英语原文共 33 页，剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
特拉华州衡平法院
|
SV INVESTMENT PARTNERS（公司名）, LLC（有限责任公司）, SCHRODER VENTURES US FUND L.P. 1, 有限合伙 SCHRODER VENTURES US FUND L.P. 2, SITCO NOMINEES, LTD. VC 04001, and SV (NOMINEES) LIMITED, Plaintiffs（原告）, v. THOUGHTWORKS, INC（股份有限公司). Defendant（被告）. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
C.A. No. 2724-VCL （案例编号） |
OPINION(判决意见)
Submitted起诉时间: September 8, 2010
Decided判决时间: November 10, 2010
Martin S. Lessner, Danielle Gibbs, Tammy L. Mercer, YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT amp; TAYLOR, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Daniel M. Abuhoff, Justin P. Smith, Eliza Sporn Fromberg, DEBEVOISE amp; PLIMPTON LLP, New York, New York; Attorneys for Plaintiffs（原告律师）.
Kenneth J. Nachbar, Jeffrey R. Wolters, Megan Ward Cascio, Christine Dealy Haynes, Eric S. Wilensky, MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT amp; TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Attorneys for Defendant（被告律师）.
LASTER, Vice Chancellor（副大法官）.
The plaintiffs are a group of affiliated investment funds and their advisor, SV Investment Partners, LLC (collectively, “SVIP”). In 2000, they purchased over 94% of the Series A Preferred Stock (the “Preferred Stock”) issued by the defendant ThoughtWorks, Inc. (“ThoughtWorks” or the “Company”). The amended and restated certificate of incorporation of ThoughtWorks dated April 5, 2000 (the “Charter”) granted the holders of the Preferred Stock the right to have their stock redeemed “for cash out of any funds legally available therefor” beginning five years after issuance. SVIP first exercised its redemption right in 2005.
原告是一附属投资资金，其中顾问是SV Investment Partners有限责任公司（简称为“SVIP”）。在2000年，他们购买了被告ThoughtWorks股份有限公司（简称为“Thoughtworks”或者“公司”）发行的大约94%的A系列优先股（简称“优先股”）。在2000年4月5日经过修订和重申的公司注册证书（公司章程）赋予了优先股持股人以下权利：从优先股发行后的五年期间起，可以从公司“合法可利用资金”中赎回其股权。SVIP在2005年第一次行使其赎回权。
ThoughtWorks does not have and cannot obtain the cash to redeem the Preferred Stock in full. Instead, each quarter, its board of directors (the “Board”) carefully evaluates the Companyrsquo;s finances to determine (i) whether ThoughtWorks has surplus from which a redemption could be made, (ii) whether ThoughtWorks has or could readily obtain cash for a redemption, and (iii) whether a redemption would endanger the Companyrsquo;s ability to continue as a going concern. Over sixteen quarters, the Board has redeemed Preferred Stock on eight separate occasions. A total of 222,802 shares have been redeemed with a total value of $4.1 million.
ThoughtWorks公司没有也无从获得现金来赎回优先股。然而，在每个季度，ThoughtWorks公司的董事会（以下简称为“董事会”）都会仔细评估公司的财务状况来决定（1）ThoughtWorks公司是否有盈余可用于进行股权收购。（2）ThoughtWorks公司能否有现金或者能够获得现金来进行股权回购。（3）回购股权能否危及到ThoughtWorks公司持续经营的能力。在16个季度里，董事会分别8次进行了股权回购，总共回购了222802股，价值为410万美元。
SVIP objects to the Boardrsquo;s periodic approach. According to SVIP, the term “funds legally available” simply means “surplus.” SVIP presented an expert at trial who opined that ThoughtWorks has surplus of $68 - $137 million. SVIP argues that while ThoughtWorks may not have cash or the ability to get it, it nevertheless has “funds legally available” and must redeem the Preferred Stock. Because ThoughtWorks has failed to do so, SVIP believes itself entitled to a judgment for the aggregate redemption price. As of April 5, 2010, that amount was $66,906,539.
SVIP反对ThoughtWorks公司董事会的分周期的方式赎回股权。SVIP认为“合法可利用资金”这个术语仅表示“资本剩余”。SVIP在庭审过程中请了一位专家出席，专家认为ThoughtWorks的盈余为0.68-1.37亿美元。SVIP认为虽然ThoughtWorks公司可能没有资金或者获得资金的能力，但是它仍然有“合法可利用的资金”，必须赎回优先股。由于ThoughtWorks没有赎回优先股，SVIP认为自己有权判决获得总赎回价款。截止到2010年４月５日，该金额合计为66906539美元。
SVIPrsquo;s theory breaks down because the phrase “funds legally available” is not equivalent to “surplus.” A corporation can have “funds” and lack “surplus,” or have “surplus” and lack “funds.” The binding constraint on ThoughtWorksrsquo; ability to redeem the Preferred Stock is a lack of funds and the concomitant risk that a significant redemption will render the Company insolvent. An unbroken line of decisional authority dating back to the late nineteenth century prohibits a corporation from redeeming shares when the payment would render the corporation insolvent. Even assuming that SVIP were correct and ThoughtWorks could be deemed to have “surplus,” SVIP has not shown that ThoughtWorks has “funds legally available.” Judgment is therefore entered in favor of ThoughtWorks and against SVIP.
SVIP的主张没有得到支持，因为“合法可利用资金”这一术语不等于“盈余”。一个企业可能有“资金”但是缺乏“盈余”，或者是有“盈余”但是缺乏“资金”。约束ThoughtWorks公司回购优先股的原因在于资金的缺乏以及这样的重大回购将会使得ThoughtWorks公司面临着破产的风险。追溯到19世纪晚期的一套完整的决策权制度规定禁止公司赎回股票，因为这样做会使公司资不抵债。即便假设SVIP是正确的并且ThoughtWorks公司可能存在“盈余”，但是SVIP并没有证明ThoughtWorks公司具有“合法可利用资金”。因此，判决对ThoughtWorks公司有利对SVIP公司不利。
I.FACTUAL BACKGROUND（事实背景）
The following factual findings have been made after a two-day trial. I also have relied on the factual findings made in a prior decision involving the parties, which are res judicata. See ThoughtWorks, Inc. v. SV Inv. Prsquo;rs, LLC, 902 A.2d 745 (Del. Ch. 2006) (the “Working Capital Decision”).
下面的案件事实在一个为期两天的审判中得以查明。我同时也根据涉及当事方的先前判决中查明的事实，即根据既判力所得。可以参见ThoughtWorks诉SVIP，案件编号：902 A.2d 745 (Del. Ch. 2006) （“营运资本决定”）。
A.The “Brand Of Outstanding Talent”（“优秀人才品牌”）
Roy Singham founded ThoughtWorks in 1993. The Company describes itself as an information technology professional services firm that develops and delivers custom business software applications and provides related consulting services. Headquartered in Chicago, ThoughtWorks provides services to clients throughout the United States and through subsidiaries, in various pa
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
资料编号：[240004]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word
以上是毕业论文外文翻译，课题毕业论文、任务书、文献综述、开题报告、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。
