess the (admittedly reasonable) judgment calls the valuation firm made in applying the valuation methodology in the LLC Agreement to reach its determination.

The court further stated that the Walnut Investors did not challenge the independence of the valuation firm, nor did they allege any facts demonstrating that PECO Logistics took any action to taint or undermine the valuation process so as to sustain a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The rationale for the court’s ruling is captured in a rhetorical question that then-Chancellor Strine posed: “When parties contractually decide to have a qualified expert with relevant credentials make a determination of value without any indication that the expert’s judgment is subject to judicial review, on what basis would it make sense to infer that the parties intended to have a law-trained judge do a de novo review of the expert’s determination?”1

This opinion demonstrates Delaware’s continuing commitment to enforcing unambiguous contracts as written, especially between sophisticated parties.

1 Senior Housing Capital, LLC v. SHP Senior Housing Fund, LLC,2013 WL 1955012, at *24 (Del. Ch. May 13, 2013).  

sidebar

pdfemail

Related Services

Corporate
Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Companies
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