Is the Delaware Court of Chancery Going 'Objective' on Us? Or Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago v. DV Realty Advisors LLC: More Delaware Permutations on Good Faith

Daniel S. Kleinberger
{"title":"Is the Delaware Court of Chancery Going 'Objective' on Us? Or Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago v. DV Realty Advisors LLC: More Delaware Permutations on Good Faith","authors":"Daniel S. Kleinberger","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2143400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Chancery Court’s opinion in Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago v. DV Realty Advisors LLC, C.A. No. 7204-VCN, 2012 WL 3548206 (Del. Ch. Aug. 16, 2012) is thought provoking for at least two reasons. The first is somewhat technical and concerns the relationship between a partnership agreement’s reference to “good faith” and the implied covenant of good faith. The second concerns what appears to be yet another Delaware permutation on the meaning of “good faith.”Due to the opinion’s treatment of the covenant, it seems possible (though hardly desirable) for two different standards of good faith to apply to the exercise of discretion under an operating agreement or partnership agreement – good faith as intended by the parties when they expressly subject discretion (or other conduct) to “good faith” and good faith as irrevocably present in any limited partnership or operating agreement per the LLC and LP statutes.Even more thought provoking is the opinion’s emphasis on the objective aspect of good faith. The court quotes the UCC definition of the concept and then uses that definition to make its determination on the merits. The opinion does not actually hold the UCC definition applicable but rather uses the definition for an a fortiori analysis. Nonetheless, the favorable reference to the UCC definition should give transactional lawyers pause. The objective notion of contractual good faith can occasion judicial second-guessing of the most important aspects of deals.","PeriodicalId":431428,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Law: LLCs","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Law: LLCs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2143400","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Chancery Court’s opinion in Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago v. DV Realty Advisors LLC, C.A. No. 7204-VCN, 2012 WL 3548206 (Del. Ch. Aug. 16, 2012) is thought provoking for at least two reasons. The first is somewhat technical and concerns the relationship between a partnership agreement’s reference to “good faith” and the implied covenant of good faith. The second concerns what appears to be yet another Delaware permutation on the meaning of “good faith.”Due to the opinion’s treatment of the covenant, it seems possible (though hardly desirable) for two different standards of good faith to apply to the exercise of discretion under an operating agreement or partnership agreement – good faith as intended by the parties when they expressly subject discretion (or other conduct) to “good faith” and good faith as irrevocably present in any limited partnership or operating agreement per the LLC and LP statutes.Even more thought provoking is the opinion’s emphasis on the objective aspect of good faith. The court quotes the UCC definition of the concept and then uses that definition to make its determination on the merits. The opinion does not actually hold the UCC definition applicable but rather uses the definition for an a fortiori analysis. Nonetheless, the favorable reference to the UCC definition should give transactional lawyers pause. The objective notion of contractual good faith can occasion judicial second-guessing of the most important aspects of deals.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
特拉华州衡平法院对我们“客观”了吗?或者芝加哥警察年金和福利基金诉DV房地产顾问有限责任公司:更多特拉华州的诚信排列
芝加哥警察年金和福利基金诉DV Realty Advisors LLC, C.A. No. 7204-VCN, 2012 WL 3548206 (Del。(2012年8月16日)至少有两个原因发人深省。第一个问题有点技术性,涉及合伙协议中提到的“诚信”与隐含的诚信契约之间的关系。第二个问题似乎是特拉华州对“诚信”含义的另一种排列。由于该意见对契约的处理,两种不同的诚信标准似乎有可能(尽管不太可取)适用于经营协议或合伙协议下自由裁量权的行使——当各方明确将自由裁量权(或其他行为)置于“诚信”之下时,双方意图的诚信,以及根据有限责任公司和有限责任公司法规,任何有限合伙企业或经营协议中不可撤销地存在的诚信。更发人深省的是该意见对诚信的客观方面的强调。法院引用UCC对概念的定义,然后使用该定义对是非曲直作出裁决。该意见实际上并不认为UCC定义适用,而是使用该定义进行对比分析。尽管如此,对UCC定义的有利参考应该让交易律师停下来。合同诚信的客观概念可以引起司法对交易最重要方面的事后猜测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Built-In Gain and Built-In Loss Property on Formation of a Partnership: An Exploration of the Grand Elegance of Partnership Capital Accounts Franking Credits: An Example of Formalistic Corporate Veil Piercing Ownership Piercing Corporate Family Matters Limited Liability Partnerships Under Nigerian Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1