Sinovac Biotech LTD v. 1Globe Capital LLC et al

Filing 73

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. "For the forgoing reasons, defendants motion for a preliminary injunction (Docket No. 25 ) is DENIED. So ordered. "(McDonagh, Christina)

United States District Court
District of Massachusetts
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
1GLOBE CAPITAL LLC, and THE
)
CHIANG LI FAMILY,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
1GLOBE CAPITAL LLC,
)
)
Third-Party Plaintiff/ )
Counter Claimant,
)
)
v.
)
)
SINOVAC BIOTECH LTD., WEIDONG
)
YIN, and NAN WANG,
)
)
Counter Defendant/
)
Third-Party
)
Defendants.
)
)
SINOVAC BIOTECH LTD., and
WEIDONG YIN,

Civil Action No.
18-10421-NMG

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
GORTON, J.
In this case involving alleged securities fraud, defendant
1Globe Capital LLC (“1Globe Capital” or “defendant”) filed a
counterclaim for securities fraud and abuse of process in April,
2018, and a motion for preliminary injunction in August, 2018.
It seeks injunctive relief against plaintiff Sinovac Biotech
Ltd. (“plaintiff” or “Sinovac”) and third party defendants

-1-

Weidong Yin (“Yin”) and Nan Wang (“Wang”).

According to 1Globe

Capital, Yin is Sinovac’s former chairman and corporate
executive officer (“CEO”) and Wang is Sinovac’s former corporate
financial officer (“CFO”).
1Globe Capital alleges that Sinovac, Yin and Wang violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange
Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by illegally issuing
company stock without notification to or permission from the
legitimate board of directors.

Pending before this Court is

defendant’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the subject of
this memorandum, and plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the
counterclaim of defendant.

For the reasons that follow, the

motion for a preliminary injunction will be denied.
I.

Background
Sinovac is a NASDAQ-listed publicly traded company that is

incorporated in Antigua, West Indies, with its principal place
of business in Beijing, China.

Sinovac is a biopharmaceutical

company that researches, develops, manufactures and
commercializes vaccines.

1Globe Capital is a Delaware limited

liability company with its principal place of business in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

1Globe Capital is one of the largest

shareholders of Sinovac and owns 16.4% of Sinovac’s outstanding
common stock.

-2-

A. History of Management and Alleged Corruption
1Globe Capital claims that since at least 2016, Yin, Wang
and other members of the board of directors (“the Old Board”)
have sought to improperly maintain control over Sinovac.

1Globe

Capital alleges that Yin and Wang and members of a buyer group
they formed (“Management Buyout Consortium”) submitted a
proposal to acquire all of Sinovac’s shares at below market
value.

In response, a group of Sinovac investors together with

Sinobioway, a large publicly traded Chinese company, arranged a
counteroffer at a higher price per share.
The Old Board then adopted a Rights Agreement in March,
2016, which 1Globe Capital maintains was designed to entrench
the Old Board and to ensure that only the Management Buyout
Consortium could acquire the company.

1Globe Capital claims

that the Old Board used the Rights Agreement as a shield to
prevent other investors from effectively mounting a competing
bid.

The Rights Agreement is governed by Delaware Law and its

validity is the subject of ongoing litigation in both Delaware
and Antigua.
In December 2016, an online report disclosing Chinese court
documents revealed that Yin and other Sinovac employees bribed
multiple Chinese officials from 2002 to 2011 to get vaccine
trials approved and distribution of vaccines permitted.

The

Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice
-3-

began an investigation into those potential violations of the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
On June 26, 2017, Sinovac announced that it had entered
into a definitive agreement in which the Management Buyout
Consortium would acquire the company.

Two days later,

Sinobioway submitted a revised proposal to acquire Sinovac at a
14.9% premium over the purchase price offered by the Management
Buyout Consortium.

The Old Board rejected Sinobioway’s revised

offer, citing concerns over Sinobioway’s funding.
B. Disputed Board Election
On February 6, 2018, Sinovac held its annual general
meeting.

At that meeting, 1Globe Capital and a majority of the

other shareholders voted to install a new slate of directors
(“the New Board”).

Despite that vote, the Old Board has refused

to relinquish management and control of the corporation.
Sinovac and the Old Board claim that the purported election of
the New Board was invalid under Antigua law.

