IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN RE P3 HEALTH GROUP ) Consol. C.A. No. 2021-0518-JTL
HOLDINGS, LLC )
ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART THE MANAGER
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT V
1. Hudson Vegas Investment SPV, LLC (“Hudson”) was a minority investor
in P3 Health Group Holdings, LLC (the “Company”). In this litigation, Hudson has
asserted various claims based on a transaction between the Company and a special
purpose acquisition company, commonly known as a SPAC.
2. The defendants filed a surfeit of motions to dismiss on various grounds,
including Rule 12(b)(6). The court has issued a decision addressing the breach of contract
claims that Hudson asserted. Dkt. 172 (the “Contract Opinion,” cited as “Op.”). This
order incorporates that decision by reference.
3. In Count V of its complaint, Hudson has asserted a claim for bad faith
breach of contract against the “Manager Defendants,” defined in the complaint as Abdou,
Bacchus, Kazarian, Tolan, Garrett, Glisson, Leavitt, Leisure, and Price.
4. In Count V, Hudson asserts that the Manager Defendants committed a bad
faith breach of contract by failing to act in good faith to facilitate Hudson’s exercise of
the Preemptive Option. The Contract Opinion held that Hudson did not state a claim for
breach of the Preemptive Option. This claim for bad faith breach fails for lack of an
underlying breach.
5. In Count V, Hudson asserts that the Manager Defendants committed a bad
faith breach of contract by failing to act in good faith when making determinations
regarding “Company Total Equity Value,” “Fair Market Value,” and “Pro Rata Share.”
Hudson has not articulated why determinations of Company Total Equity Value or Pro
Rata Share were required. The claim for bad faith breach based on those issues fails to
state a claim on which relief can be granted.
6. Hudson alleges that the Board failed to make a good faith determination of
the Fair Market Value of the common stock of Foresight for purposes of distributing the
merger consideration in accordance with the Distribution Waterfall, as required by
Sections 4.1(b) and (c) of the LLC Agreement. Hudson alleges that the Board used a
price of $10 per share at a time when the market price was $8.87 per share. Hudson
alleges a series of other facts regarding the terrible performance of Foresight which
supports a reasonable inference that managers acting in good faith would not have used a
valuation of $10 per share. It is reasonably conceivable that the Manager Defendants
committed a bad faith breach of Sections 4.1(b) and (c) of the LLC Agreement by failing
to make a good faith determination of Fair Market Value, as required by the LLC
Agreement.
7. Hudson alleges that the Manager Defendants acted in bad faith by selecting
the SPAC partner that Chicago Pacific favored without any real effort to explore or
evaluate other possibilities, and then proceeding with an unfair merger at an unfair price.
This argument sounds like a claim for breach of fiduciary duty in contractual guise. See
Lonergan v. EPE Hldgs., LLC, 5 A.3d 1008, 1018–19 (Del. Ch. 2010). The LLC
-2-
Agreement eliminates fiduciary duties for the members of the Board, leaving only
contractual obligations. This claim for bad faith breach is dismissed because Hudson has
not tied its allegations to a specific contractual obligation, whether express or implied.
8. Hudson alleges that the Manager Defendants engaged in a knowing,
affirmative, and systematic campaign to sideline the Hudson Managers, exclude them
from communications, deprive them of information, and prevent them from participating
in the governance of the Company. As detailed in the Contract Opinion, the level of
exclusion was extreme and supports an inference of intentional breach. Hudson has stated
a claim against the Manager Defendants for bad faith breach of contract based on the
exclusion of the Hudson Managers.
9. The Manager Defendants contend in response that dismissal is warranted
because the LLC Agreement exculpates them from liability for any acts other than fraud.
The pertinent provision provides:
Except for any liability arising out of or resulting from a Manager’s act of
fraud as determined by a final judgment, order or decree of an arbitrator or
a court of competent jurisdiction . . ., the personal liability of a Manager to
any other Manager, the Company, or to any Member for any loss suffered
by the Company or any monetary damages for breach of contract or breach
of any duty (including any fiduciary duties, any and all such fiduciary
duties having been eliminated pursuant to Section 5.6(b)) is hereby
eliminated to the fullest extent permitted by the Delaware Act and any other
applicable law. In furtherance of the foregoing and not in limitation thereof,
each Manager shall not be liable for errors in judgment and may consult
with and rely on counsel and accountants and any Member, Manager,
Officer, employee or committee of the Company or any of its subsidiaries
or other professional in respect of the affairs of the Company and shall in
no event have any personal liability in respect thereof.
Ex. 1 § 5.7 (the “Exculpation Provision”).
