Paragon Technologies, Inc. v. Terence J. Cryan

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

PARAGON TECHNOLOGIES, INC., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. 2023-1013-LWW
)
TERENCE J. CRYAN, PHILIPP )
STRATMANN, PETER E. SLAIBY, )
CLYDE W. HEWLETT, NATALIE )
LORENZ-ANDERSON, DIANA G. )
PURCEL, and OCEAN POWER )
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Date Submitted: November 28, 2023
Date Decided: November 30, 2023

Stephen E. Jenkins, Richard D. Heins, ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A., Wilmington,
Delaware; Renee M. Zaytsev, Constance M. Boland, Ned Babbitt, THOMPSON
HINE LLP, New York, New York; Thomas Palmer, THOMPSON HINE LLP,
Columbus, Ohio; Ryan Blackney, THOMPSON HINE LLP, Chicago, Illinois;
Counsel for Plaintiff Paragon Technologies, Inc.

Michael A. Pittenger, Christopher N. Kelly, Tyler J. Leavengood, David A. Seal,
Callan R. Jackson, Christopher D. Renaud, Ryan M. Ellingson, POTTER
ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Counsel for Defendants
Terence J. Cryan, Philipp Stratmann, Peter E. Slaiby, Clyde W. Hewlett, Natalie
Lorenz-Anderson, Diana G. Purcel, and Ocean Power Technologies, Inc.

WILL, Vice Chancellor
This action is brought by Paragon Technologies, Inc.—a stockholder of Ocean

Powers Technology, Inc. Paragon wishes to nominate candidates to OPT’s board of

directors. In August, it sent a notice of its intention to OPT. Five weeks later, the

board rejected Paragon’s notice as noncompliant with OPT’s advance notice bylaws.

Paragon also sought to purchase additional shares of OPT stock in furtherance

of its proxy contest. But OPT has a rights plan for the stated purpose of protecting

its net operating losses. Paragon’s request for an exemption from the rights plan was

denied.

Paragon moved for a preliminary injunction requiring the board to let

Paragon’s candidates stand for election and grant Paragon’s exemption request.

Since this is mandatory relief, Paragon took on a significant burden—one it did not

carry.

I reach that conclusion with some trepidation. The board amended its bylaws

and adopted the rights plan after Paragon emerged on the scene. The board spent

weeks reviewing Paragon’s nomination notice for deficiencies, raised numerous

issues of varying degrees of importance, rejected the notice at the end of the

nomination window, and then raised more deficiencies in this litigation. Some of

the bylaws Paragon purportedly violated are ambiguous or seem untethered from a

legitimate corporate end.

1
Still, there are countervailing facts. One of OPT’s bylaws requires a

nominating stockholder to disclose its plans or proposals for the company.

Contemporaneous communications suggest that Paragon may have had such plans

if its proxy contest succeeded and it gained control of the board, including a stock

for stock reverse merger. Absent credibility determinations (and given that

Paragon’s principal deleted his text messages), I cannot say whether such

undisclosed plans exist. More generally, there is evidence that the board enforced

certain bylaws to uphold important corporate interests and rejected the exemption

request to protect OPT’s valuable NOLs. Whether this is pretextual is another matter

I am unable to resolve at this stage.

It remains to be seen whether Paragon will ultimately prevail on its breach of

fiduciary duty claims. For now, it chose to seek a preliminary mandatory injunction

on fact-intensive matters and a limited record. To grant Paragon what amounts to

final relief would be inequitable.

2
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following background is drawn from the undisputed facts in the plaintiff’s

Verified Amended and Supplemental Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory

Relief and the record developed during discovery.1 This record, which was

presented in connection with the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction,

includes 127 exhibits and the deposition testimony of 13 witnesses.2 The facts

summarized below are those likely to be found after trial.

A. OPT and Its Board
Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. (“OPT”) is a Delaware corporation providing

maritime intelligence solutions based on renewable energy platforms and

autonomous vehicles.3 Its current market capitalization is approximately $15

million.4 OPT’s common stock is publicly traded and registered on the NYSE

American exchange as “OPTT.”

1
Verified Am. and Suppl. Compl. for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (Dkt. 78) (“Am.
Compl.”).
2
Citations in the form “PX__” refer to exhibits to the Transmittal Affidavit of Richard
Heins in Support of Plaintiff Paragon Technologies, Inc.’s Opening Brief in Support of Its
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. 112. Citations in the form “DX__” refer to
exhibits to the Transmittal Affidavit of Ryan M. Ellingson in Support of Defendants’
Answering Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
Dkt. 125. Where documents lack internal pagination, they are cited by the last four digits
of their Bates stamps. Deposition transcripts are cited as “[Name] Dep.”
3
DX 1 at 2; see Am. Compl. ¶ 17.
4
PX 60 (“Weiser Dep.”) 167.