Sinovac asserts

that Antigua law requires shareholders to provide advance notice
of their intent to seek replacement of the incumbent board of
directors.
C. Issuance of Additional Shares
In March 2018, a month after the election of the New Board,
Yin and Wang and members of the Old Board issued a large number
of restricted shares to themselves.
-4-

On July 2, 2018, the Old Board issued additional shares of
Sinovac pursuant to a private investment in public equity
(“PIPE”) transaction with private investors Vivo Capital, LLC
(“Vivo Capital”) and Prime Success, L.P. (“Prime Success”).
Sinovac claims that the PIPE transaction was approved
unanimously by the Old Board with the assistance and advice of
an independent financial advisor and legal advisor who advised
that the consideration offered was fair to the corporation.
1Globe Capital alleges, however, that Vivo Capital and Prime
Success were members of the Management Buyout Consortium who
purchased the shares at a discounted price in a further attempt
of management to buyout Sinovac at below market value.

1Globe

Capital also alleges that this issuance was an attempt to dilute
the voting interest of the shareholders who voted for the New
Board.
On July 3, 2018, Sinovac publicly announced that it had
completed the PIPE transaction.

Under the terms of the

Securities Purchase Agreement (“the SPA”) governing the PIPE
transaction, the transaction can be rescinded if a court of
competent jurisdiction enters an order on the merits determining
that the transaction documents were not duly authorized or
approved by the board of directors or that the shares were not
validly issued or sold.

-5-

D. Alleged Violations
On March 5, 2018, Sinovac filed a complaint in this
District against 1Globe Capital and the Chiang Li family.
Sinovac’s complaint includes two counts: 1) violation of Section
13(d) of the Exchange Act against 1Globe Capital and 2)
violation of Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act against the
Chiang Li family.

Sinovac claims that Section 13(d) required

1Globe Capital to give advance notice to Sinovac and to update
their Schedule 13 beneficial ownership filings before voting to
elect a new board of directors at the annual general meeting and
that 1Globe Capital violated this disclosure requirement by
failing to do so.
1Globe Capital’s counterclaim includes five counts:

1)

abuse of process against Sinovac, Yin and Wang; 2) securities
fraud in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 against Sinovac, Yin and Wang; 3) fraudulent
misrepresentation against Sinovac, Yin and Wang; 4) negligent
misrepresentation against Sinovac, Yin and Wang; and 5) aiding
and abetting against Sinovac.
1Globe Capital alleges that 1) Sinovac directly or
indirectly disseminated false and misleading statements to
artificially lower Sinovac’s stock price to facilitate the
acquisition proposal brought by the Management Buyout
Consortium, 2) continued to disseminate false and misleading
-6-

statements with respect to the validity of the election of the
New Board to maintain the Old Board’s control and 3) secretly
entered into private securities transactions without notifying
the shareholders or the New Board elected at the February 6
annual meeting.

1Globe Capital further alleges that Sinovac

brought the underlying complaint in this case to accomplish the
ulterior motive of entrenching the Old Board.
E. Procedural History
Also on March 5, 2018, Sinovac filed a complaint against
1Globe Capital and members of the Chiang Li family in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.

In that action, Sinovac seeks

declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the company’s
Rights Agreement entered into in March, 2016.

That action will

determine the validity of the Rights Agreement and whether the
“poison pill” in that agreement was triggered by the shareholder
vote at the February 6, 2018 meeting.
On March 13, 2018, 1Globe Capital filed a claim against
Sinovac in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in the High Court
of Justice, Antigua and Barbuda (“the Antigua Court”) seeking a
declaration that the New Board was validly elected and that any
actions taken by the Old Board on behalf of Sinovac are null and
void.

Trial in that action was originally scheduled for early

October, 2018, but has recently been postponed until December,
2018.
-7-

On April 10, 2018, 1Globe Capital applied to the Antigua
Court for an emergency order enjoining the Old Board’s attempt
to enforce a judgment of the Delaware Court with respect to the
validity of the Rights Agreement.

On July 9, 2018, the Antigua

Court denied 1Globe Capital’s application for an interim
injunction and shortly thereafter, the Delaware Court of
Chancery denied Sinovac’s motion for an expedited trial and
1Globe Capital’s application for a status quo order.

It ruled

that the application should be presented in the first instance
to the Antigua Court.
On August 1, 2018, 1Globe Capital filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction with this Court seeking to enjoin the
issuance of shares to the PIPE investors and the issuance of any
future shares pending the trial in the Antigua Court.

On August

20, 2018, Sinovac filed its opposition to defendant’s motion for
injunctive relief.

