EMC Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Shepard
| Decision Date | 11 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-0698,20-0698 |
| Parties | EMC INSURANCE GROUP, INC., Appellee, v. Gregory M. SHEPARD, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Thomas K. Cauley, Jr. (argued), Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, Illinois, and Steve Eckley of Eckley Law PLLC, Des Moines, for appellant.
Beth I.Z. Boland (argued), Eric G. Pearson, and Joseph S. Harper of Foley & Lardner, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, and Michael W. Thrall, Mark C. Dickinson, and Lynn C. Herndon of Nyemaster Goode, P.C., Des Moines, and for appellee.
Stephen E. Doohen of Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C., Des Moines, and Gregg M. Mashberg, Margaret A. Dale, and Brian A. Hooven of Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, New York, for amicus curiae The Depository Trust Company.
In this appeal, we must decide whether the district court correctly entered summary judgment against an investor on grounds he failed to exercise his appraisal rights in a merger. The controlling statute, Iowa Code section 490.1303(2)(a ) (2019), requires a beneficial shareholder to submit the written consent of "the record shareholder" to demand appraisal. The investor, the beneficial owner of 1.1 million shares, received $36 per share ($39.6 million) when the merger transaction closed. He objected to the merger and, through his attorney and broker, sought to exercise his appraisal rights but never obtained the written consent of Cede & Co. (Cede), shown on the corporation's records as the record shareholder. Another dissenting investor successfully exercised his appraisal rights by obtaining the timely consent of Cede. The corporation filed this declaratory judgment action and moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The investor appealed and we retained the case.
On our review, we determine that Cede was the sole record shareholder as a matter of law for the disputed shares. The investor, lacking Cede's consent, failed to validly exercise his appraisal rights that have been extinguished. His waiver and estoppel arguments fail. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the district court's summary judgment against the investor.
This case arises from the merger of EMCC and EMCI. Before the special meeting for this proposed merger, EMCI's transfer agent, AST, sent EMCI a list of record shareholders as of August 8, 2019 (the record date), eligible to vote at the special meeting (the Record Shareholder Voting List). AST was in charge of maintaining EMCI's records of its registered shareholders. This list indicated that Cede held 9,432,555 shares as of the record date for the special meeting. AST also sent EMCI a spreadsheet on the day of the special meeting and included the registered shareholders of the company (the Record Shareholder Payment List). Neither Morgan Stanley nor Shepard appeared as registered shareholders on either of these lists.
On August 8, EMCI mailed to the company's shareholders and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission the "EMC Insurance Group Inc. Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A," (Proxy Statement), which provided:
Beneficial owners of shares of common stock held of record in the name of another person, such as a bank, broker or other nominee, may assert appraisal rights only if the shareholder submits to the Company the record holder's written consent to the assertion of such rights ....
The Proxy Statement told shareholders that all shares of common stock would "automatically be cancelled and cease to exist, except for the right to receive the merger consideration" at the time of the merger. In order to avoid this outcome, shareholders were required to "demand[ ] and perfect[ ] their right to appraisal of their shares in accordance with Division XIII of the Iowa Business Corporation Act. " (Emphasis added.) The statement included the following admonition:
The Company urges you to read the entire proxy statement, including the annexes and the documents referred to or incorporated by reference in the proxy statement, carefully, as it sets forth the details of the merger agreement and other important information related to the merger.
Under "Dissenters’ Rights to Appraisal," the company repeated:
You are encouraged to read Division XIII of the Iowa Business Corporation Act carefully and in its entirety. Moreover, due to the complexity of the procedures for exercising the right to seek appraisal, shareholders who are considering exercising such rights are encouraged to seek the advice of legal counsel. Failure to comply with these provisions may result in loss of the right of appraisal. Any holder of common stock who loses his, her or its appraisal rights will be entitled to receive the merger consideration of $36.00 per share in cash if such person is a shareholder of the Company as of the effective time of the merger.2
On September 10, EMCI received a letter from Cede submitted on behalf of one of EMCI's beneficial shareholders (the other dissenter), who had also obtained certificates for its shares and deposited them with EMCI. That letter stated that Cede was the nominee of DTC, "a holder of record of shares [of EMCI]," and that, "[i]n accordance with instructions received from Participant on behalf of Beneficial Owner, we hereby assert appraisal (or dissenters’) rights with respect to the Shares." The Record Shareholder Payment List had the shares of the other dissenter recorded with the notation "CEDE & CO FBO DISSENTER."