3
OPT has long faced financial struggles. OPT has never turned a profit since

it began operations in 1994.5 In the last five years, OPT’s fiscal health has further

deteriorated with its revenues unable to keep pace with increasing expenses. 6 For

instance, OPT’s cumulative net losses for the last three years have totaled

approximately $60 million, compared to $5.7 million in cumulative revenues.7

OPT’s net operating losses (NOLs) are its most valuable asset.8 Its stock price is

currently under $0.30 per share.9

In recent years, OPT has shifted its business strategy to focus on optimizing

data and sales from certain services and products, including autonomous surface

vehicles.10 OPT has also expanded its market reach to include the defense, security,

and surveillance industries.11 Despite its relationships with government agencies,

OPT presently has no contracts with the United States Department of Defense or the

Department of Homeland Security.12

5
Am. Compl. ¶ 19.
6
Id. ¶ 24.
7
Id.
8
See PX 52 (“Slaiby Dep.”) 164, 176; PX 56 (“Cryan Dep.”) 13, 44, 29-30.
9
Am. Compl. ¶ 12.
10
DX 1 at 2-6.
11
Id. at 11-13.
12
See id. at 8, 14-15, 26. There is nothing in the present record to indicate otherwise.

4
As part of its revisioning, OPT refreshed its board of directors (the “Board”)

and senior management. Between 2020 and 2021, OPT added five new directors to

its six-member Board.13 The Board is currently composed of defendants Terence J.

Cryan (Chairman), Philipp Stratmann, Clyde Hewlett, Natalie Lorenz-Anderson,

Diana Purcel, and Peter Slaiby.14 Stratmann has served as OPT’s President and

Chief Executive Officer since June 2021.15

B. Paragon’s Investment and Outreach

Plaintiff Paragon Technologies, Inc. is a publicly traded Delaware corporation

“that makes value-based investments in misunderstood businesses.”16 Paragon

operates through various subsidiaries focused on sectors including automation

solutions, technology hardware, and real estate.17 It owns approximately 3.9% of

OPT’s outstanding stock, which Paragon believes makes it OPT’s single largest

stockholder.18

13
DX 2 at 1-3.
14
Id.; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 18, 22. Only Cryan (who has been a director since 2012) was on the
Board before December 2020. Id. ¶¶ 18, 22.
15
Am. Compl. ¶ 18.
16
Id. ¶ 16.
17
Id.
18
Id.

5
Paragon is led by Hesham Gad, who has served as Paragon’s Chairman since

2012 and as its Chief Executive Officer since 2014.19 He serves alongside two other

members of Paragon’s board of directors: Samuel Weiser and Col. Jack Jacobs.20

Paragon began acquiring OPT stock in July 2022.21 On December 15, 2022,

Gad contacted OPT to express that Paragon—as a purported 2% owner of OTP’s

stock—was interested in “providing additional capital to OPT.”22

Gad and Stratmann eventually held a call on April 14, 2023.23 Gad suggested

he might write to the Board about potential cost-cutting measures since he was

concerned about OPT’s cash depletion.24 After the call, Stratmann told Cryan that

Gad “thinks there is insufficient oversight” at OPT and “posted a letter demanding

a board seat and outlining his concerns.”25 Stratmann noted that Gad “appears to

like proxy fights” and had “used the same playbook back in 2010 . . . to take over

Paragon.”26

19
Id. ¶ 64; DX 4; DX 6; PX 33 at ‘3254.
20
DXs 5-6; see Am. Compl. ¶ 64.
21
PX 33 at ‘4256-72.
22
DX 7.
23
See DX 8 at ‘2278.
24
Id.; see also PX 57 (“Gad Dep.”) 66; PX 51 (“Stratmann Dep.”) 58.
25
PX 71 at ‘0193.
26
Id. at ‘0192 (expressing that Gad “isn’t shy about publicly denouncing CEOs, chairmen,
and anyone else he sees as not fit to his ideas”).
6
C. Gottfried’s Retention and Paragon’s May 19 Letter

Meanwhile, the Board began to consider updating Paragon’s bylaws, which

had last been amended in June 2016.27 On May 17, the Board retained attorney Keith

Gottfried to review OPT’s “preparedness for a possible activist investor campaign

and/or an unsolicited takeover offer.”28 Gottfried specializes in “shareholder

activism defense.”29

On May 19, Gad sent a letter to Stratmann and Cryan, representing that

Paragon owned 3.3% of OPT’s stock.30 Gad expressed concern with OPT’s cash

depletion and lack of a viable business plan.31 He also “formally request[ed]” the