Sinovac asserts that: 1) 1Globe Capital

cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the
merits of its underlying claim because 1Globe Capital lacks
standing to sue directly under Section 10(b) and has not
obtained leave of the Antigua Court to bring a derivative claim
on behalf of Sinovac as required by Antigua law; 2) 1Globe
Capital cannot demonstrate an imminent risk of irreparable harm
because the terms of the SPA provide that the PIPE transaction
may be rescinded in the event that a court finds that the
-8-

issuance of those shares was unauthorized; 3) the balancing of
equities favors denying the preliminary injunction because
1Globe Capital has unclean hands; and 4) there is no public
interest served by this Court considering an internal corporate
dispute governed by Antigua law.
The Court heard oral argument on plaintiff’s motion on
October 11, 2018, after which it took the matter under
advisement.
Pending before this Court are defendant’s motion for a
preliminary injunction and plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the
counterclaim but only the former is addressed in this Memorandum
and Order.
II.

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
A.

Legal Standard

In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving
party must establish 1) a reasonable likelihood of success on
the merits, 2) the potential for irreparable harm if the
injunction is withheld, 3) a favorable balance of hardships and
4) the effect on the public interest. Jean v. Mass. State
Police, 492 F.3d 24, 26-27 (1st Cir. 2007).

Out of these

factors, the likelihood of success on the merits “normally
weighs heaviest in the decisional scales.” Coquico, Inc. v.
Rodriguez-Miranda, 562 F.3d 62, 66 (1st Cir. 2009).

-9-

The Court may accept as true “well-pleaded allegations [in
the complaint] and uncontroverted affidavits.” Rohm & Haas Elec.
Materials, LLC v. Elec. Circuits, 759 F. Supp. 2d 110, 114, n.2
(D. Mass. 2010) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 350, n.1
(1976)).

The Court may also rely on otherwise inadmissible

evidence, including hearsay, in deciding a motion for
preliminary injunction. See Asseo v. Pan Am. Grain Co., Inc.,
805 F.2d 23, 26 (1st Cir. 1986).

Ultimately, the issuance of

preliminary injunctive relief is “an extraordinary and drastic
remedy that is never awarded as of right.” Peoples Fed. Sav.
Bank v. People’s United Bank, 672 F.3d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir. 2012)
(quoting Voice of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Med. News Now,
Inc., 645 F.3d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 2011)).
B.

Application
1. Likelihood of Success

Defendant alleges that plaintiff violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by secretly entering into
securities transactions after the February election without
notifying the New Board or the shareholders.

1Globe Capital

seeks to prevent Sinovac and the Old Board from 1) issuing stock
to Vivo Capital and Prime Success pursuant to the PIPE
transaction, 2) issuing additional shares of Sinovac stock in
other transactions 3) otherwise dissipating Sinovac assets and

-10-

4) otherwise violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act or Rule
10b-5.
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder make it illegal for any person directly
or indirectly
(a) [t]o employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
(b) [t]o make any untrue statement of material fact or to
omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make
the statements made, in the light of the circumstances
under which they were made, not misleading, or (c) [t]o
engage in any act, practice, or course of business which
operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any
person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any
security.
17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5; see also 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b).
The basic elements of a Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim
are (1) a material misrepresentation, (2) scienter, (3) a
connection to the purchase or sale of a security, (4) reliance,
(5) economic loss and (6) a causal connection between the
material misrepresentation and the loss. Dura Pharm., Inc. v.
Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 341 (2005).

1Globe Capital brings its

Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim both directly on behalf of
itself and derivatively on behalf of Sinovac.
a. Action on Behalf of 1Globe Capital
The Supreme Court in Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores,
421 U.S. 723 (1975), made it clear that to have standing to
bring an action under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, the private
party must have been an actual purchaser or seller of
-11-

securities. Id. at 730-31.

Defendant asserts, however, that a

party seeking only injunctive relief does not have to show that
the damages suffered were in connection with the purchase or
sale of a security.

Defendant relies on Langner v. Brown, 913

F. Supp. 260 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), for that proposition.

The court

in that case relied, in turn, on Mutual Shares Corp. v. Genesco,
Inc., 384 F.2d 540, 546-47 (2d Cir. 1967).