On September 12, EMCI obtained an Omnibus Proxy and Security Position Report (SPR or Cede Breakdown) from DTC. The Omnibus Proxy is the means by which DTC, "the holder of record for depository-eligible securities, transfers the right to vote with respect to those securities to the DTC participants that hold record date positions." Proxy Services , DTCC, (emphasis added) https://www.dtcc.com/settlement-and-asset-services/issuer-services/proxy-services [https://perma.cc/D32H-JMZS]. The Cede Breakdown includes detailed share and contact information for each participant. Id. The September 12 Omnibus Proxy provided that Cede appointed the person or entity named in the attached Cede Breakdown to vote the shares opposite its name. The September 12 Cede Breakdown identified Morgan Stanley as a participant with respect to 1,123,502 shares of DTC's total position in EMCI. Shepard's name was not on the Cede Breakdown.
After receiving these letters, Todd Strother—the Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Officer, and Secretary of EMCI—spoke by phone with a representative of AST, who confirmed EMCC, through AST, was to pay Cede for the 9,270,528 shares beneficially owned through it, including Shepard's shares (the DTC Payment). Cede would then distribute the DTC Payment to its participants, who in turn would distribute the funds to the ultimate beneficial holders of EMCI's common stock. AST confirmed Shepard had not requested his shares be removed from Cede's record ownership and that Cede would not make the distribution payment to any of the beneficial shareholders unless and until it received $36 per share for all of its shares reflected on the Record Shareholder Payment List.
On September 18, EMCI shareholders met and voted to approve the merger. Effective September 19, EMCC purchased the remaining outstanding shares of EMCI for $36 a share. The Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement) controlled the terms of the merger and required that all shares of EMCI be converted into the right to receive $36 in cash, without interest (the Merger Consideration). The only shares exempted from this payout were those held by shareholders who demanded and perfected their appraisal rights and those held by EMCC and certain EMCI-affiliated entities. Section 1.6 of the Merger Agreement stated:
[A]ll Company Dissenting Shares held by shareholders who shall have failed to perfect or ... lost...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garrison v. New Fashion Pork LLP
...N.W.2d 335, 339 (Iowa 2015). "We review rulings on statutory interpretation for correction of errors at law." EMC Ins. Grp. v. Shepard , 960 N.W.2d 661, 668 (Iowa 2021). We also review rulings granting summary judgment for correction of errors at law. Id. "On motion for summary judgment, th......
-
Beverage v. Alcoa, Inc.
...is appropriate ‘if the record reveals only a conflict concerning the legal consequences of undisputed facts.’ " EMC Ins. Grp. v. Shepard , 960 N.W.2d 661, 668 (Iowa 2021) (quoting MidWestOne Bank v. Heartland Co-op , 941 N.W.2d 876, 882 (Iowa 2020) ).A. Background of Asbestos Litigation. Io......
-
Miljas v. Greg Cohen Promotions, LLC
...of waiver is one for the jury; when the evidence is undisputed, however, the issue is one of law for the court." EMC Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Shepard, 960 N.W.2d 661, 672 (Iowa 2021) (quoting Iowa Comprehensive Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Fund Bd. v. Federated Mut. Ins., 596 N.W.2d 546, 55......
-
Wildhawk Investments, LLC v. Brava I.P., LLC
...alone, silence from a party to an arms-length transaction is insufficient to sustain an equitable estoppel defense. EMC Ins. Grp. v. Shepard, 960 N.W.2d 661, 674 (Iowa 2021). But Wildhawk did more than stand mute. It affirmatively signed the NDA, which ostensibly reserved only a right of fi......