“timely appointment of Paragon’s three directors [i.e., Gad, Weiser, and Jacobs] to

the Board of OPT.”32

On May 22, Cryan circulated Paragon’s May 19 letter to the Board, announced

the retention of Gottfried, and called a “non-minuted board call” the next day to

discuss these developments.33 On May 25, Stratmann requested that OPT’s current

27
DX 18 at 1; Cryan Dep. 22-23, 29-30 (testifying that he considered whether OPT’s
bylaws should be updated to reflect the new universal proxy rules).
28
PX 69 at ‘5223.
29
PX 72.
30
PX 3 at ‘2245.
31
Id.
32
Id. at ‘2247.
33
PX 4 at ‘0285.

7
bylaws be sent to Gottfried and used the subject line “Project Echo”—OPT’s code

name for its response to Paragon.34 Gottfried also began work on an “NOL Rights

Plan.”35

D. The Amended Bylaws
On June 5, the Board met “to discuss the [May 19] letter received from

Paragon.”36 Gottfried presented a “proposed amendment to [OPT’s] bylaws related

to its advanced notice provisions” and discussed potential activist defense

strategies.37 He also provided an overview of Paragon, its corporate structure, and

its history as an activist stockholder.38 The Board “discussed the amendments” to

the bylaws Gottfried proposed and “decided to postpone final approval” to allow

time for further review.39

After the meeting, Stratmann sent Gad a letter offering to have the Board’s

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee consider Paragon’s candidates.40

34
PX 5 at ‘0346; see PX 50 (“Hewlett Dep.”) 159-60.
35
PX 12; PX 6.
36
PX 9 at 1; see also PX 8.
37
PX 9 at 2.
38
Id.
39
Id. at 4.
40
DX 15.

8
Stratmann’s letter enclosed a copy of a directors’ questionnaire for Paragon’s

proposed candidates to complete.41 Paragon declined this offer.42

On June 8, the Board unanimously approved the proposed bylaw amendments

(the “Amended Bylaws”).43 The changes were primarily to Section 1.10, which

addresses “Advanced Notice of Stockholder Nominations for Directors and Other

Stockholder Proposals.”44 The Amended Bylaws require a stockholder seeking to

nominate a director candidate to disclose, among other things, a description of:

• any “plans or proposals” of the nominating stockholder relating to OPT
“that would be required to be disclosed” under Item 4 of Schedule
13D;45

• “events, occurrences, and/or circumstances . . . that could impact,
impede, and/or delay” the proposed nominees’ “ability to receive a
security clearance”;46

• “any business or personal interests” that could create “a potential
conflict of interest” between OPT and the proposed nominee;47

41
See id. at ‘0659.
42
DX 17 (Gad expressing disappointment with Stratmann’s June 6 letter and rejecting the
“song and dance interview process” involving the Nomination and Governance
Committee); see also DX 16 at ‘1464 (Jacobs describing the Board’s “insistence on a
bureaucratic process as a means to avoid talks”).
43
DX 18 at 1.
44
Id. Ex. A (“Bylaws”) § 1.10.
45
Id. § 1.10(a)(3)(iv)(B).
46
Id. § 1.10(a)(3)(i)(K).
47
Id. § 1.10(a)(3)(i)(I).

9
• information about the proposed nominees (and, as amended, the
noticing stockholder) required to be included in a proxy statement
under Regulation 14A;48 and

• a completed questionnaire with a written representation and agreement
in the form provided by OPT.49

The Amended Bylaws also provide that “[i]f any information in a Stockholder

Notice submitted pursuant to [] Section 1.10 is determined to be inaccurate in any

respect,” the notice “may be deemed not to have been provided in accordance with

[] Section 1.10.”50

E. The Section 382 Plan
On June 29, the Board adopted a Section 382 Tax Benefits Preservation

Plan (“Section 382 Plan”).51 OPT’s announcement of the Section 382 Plan said that

the Board was attempting to “diminish the risk that [OPT’s] ability to utilize its

[NOL] carryovers . . . to reduce potential future federal income tax obligation may

become substantially limited.”52 The Section 382 Plan “is intended to act as a

deterrent to any person or group acquiring beneficial ownership of 4.99% or more”

48
Id. §§ 1.10(a)(3)(i)(M), (iv)(E). According to the Board, this requirement was included
in the 2016 bylaws. See Defs.’ Answering Br. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for a Preliminary
Injunction (Dkt. 125) (“Defs.’ Answering Br.”) 33.
49
Bylaws § 1.10(a)(4)(A).
50
Id. § 1.10(c)(1).
51
PX 16.
52
Id. at 2.

