In re Trados Inc. Shareholder Litigation

Delaware Court of Chancery · 2013 · Corporations

73 A.3d 17 (2013)

Updated August 1, 2026

Corporationspreferred vs. commonentire fairnessDelaware fiduciary dutiespreferred stockcommon stockliquidation preferenceventure capital

Facts

Trados was venture-backed, and its board included representatives of VC firms that held preferred stock with a liquidation preference. In 2005 the board approved a merger with SDL for $60 million and a management incentive plan that took the first $7.8 million of merger proceeds, leaving nothing for the common stockholders; without the MIP, common would have received $2.1 million. The preferred stock's liquidation preference totaled $57.9 million, and the merger triggered that preference. The plaintiff argued that instead of selling, the board should have continued operating Trados to generate value for the common stock.

Issue

When a board dominated by directors conflicted in favor of preferred holders and management approves a sale that triggers preferred liquidation rights and leaves nothing for common, is the merger entirely fair? Relatedly, did Trados's common stock have any fair value in appraisal at the time of the merger?

Rule

Directors of a Delaware corporation must strive prudently, in good faith, and on an informed basis to maximize the value of the corporation for the benefit of its residual claimants, not its contractual claimants. Preferred stockholders' special rights are contractual, and when directors exercise discretionary judgment in a setting where preferred and common interests diverge, directors generally must prefer the interests of the common so long as they honor contractual promises to the preferred. If a disinterested and independent board majority did not approve the transaction, entire fairness applies, requiring defendants to prove both fair dealing and fair price; a merger is fair if the stockholders receive the substantial equivalent of what they had before, including where the common stock had no economic value before the merger.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Pine Harbor Analytics, a Delaware corporation based in Seattle, has a seven-member board. Three directors are partners of venture funds that hold preferred stock with liquidation preferences, two executives will receive large sale-closing bonuses payable only if a merger closes, one director is a retired engineer with no ties to management or the funds, and one director is the founder's college friend who also consults for one of the funds. The board approves a cash merger that pays the preferred substantially all of the proceeds and leaves the common with nothing.

If the common stockholders challenge the merger, which standard of review is most likely to apply?

Explanation. Entire fairness applies when the plaintiff proves there were not enough disinterested and independent directors among those approving the transaction to comprise a board majority. Here, the three preferred-fund designees faced divergent interests, the two executives received material personal benefits not shared with stockholders, and the consultant/friend likely lacks independence. That leaves, at most, one clean director, so the board majority was conflicted.