-3-
a. As used in the Exculpation Provision, the term “fraud” is
ambiguous. One possible interpretation is that it only means common law fraud—in the
sense of a claim involving (i) a false representation; (ii) the defendant’s knowledge or
belief that the representation was false, or was made with reckless indifference to the
truth; (iii) an intent to induce the plaintiff to act or to refrain from acting; (iv) the
plaintiff’s action or inaction taken in justifiable reliance upon the representation; and (v)
resulting damage to the plaintiff. Stephenson v. Capano Dev., Inc., 462 A.2d 1069, 1074
(Del. 1983). That would be an exceedingly narrow carveout that would match up poorly
with what managers do for an entity. Rather than providing a standard tailored to
decisions that managers make when directing and overseeing an entity’s business and
affairs, the carveout would use a standard applicable to third parties who make
affirmatively false statements (or, under some circumstances, who remain silent in the
face of a duty to speak).
b. Historically, “fraud” had a much broader meaning, and courts of
equity used that term to encompass a wide range of misconduct. See 1 Joseph Story,
Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence § 186, at 200 (Melville M. Bigelow ed., Beard
Books 2000) (“It is not easy to give a definition of Fraud in the extensive signification in
which that term is used by Courts of Equity . . . .”). As Professor Pomeroy explained,
It is utterly impossible to formulate any single statement which shall
accurately define the equitable conception of fraud, and which shall contain
all of the elements which enter into that conception; these elements are so
various, so different under the different circumstances of equitable
cognizance, so destitute of any common bond of unity, that they cannot be
brought within any common formula. To attempt such a definition would
therefore be not only useless, but actually misleading.
-4-
3 John Norton Pomeroy, A Treatise on Equity Jurisprudence § 873 at 420–21 (5th ed.
2002). Equitable fraud is broad enough to encompass “all willful or intentional acts,
omissions, and concealments which involve a breach in either legal or equitable duty,
trust, or confidence, and are injurious to another, or by which an undue or
unconscientious advantage over another is obtained.” Id. at 422. Equitable fraud is
necessarily flexible “to allow courts of equity to address fraud in all its forms . . . .”
Airborne Health, Inc. v. Squid Soap, LP, 984 A.2d 126, 144 (Del. Ch. 2009); see Story,
supra, § 190, at 202 (“Courts of Equity do not restrict themselves by the same rigid rules
as Courts of Law do in the investigation of fraud, and in the evidence and proofs required
to establish it.”).
c. When Delaware decisions traditionally deployed the term “fraud” in
the context of cases involving the internal affairs of entities, the term carried its broader
historic meaning. See, e.g., Kors v. Carey, 158 A.2d 136, 141 (Del. Ch. 1960); Equity
Corp. v. Groves, 53 A.2d 505, 507 (Del. Ch. 1947); Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v.
W. S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co., 21 A.2d 178, 184 (Del. Ch. 1941), aff’d, 24 A.2d 315 (Del.
1942).
d. If the word “fraud” appeared in an anti-reliance provision, then the
context would suggest that the parties meant common law fraud. In the Exculpatory
Provision, the context suggests an intent to use “fraud” in its traditional sense, because
that concept can encompass claims involving the types of acts that individuals take when
managing an entity. A middle ground might involve the concept of “fraud” for purposes
-5-
of the Exculpation Provision extending beyond common law fraud to include knowing
and intentional breaches of the LLC Agreement.
e. Given the lack of a definition for fraud and the availability of several
possible context-driven interpretations, the Exculpation Provision is ambiguous. The
Exculpatory Provision may well prove dispositive during a later phase of the case. It does
not provide a basis for a pleading-stage dismissal.
10. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Exculpation Provision truly
strives to exculpate the managers from liability in all situations except when they have
engaged in common law fraud, then the provision goes beyond what the Delaware
Limited Liability Company Act allows. Section 18-1101(e) does not permit an LLC
agreement to “limit or eliminate liability for any act or omission that constitutes a bad
faith violation of the implied contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” 6 Del.
C. § 18-1101(e). As discussed in the Contract Opinion, Hudson has stated a viable claim
for breach of the implied covenant based on the exclusion of the Hudson Managers from
the process of planning, developing, and negotiating the merger. Op. at 74. The facts
supporting that claim are sufficiently extreme to support an inference that the Manager
Defendants breached the implied covenant in bad faith. The Exculpation Provision does
not bar Hudson from pursuing and recovering on that theory.
-6-
11. The Manager Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count V is therefore DENIED
IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. The motion is denied as to Hudson’s claims based
on the Distribution Waterfall and the exclusion of the Hudson Managers from the
Company’s governance process. Otherwise, it is granted.
/s/ J. Travis Laster
Vice Chancellor Laster
November 1, 2022
-7-