The particular

holding in Mutual Shares cited in Langner has, however,
apparently been overruled. See Cartica Mgmt., LLC v. Corpbanca,
S.A., 50 F. Supp. 3d 477, 488 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (holding that
Mutual Shares has been overruled by Blue Chip and that the
explicit holding of Blue Chip “bars claims for injunctive relief
absent a purchase or sale of securities”).
In addition to relying on tenuous law, defendant also cites
cases that dealt with unrelated issues. See Simon DeBartolo
Grp., L.P. v. Richard E. Jacobs Grp., Inc., 186 F. 3d 157, 170
(2d Cir. 1999) (“To be clear, we do not hold that DeBartolo had
standing to seek an injunction; that issue is not before us.”);
Advanced Res. Int’l, Inc. v. Tri-Star Petroleum Co., 4 F.3d 327,
332 (4th Cir. 1993) (“We need not today decide whether to
endorse the exception to the Blue Chip standing rule . . . .”);
Pelletier v. Stuart-James Co., Inc., 863 F.2d 1550, 1557 n.15
(11th Cir. 1989) (stating only in dicta that the policy
considerations underlying Blue Chip would not require dismissal
-12-

of a suit for injunctive relief where the plaintiff is not a
purchaser or seller of a security); Davis v. Davis, 526 F.2d
1286, 1289 (5th Cir. 1976) (approving, in dicta, the Second
Circuit’s approach in Mutual Shares with respect to injunctive
relief but holding that plaintiff was actually a seller of
securities for the purpose of his securities claim).
Only one Circuit Court of Appeals has addressed the
particular issue of whether a party seeking only injunctive
relief must show that the damages suffered were in connection
with the purchase or sale of a security.

In Cowin v. Bresler,

741 F.2d 410 (D.C. Cir. 1984), the D.C. Circuit held that only
purchasers or sellers of securities have standing to seek
injunctive relief under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.

The Court

concluded that the same textual and policy considerations that
informed the Supreme Court’s decision in Blue Chip to limit
standing to actual purchasers and sellers of securities applied
equally to actions for injunctive relief. Id. at 424.
1Globe Capital’s claim for injunctive relief relates
exclusively to securities issued to Vivo Capital and Prime
success in connection with the PIPE transaction and to other
unspecified future securities transactions.

1Globe Capital did

not purchase or sell any Sinovac securities in connection with
the PIPE transaction, nor does it allege that it would purchase
or sell securities in connection with the unspecified future
-13-

transactions.

Under Blue Chip, apparently 1Globe Capital lacks

standing to bring a Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim because
its alleged damages are unrelated to the purchase or sale of
securities.

Furthermore, 1Globe Capital has cited no Circuit

Court case law holding that the Blue Chip standing limitation
does not apply to motions for injunctive relief.

Indeed, the

only Circuit Court that has directly addressed that issue
rejects 1Globe Capital’s proposition.
For these reasons, defendant has not shown that it has a
reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its claim and
thus its motion for preliminary injunctive relief on behalf of
itself pursuant to Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 will be denied.
b. Derivative Action
In addition to suing directly on behalf of oneself, a
shareholder of a corporation may bring a claim derivatively on
behalf of the corporation.

Generally, any damages in a

derivative claim are awarded to the corporation rather than to
the individual shareholder bringing the claim.

The laws of

several states and foreign countries require a shareholder to
make a demand on the board of directors before bringing a
derivative suit. See, e.g., MODEL BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT § 7.42(AM.
BAR ASS’N 2016).
Sinovac is incorporated in Antigua and Barbuda and thus
Antigua law governs matters of Sinovac’s corporate governance
-14-

and internal affairs. See Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., 500 U.S.
90, 108-09 (1991) (holding that the content and scope of the
demand requirement is derived from the law of the state of
incorporation); Mariasch v. Gillette Co., 521 F.3d 68, 72 (1st
Cir. 2008) (applying the law of the jurisdiction with authority
over the corporation’s internal affairs, namely its place of
incorporation).

1Globe Capital argues that the demand

requirement is irrelevant here because Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1
governs shareholder derivative actions in federal court and that
rule contains no demand requirement. See Shady Grove Orthopedic
Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393, 417 (2010)
(“It is a long-recognized principle that federal courts sitting
in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural
law (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hanna v. Plumer,
380 U.S. 460, 465 (1965))).

The Supreme Court held, however,

that Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1 relates only to the pleading
requirements for derivative actions and does not set out the
substance of the demand requirement which is governed by the
state law of the state of incorporation. See Kamen, 500 U.S. at
96-97, 108-09.
The International Business Corporations Act of Antigua and
Barbuda (“the IBC”) provides that
a complainant may, for the purpose of prosecuting,
defending or discontinuing an action on behalf of a
corporation, apply to the court for leave to bring an
-15-

action in the name and on behalf of the corporation or any
of its subsidiaries . . . [and that] [n]o action may be
brought . . . unless the court is satisfied (a) that the
complainant has given reasonable notice to the directors of
the corporation or its subsidiary of his intention to apply
to the court under Section 201 . . . ; (b) that the
complainant is acting in good faith; and (c) that it
appears to be in the interests of the corporation or its
subsidiary that the action be brought, prosecuted, defended
or discontinued.
Id. §§ 201, 202.

