Caseflicks

Supreme Court of Delaware • 1999

Elf Atochem North America, Inc. v. Jaffari

727 A.2d 286 | 79 A.L.R. 5th 803 | 1999 Del. LEXIS 111

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case establishes that Delaware LLC members may broadly contract for arbitration and an out-of-state forum, even for derivative and manager-removal disputes, unless the LLC Act expressly makes a contrary rule mandatory.

Background

Elf Atochem and Malek, Inc. formed Malek LLC, a Delaware LLC, to market an environmentally friendly water-based maskant developed by Cyrus Jaffari, Malek, Inc.’s president. Elf contributed $1 million for a 30 percent interest; Malek, Inc. contributed the product rights for a 70 percent interest. Elf, Malek, Inc., and Jaffari executed a detailed LLC agreement naming Jaffari as manager. Malek LLC itself did not sign that agreement.

The LLC agreement required arbitration in San Francisco of any dispute arising from the agreement, its interpretation, or a member’s or manager’s conduct under it. It also prohibited members from bringing related court actions except to compel arbitration or enforce an award, and selected California state and federal courts for nonarbitrable disputes. A separate distributorship agreement between Elf and Malek LLC contained no comparable dispute-resolution clauses.

Elf sued Jaffari and Malek LLC in the Delaware Court of Chancery, both individually and derivatively on Malek LLC’s behalf. It alleged fiduciary breaches, misuse of LLC funds, interference with business opportunities, nondisclosure, fraud, breach of contract, and related claims. The Court of Chancery dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that the claims arose from the LLC agreement or its contemplated transactions and therefore belonged in California arbitration or California courts. Elf appealed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Malek LLC was bound by the LLC agreement’s arbitration and forum-selection provisions even though it did not sign the agreement.

Holding

Yes. The agreement bound Malek LLC for purposes of the dispute-resolution provisions because it was the agreement of the LLC’s members governing the LLC’s affairs and business.

Reasoning

The Delaware LLC Act defines an LLC agreement broadly as any written or oral agreement of the members concerning the LLC’s affairs and the conduct of its business. Elf and Malek, Inc.—the LLC’s members—executed the agreement precisely to establish Malek LLC’s governance, operations, and dispute-resolution process.

The Court treated the members as the real parties in interest in this contractual arrangement and the LLC as their jointly created business vehicle. Under the Act’s strong commitment to private ordering, the LLC’s separate execution of the agreement was unnecessary to make the members’ governance agreement operative as to the LLC and claims asserted in its name.

Issue #2

Whether labeling Elf’s claims as derivative permitted Elf to avoid the agreement’s arbitration and California-forum provisions.

Holding

No. The provisions covered both direct and derivative claims arising from or connected with the LLC agreement and the transactions it contemplated.

Reasoning

Although the LLC Act permits members to bring derivative actions in the Court of Chancery under Section 18-1001, that statutory authorization did not override Elf’s contractual undertaking. Elf agreed that no member would initiate any action at law or equity based on claims arising from or related to the LLC agreement, except to compel arbitration or enforce an arbitral award.

The agreement did not distinguish between direct and derivative actions. Its language covered any claim arising out of, under, related to, or connected with the agreement or the contemplated transactions, including disputes concerning a manager’s action or inaction.

All of Elf’s allegations centered on Jaffari’s conduct as Malek LLC’s manager and on duties created or governed by the LLC agreement. Even claims nominally tied to the separate distributorship agreement were sufficiently connected to the LLC agreement and the venture it created to fall within the broadly worded dispute-resolution clauses.

Issue #3

Whether the LLC Act’s grants of Court of Chancery jurisdiction over manager-removal, LLC-agreement, and derivative actions were mandatory and could not be displaced by contract.

Holding

No. Those provisions established default jurisdiction that the LLC members could contract around through a valid agreement selecting arbitration and California forums.

Reasoning

Sections 18-110(a), 18-111, and 18-1001 give the Court of Chancery jurisdiction over, respectively, certain disputes concerning LLC managers, disputes involving LLC agreements, and derivative actions. But the Court read those provisions alongside Section 18-1101(b), which directs that maximum effect be given to freedom of contract and the enforceability of LLC agreements.

The Court explained that the jurisdictional provisions serve important default functions: they ensure that Chancery can hear LLC disputes when necessary, provide a Delaware forum when the parties have made no other arrangement, and promote uniform interpretation of Delaware law. They do not, however, prohibit sophisticated members from selecting another forum or an alternative dispute-resolution mechanism.

Delaware also has a strong policy favoring arbitration, and doubts about arbitrability ordinarily are resolved in favor of arbitration. Permitting a plaintiff to evade an agreed arbitration clause simply by styling a dispute as a derivative suit would undermine existing LLC arbitration agreements and contradict that policy.

Issue #4

Whether Section 18-109(d) of the Delaware LLC Act invalidated the agreement’s selection of exclusive California arbitration and court proceedings.

Holding

No. Section 18-109(d) is permissive and does not prohibit LLC members from agreeing to exclusive dispute resolution outside Delaware.

Reasoning

Section 18-109(d) states that a manager or member may consent to nonexclusive jurisdiction or arbitration in a specified jurisdiction, exclusive jurisdiction in Delaware courts, or exclusive arbitration in a specified jurisdiction or Delaware. The statute does not expressly forbid exclusive jurisdiction in the courts of another state.

The Court declined to infer such a prohibition from the statute’s list of permitted arrangements. The legislature’s use of the word “may” signaled a permissive authorization rather than an exclusive set of contractual options.

That reading also fit the Act’s overarching policy of maximum contractual freedom. If the General Assembly had intended to bar members from choosing exclusive foreign court jurisdiction or arbitration, it could have done so expressly. Thus, neither the California forum-selection clause nor the California arbitration clause was invalid.