10
of OPT’s outstanding common stock “without the approval of the Board.”53

Purchasing more than 4.99% of OPT’s common stock would trigger significant

dilution.54

Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code restricts a company’s use of NOLs

if it has undergone an “ownership change,” which occurs when over 50% of a

company’s ownership changes over a rolling three-year period (counting

stockholders who hold or obtain a 5% or greater block).55 OPT has approximately

$220 million in NOLs available for carryover.56 Due to “ownership changes” in

October 2016, April 2019, and January 2021, only $94 million is currently available

for preservation and free from limitation.57

F. Paragon’s Proxy Contest

On July 7, Paragon filed a Schedule 13D with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (SEC).58 Paragon disclosed its 3.9% ownership of OPT’s outstanding

shares and stated that ”intend[ed] to provide a slate of director nominees” for the

53
Id. at 3.
54
Id. at 2-3.
55
28 U.S.C. § 382; see PX 16 at 2.
56
DX 10.
57
Id.
58
PX 18 at ‘2588, ‘2590.

11
OPT Board.59 The Schedule 13D attached a letter to OPT stockholders criticizing

OPT’s management and financial performance and stating that Paragon had “a plan

to fix OPT.”60 On July 11, Paragon re-issued the letter as a press release.61 In a July

26 text message, Weiser informed Jacobs that Paragon had “agreed to move forward

with a slate of directors” for OPT.62

G. Paragon’s Exemption Request
Amid its preparations for a proxy contest, Paragon sought an exemption from

the Section 382 Plan so that it could buy up to 19.9% of OPT’s outstanding shares

(the “Exemption Request”).63 The Board discussed the Exemption Request with

counsel and OPT’s tax advisor, EisnerAmper LLP, which had been retained in 2021

to assess the application of Section 382 to OPT.64 After a regularly scheduled Board

meeting on October 11, the Board denied Paragon’s Exemption Request on October

12.65

59
Id. at ‘2590; see Am. Compl. ¶ 62.
60
PX 18 at ‘2588-91.
61
PX 19.
62
DX 23 at ‘2491.
63
PX 25.
64
PX 42; PX 1 (retaining EisnerAmper “to analyze changes in the ownership of the stock
of [OPT] for purposes of determining the application of [IRC] Section 382 to OPT”); see
also PX 13; DX 3.
65
PX 42.

12
H. Paragon’s Nomination Notice

On August 25, Paragon submitted a notice of its intent to nominate director

candidates for election to the Board at OPT’s next annual meeting (the “Notice”).66

Paragon sought to nominate five individuals: Gad, Jacobs, Weiser, Shawn M.

Harpen, and Robert J. Tannor.67 The Notice itself is nine pages long, but spans over

1,000 pages with attachments—including various SEC filings and completed

director questionnaires from the proposed candidates.68

OPT acknowledged receipt of the Notice on August 28 and began reviewing

it for completeness.69 Approximately three weeks remained in the nomination

window, which was set to close on September 15.70

I. The Board’s Response

In a September 6 letter to Paragon, OPT complained that the Notice had

“relatively few cross-references to any of the advance notice requirements in the

[Amended] Bylaws.”71 OPT explained that the Board’s “review of the Purported

Nominating Notice [wa]s continuing and no decision ha[d] been made by OPT, the

66
PX 33.
67
Id. at ‘3254-59. Tannor withdrew as a nominee on November 12. PX 54.
68
PX 54; see also Am. Compl. ¶ 65.
69
See PX 34 at 1.
70
See Am. Compl. ¶ 3.
71
PX 34 at 1-2.

13
OPT Board, or any committee thereof with respect to the Purported Nominating

Notice.”72

OPT subsequently issued two deficiency letters. In a September 8 letter (the

“First Deficiency Letter”), OPT raised multiple purported faults in the Notice under

eight sections of the Amended Bylaws.73 These included Paragon’s purported

failure to disclose its plans and proposals for OPT, information that could impede

Paragon’s nominees from obtaining a government security clearance, and Paragon’s

“substantial interest” in seeking control of the Board through a proxy contest.74 The

Board also stated that the Notice violated the Amended Bylaws because it contained