Reference to “the court” in §§ 201 and 202 of

the IBC is specifically to the Antigua Court. Id. § 2 (defining
“court” as “the High Court”).
The relevant sections of the Antiguan statute indicate that
a shareholder must apply to the Antiguan Court before a
shareholder can proceed to bring an action on behalf of the
corporation.

1Globe Capital has not sought leave from the High

Court to pursue a derivative claim for securities fraud on
behalf of Sinovac and therefore cannot show that it is likely to
succeed on the merits of its derivative claim.
Defendant also submitted that § 204 of the IBC permits a
shareholder to pursue an order restraining oppressive conduct on
behalf of the corporation without first having to seek leave of
the Antigua Court.

To the contrary, however, that section

simply provides that “[a] complainant may apply to the court for
an order under this section” but it does not otherwise alter the
requirements of §§ 201 and 202 to pursue a derivative action.
The language of § 204 is entirely consistent with a requirement

-16-

that a shareholder seek leave of the Antigua Court to pursue an
order restraining oppressive conduct on behalf of the
corporation.
Because defendant is unable to demonstrate a reasonable
likelihood of success on its securities fraud action brought on
its own behalf or its derivative action brought on behalf of
Sinovac, defendant’s motion for a preliminary injunction will be
denied.
c. State Law Claims
Finally, defendant asserts various state law claims as a
basis for granting preliminary injunctive relief.

In its

initial memorandum in support of its motion for a preliminary
injunction, 1Globe Capital makes no mention, however, of its
state law claims but rather relies solely on alleged violations
of the federal securities laws as the basis for preliminary
injunctive relief.

The movant always bears the burden of

establishing entitlement to a preliminary injunction. Esso
Standard Oil Co. (P.R.) v. Monroig-Zayas, 445 F.3d 13, 18 (1st
Cir. 2006); Holmes Prods. Corp. v. Catalina Lighting, Inc., 67
F. Supp. 2d 10, 12 (D. Mass. 1999).

By failing to cite any

authority in support of its state law claims, defendant, as the
moving party, has not met that burden of showing a reasonable
likelihood of success on the merits of those claims and thus is
not entitled to a preliminary injunction.
-17-

2. Potential for Irreparable Harm
While the likelihood of the success on the merits provides
the “touchstone of the preliminary injunction inquiry,” the
second element for consideration, namely irreparable harm, in
this case weighs heavily against defendant. Philip Morris, Inc.
v. Harshbarger, 159 F.3d 670, 674 (1st Cir. 1998).

To obtain

preliminary injunctive relief, 1Globe Capital must demonstrate
that it will suffer irreparable harm that is real and not purely
theoretical. Matos ex rel. Matos v. Clinton Sch. Dist., 367 F.3d
68, 73 (1st Cir. 2004).
1Globe Capital argues that it will suffer irreparable harm
because Sinovac will soon issue shares pursuant to the PIPE
transaction which will dilute 1Globe Capital’s ownership and
voting power.

According to Sinovac, however, those shares were

already issued to Vivo Capital and Prime Success in July, 2018,
and thus the pending motion for a preliminary injunction is too
late to prevent the alleged harm.

Furthermore, contrary to

1Globe Capital’s claim that this transaction cannot be undone,
there is a provision in the SPA that permits such rescission if
the PIPE transaction is found not to have been duly authorized.
There is, therefore, no risk of irreparable harm with respect to
the PIPE transaction warranting preliminary injunctive relief.
1Globe Capital also maintains that there is a risk of
irreparable harm to shareholder voting rights if Sinovac and the
-18-

Old Board is permitted to consummate future securities
transactions.

1Globe Capital has not, however, alleged facts

indicating that any stockholder vote is imminent or that Sinovac
is contemplating other securities transactions in the immediate
future.

Rather, 1Globe Capital attempts to shift the burden of

showing irreparable harm to Sinovac by suggesting that Sinovac
has not shown how the issuance of a preliminary injunction would
harm it pending resolution of the Antigua action.
The burden of proving irreparable harm remains on 1Globe
Capital and it cannot satisfy that burden because its alleged
harm with respect to shareholder voting rights and future
securities transactions is speculative at this point.

Thus,

preliminary injunctive relief is unwarranted. See Coriatt-Gaubil
v. Roche Bobois Int’l, S.A., 717 F. Supp. 2d 132, 138 (D. Mass.
2010).
ORDER
For the forgoing reasons, defendant’s motion for a
preliminary injunction (Docket No. 25) is DENIED.

So ordered.
_/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton_____
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge
Dated October 15, 2018

-19-