“inaccurate” information.75

On September 12, Paragon amended its Schedule 13D filing and disclosed its

intent to take control of OPT’s Board.76 The Schedule 13D also explained that if its

nominees were elected, Paragon would take “immediate steps” to reduce expenses,

“develop a measurable plan that will bring [OPT] to cash flow break even,” and

focus on potential industry growth.77 The same day, Paragon submitted another

72
Id. at 2.
73
PX 36.
74
Id. at ‘1350-53.
75
Id.
76
PX 39 at ‘4506-08.
77
Id. at ‘4508.

14
letter to OPT supplementing the Notice and attempting to address certain issues

raised in the First Deficiency Letter.78 Paragon’s letter requested that OPT

“promptly provide a complete list of any and all deficiencies claimed by [OPT] to

exist in the Notice so that Paragon c[ould] take timely steps to address and, if needed,

cure any issues.”79

On September 14, OPT sent Paragon a letter detailing additional deficiencies

(the “Second Deficiency Letter”).80 OPT noted that there were still issues with the

accuracy of the Notice and the September 12 supplement.81 With one day left before

the nomination deadline, OPT said that its letter did “not contain a complete listing

of all of the deficiencies.”82 Paragon again supplemented the Notice on September

15.83

On October 12, OPT formally rejected the Notice.84

78
Id. at ‘4501-05.
79
Id. at ‘4504.
80
PX 40.
81
Id. at 2.
82
Id. at 4.
83
PX 41.
84
PX 43.

15
J. This Litigation

Paragon commenced this action on October 10.85 Its complaint advanced two

counts for breach of fiduciary duty.86 Count I concerns the Board’s review and

(then-presumed) rejection of the Notice.87 Count II pertains to the Board’s rejection

of the Exemption Request.88

Discovery commenced soon after the complaint was filed, and an expedited

schedule was set. On October 27, the defendants served interrogatory responses that

detailed numerous purported deficiencies in the Notice.89 On October 31, Paragon

responded to issues raised by the defendants by submitting another supplement to

the Notice.90 The Board rejected this supplement as untimely and ineffective.91

On November 2—one day before the substantial completion deadline for

document production—Paragon sought leave to amend its complaint and add claims

related to the adoption of the Amended Bylaws.92 On November 9, I granted

85
Dkt. 1. This lawsuit followed a books and records action, in which Magistrate Molina
granted Paragon’s demand for certain materials. PX 44; Paragon Techs., Inc. v. Ocean
Power Techs., Inc., C.A. No. 2023-0770-SEM (Del. Ch. Oct. 20, 2023) (TRANSCRIPT).
86
Am. Compl. ¶¶ 131-67.
87
Id. ¶¶ 134-36, 138.
88
Id. ¶¶ 154-56.
89
PX 45.
90
PX 46.
91
PX 49.
92
Dkt. 47.

16
Paragon’s motion for leave to amend with a “significant caveat”: due to Paragon’s

delay and to prevent prejudice to the defendants given the highly-expedited

schedule, the preliminary injunction hearing would only concern Paragon’s original

claims.93

On November 17, Paragon filed its motion for a preliminary injunction and

opening brief in support.94 Paragon asked that I enjoin the defendants from

enforcing Section 1.10 of the Amended Bylaws and from taking actions that would

prevent Paragon’s nominees from standing for election at OPT’s upcoming annual

meeting. It also asked that I direct the defendants to grant the Exemption Request.95

The defendants filed an answering brief on November 22, and Paragon’s reply brief

was filed on November 27.96 Oral argument on the motion was held on November

28.97 At that argument, the parties also addressed the defendants’ motion for

sanctions due to Gad’s purported spoliation of text messages.98

93
Dkt. 76.
94
Dkt. 111.
95
Id.
96
Dkts. 125, 129.
97
See Dkt. 128.
98
Dkts. 127, 133, 135.

17
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

“The extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction ‘is granted sparingly

and only upon a persuasive showing that it is urgently necessary, that it will result

in comparatively less harm to the adverse party, and that, in the end, it is unlikely to

be shown to have been issued improvidently.’”99 To obtain preliminary injunctive

relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate: “(1) a reasonable probability of ultimate success

on the merits at trial; (2) that the failure to issue a preliminary injunction will result

in immediate and irreparable injury . . . ; and (3) that the balance of hardships weighs

in the movant’s favor.”100 Although there “is no fixed approach to how the court

should weigh these elements relative to one another,” the “failure to prove any of

the three [] defeats the application.”101

As Paragon acknowledges, a “higher mandatory injunction standard” applies

here.102 Paragon requests an order requiring the defendants to allow its nominees to

stand for election and to grant its Exemption Request.103 Paragon therefore must

99
Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. v. Cantor, 724 A.2d 571, 579 (Del. Ch. 1998).
100
La. Mun. Police Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Crawford, 918 A.2d 1172, 1185 (Del. Ch. 2007).
101
Jorgl v. AIM Immunotech Inc., 2022 WL 16543834, at *9 (Del. Ch. Oct. 28, 2022)
(citing Cantor Fitzgerald, 724 A.2d at 579).
102
Pl.’s Opening Br. in Supp. of Its Mot. for a Prelim. Inj. (Dkt. 111) (“Pl.’s Opening Br.”)
21.
103
[Proposed] Order Granting Pl.’s Mot. for a Prelim. Inj. (Dkt. 111); see Union Pac. Corp.
v. Santa Fe Pac. Corp., 1995 WL 54428, at *2 (Del. Ch. Jan. 30, 1995) (explaining that a
preliminary injunction motion seeking an order directing the board to redeem a pill or grant
an exemption involves mandatory relief); Jorgl, 2022 WL 16543834, at *9 (“[A]sking the
18
demonstrate its entitlement “as a matter of law to the relief [it] seeks based on

undisputed facts.”104 That is, Paragon must “make a showing sufficient to support a

grant of summary judgment.”105

Paragon might have proven a reasonable probability of success on certain

aspects of its claims. The Board adopted sprawling advance notice bylaws after

Paragon’s outreach, seemingly delayed and obfuscated in rejecting Paragon’s notice,

and then produced a laundry list of deficiencies. But Paragon opted to pursue

mandatory injunctive relief on a preliminary record—one rife with factual disputes.

Gad’s apparent deletion of text messages makes matters worse. Mandatory relief is

unavailable in these circumstances.

A. The Nomination Notice Claim

Advance notice bylaws are “commonplace” and can serve important corporate

purposes.106 They “are designed and function to permit orderly meetings and

court to order the defendants to acknowledge his nominees as valid, permit his nominees
to stand for election, and include his nominees on a universal proxy card . . . amounts to a
request for mandatory injunctive relief.”).
104
Jorgl, 2022 WL 16543834, at *10; see also BlackRock Credit Allocation Income Tr. v.
Saba Cap. Master Fund, Ltd., 224 A.3d 964, 976-77 (Del. 2020).
105
Saba Cap., 224 A.3d at 977; see also Sparton v. O’Neil, 2018 WL 3025470, at *3 (Del.
Ch. June 18, 2018) (“In order for a movant to be entitled to a mandatory injunction, the
movant must show ‘(1) actual success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm; and (3) the harm
resulting from failure to issue an injunction outweighs the harm befalling the opposing
party if the injunction is issued.’” (quoting ID Biomed. Corp. v. TM Techs., Inc., 1995 WL
130743, at *15 (Del. Ch. Mar. 16, 1995))).
106
Saba Cap., 224 A.3d at 980.

19
election contests and to provide fair warning to the corporation so that it may have

sufficient time to respond to shareholder nominations.”107 They also serve

“information-gathering and disclosure functions,” “allowing boards of directors to

knowledgably make recommendations about nominees and ensuring that

stockholders cast well-informed votes.”108

These goals must be carefully balanced against stockholders’ “fundamental

governance right” of voting for directors.109 In weighing these interests, Delaware

courts are often guided by the principle that “inequitable action does not become

permissible simply because it is legally possible.”110

My analysis of Paragon’s claim takes two forms. I first consider whether

Paragon has demonstrated that it complied with OPT’s Amended Bylaws. I then

consider whether the Board’s rejection of the Notice was unreasonable under the

enhanced scrutiny standard of review.111

107
Openwave Sys. Inc. v. Harbinger Cap. P’rs Master Fund I, Ltd., 924 A.2d 228, 239-40
(Del. Ch. 2007).
108
Strategic Inv. Opportunities LLC v. Lee Enters., Inc., 2022 WL 453607, at *9, *18 (Del.
Ch. Feb. 14, 2022).
109
EMAK Worldwide, Inc. v. Kurz, 50 A.3d 429, 433 (Del. 2012).
110
Schnell v. Chris-Craft Indus., Inc., 285 A.2d 437, 439 (Del. 1971); see also Sternlicht
v. Hernandez, 2023 WL 3991642, at *15 (Del. Ch. June 14, 2023) (“Cases challenging the
application of an otherwise valid advance notice bylaw present a context-specific
application of Schnell.”) (citations omitted).
111
See Coster v. UIP Cos., Inc., 300 A.3d 656, 671-72 (Del. 2023).

20
1. Whether the Notice Complied with the Amended Bylaws

A corporation’s bylaws are “interpreted using contractual principles.”112 The

bylaw’s terms are “given their commonly accepted meaning.”113 “[I]f the bylaw’s

language is unambiguous, the court need not interpret it or search for the parties’

intent.”114 If an advance notice bylaw provision is “unclear” or ambiguous, “any

doubt” is resolved “in favor of the stockholder’s electoral rights.”115

Paragon asserts that its Notice complied with the Amended Bylaws. The

defendants disagree, arguing that the Notice suffered from numerous failings. For

purposes of my analysis, I focus primarily on the issues identified in the First and

Second Deficiency Letters rather than those raised for the first time in discovery.116

Some of the purported deficiencies are substantive; others are more trivial. I

start with the former—specifically, whether Paragon disclosed its plans or proposals

for OPT and related conflicts of interest as required by the Amended Bylaws. At a

minimum, factual disputes exist concerning Paragon’s compliance with these

112
Saba Cap., 224 A.3d at 980.
113
Hill Int’l, Inc. v. Opportunity P’rs L.P., 119 A.3d 30, 38 (Del. 2015).
114
Id.
115
Id.
116
Multiple alleged deficiencies were raised for the first time in the defendants’
interrogatory responses. Given the timing, these issues seem more like litigation constructs
than decisions underpinning the Board’s rejection of the Notice. Perhaps a better
developed record will show otherwise. For now, I consider the late-raised issues insofar
as they provide context for matters mentioned in the First and Second Deficiency Letters.
21
provisions. Although other alleged deficiencies are less compelling (even meritless),

I cannot find as a matter of law that the Notice satisfied the Amended Bylaws’

requirements.

a. Disclosure of Paragon’s Plans or Proposals

Section 1.10(a)(3)(iv)(B) of the Amended Bylaws requires a nominating

stockholder to disclose any “plans or proposals . . . that would be required to be

disclosed by such stockholder . . . pursuant to Item 4 of Schedule 13D.”117 In a letter

to OPT stockholders filed with the SEC on July 7, 2023, Paragon declared that it had

“a plan to fix OPT” and that it was “supremely confident [it] can execute that

plan.”118 Although Paragon attached this letter to its Notice, it did not describe any

“plan.”119 The Board cited this alleged omission as grounds for rejecting the Notice

in the First Deficiency Letter.120

In responding to the First Deficiency Letter on September 12, Paragon told

the Board that “[a]ll of Paragon’s current plans and proposals for [OPT] and its

business [we]re contained in the Notice, including without limitation in its letter to

117
PX 10 at ‘0018.
118
PX 18 at ‘2590; see also PX 23.
119
See PX 33.
120
PX 36 at 3-4. Paragon asserts that this issue was “abandoned” in the Second Deficiency
Letter. Pl.’s Opening Br. 52. But the Second Deficiency Letter stated that the Board “did
not believe Paragon” addressed the concerns in the First Deficiency Letter and “refer[red]
back” to the First Deficiency Letter. PX 40 at 2.
22
shareholders, press releases, and Schedule 13Ds.”121 At the same time, the

September 12 letter attached a new Schedule 13D as a “supplement” to the Notice

that explained Paragon’s general intentions for OPT.122 Now, Paragon argues that

any further plans for OPT were “vaguely formed thoughts for the future” and that it

was not required to disclose anything more because Item 4 only concerns definite

plans.123

I cannot, however, conclusively find that Paragon complied with Section

1.10(a)(3)(iv)(B). Item 4 of Schedule 13D would require the disclosure of an

extraordinary corporate transaction, a sale or transfer of a material amount of assets,

a change to the board of directors or management, and similar types of

transactions.124 Paragon’s internal communications mention these sorts of plans,

which were unmentioned in the Notice and Paragon’s Schedule 13D filings.

121
PX 39 at ‘4502.
122
Id. at ‘4508 (“[I]f the Reporting Person’s nominees are elected to the Company’s board
of directors, the Reporting Person intends to take immediate steps to: significantly reduce
the expenses of the Company; develop a measurable plan that will bring the Company to
cash flow break even; implement a disciplined and focused capital allocation strategy; and
focus on the potential growth of the Company’s intelligence data and leverage the possible
market opportunities of Marine Advanced Robotics.”); see Pl.’s Opening Br. 53.
123
See Azurite Corp. Ltd. v. Amster & Co., 52 F.3d 15, 18 (2d Cir. 1995) (explaining that
Item 4 calls for disclosure of “certain enumerated types of plans or proposals”); 17 C.F.R.
§ 240.13d-101.
124
See 17 C.F.R. § 240.13d-101.

23
For example, in a July 26 text message exchange between Jacobs and Weiser,

Weiser described Gad’s “approach” as a “risky” one to “shut [OPT] down” that

Weiser was “not comfortable” with.125 The next day, Weiser texted Gad saying:

“you need a plan for the company – just cutting expenses and hoarding cash for

Paragon to deploy won’t work and will get us and OPT sued.”126 Weiser told Gad

that he and Jacobs were “reconsider[ing]” their support if they “d[id]n’t have a plan

soon.”127 Gad then explained to Weiser that he saw “a path” for Paragon to “acquire

the entire company stock for stock.”128 It would “essentially [be] OPT acquiring

[Paragon],” but Paragon would “control the terms and get control of the

company.”129 “One way or another,” Gad said, it “has to be a win for Paragon.”130

Paragon maintains that I should overlook these contemporaneous

communications and conclude that no undisclosed plans existed by crediting the

deposition testimony of Gad, Jacobs, and Weiser. Setting aside the difficulty in

125
DX 23 at ‘2489.
126
DX 24 at ‘2510
127
Id. at ‘2511.
128
Id. at ‘2496.
129
Id.; see also DX 34 at ‘1402 (Tannor to Gad: “I would like to help you winning control
of the board, and then depending on plans – going long.”); DX 31 at ‘2285 (Gad to Tannor:
“I believe we are aligned with the restructuring strategy.”); DX 33 at ‘2397 (Gad telling
Paragon’s proxy solicitor that he had “identified potential acquisition candidates that
deliver immediate revenues and profits to [OPT]”).
130
DX 24 at ‘2506.

24
doing so on a paper record, the three confusingly testified that—though Paragon’s

Schedule 13D disclosed a “plan to fix OPT”—they lacked any plan at all.131 Further,

Weiser testified that Gad “might propose” a stock for stock merger between OPT

and Paragon if Gad were elected to the Board.132

Resolving whether Paragon is merely exploring loose goals for OPT or has

definitive plans falling within Item 4 (and thus Section 1.10(a)(3)(iv)(B) of the

Amended Bylaws) requires credibility determinations I cannot presently make.133

Gad’s deletion of evidence widens the gaps in the record.134 Despite receiving a

litigation hold reminder from counsel on October 13, Gad “clear[ed] out the text

131
Gad Dep. 107 (testifying that he has ideas “based on what [he’s] analyzed and seen
from” OPT’s public filings and that he wanted to learn information he is “unable to see as
[a] nondirector[]” before “mak[ing] the appropriate business decision”); Weiser Dep. 93-
95 (Q: “Can you please describe what the plan to fix OPT is that’s referenced in the letter?”
A: “We really don’t have a plan.”); DX 22 (“Jacobs Dep.”) 164-67 (Q: “Colonel, based on
what you just described, would you say that Paragon has no plan for OPT?” A: “Well in
the way that you used the word ‘plan,’ we don’t have a plan.”). At times, the witnesses
were instructed by counsel not to answer questions about undisclosed plans on business
strategy immunity grounds. See, e.g., Jacobs Dep. 97, 108.
132
Weiser Dep. 215-16.
133
Paragon insists that Gad only has “plans” in the colloquial sense. See Pl.’s Opening Br.
52-53; see also Plan, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plan
(defining “plan” to include a “goal” or an “aim”). I cannot speculate about what was in
Gad’s mind.
Paragon’s failure to produce any Paragon board materials does not help. See Defs.’
134

Answering Br. 30 n.104 (citing Weiser Dep. 89-90; Jacobs Dep. 156; Gad Dep. 15-16).
25
threads that appear lower down on [his] iPhone message list.”135 Curiously, he did

not “clear” messages with counsel.136

If Gad had a plan to pursue a transaction benefitting Paragon at OPT’s

expense, the Notice might violate other provisions of the Amended Bylaws.137

Section 1.10(a)(3)(i)(I) of the Amended Bylaws requires a “description in reasonable

detail of any business or personal interests that could place [a] [p]roposed [n]ominee

135
Aff. of H. Gad in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. for Sanctions (Dkt. 133) (“Gad Aff.”) ¶ 12.
According to the defendants, Jacobs also produced no texts, and Weiser produced
screenshots with little metadata. See Defs.’ Answering Br. 30. Gad’s deletion of text
messages was only revealed after, in ruling on a motion to compel, I ordered Paragon’s
counsel to provide the defendants’ counsel with an explanation for the missing texts. See
Dkt. 109. After learning that Gad deleted his texts, the defendants moved for sanctions.
Defs.’ Mot. for Sanctions (Dkt. 127). On the current record, I cannot say with confidence
whether Gad recklessly or intentionally spoliated evidence—a state of mind determination
necessary for the adverse inference the defendants seek. See Beard Rsch., Inc. v. Kates,
981 A.2d 1175, 1192 (Del. Ch. 2009) (“[D]rawing an adverse inference is appropriate when
an actor is under a duty to preserve evidence and takes part in the destruction of evidence
while being consciously aware of a risk that he or she will cause or allow evidence to be
spoiled by action or inaction . . . .”). The request for dispositive sanctions is therefore
denied, without prejudice to the defendants’ ability to renew the motion later in this case.
The motion for sanctions is granted insofar as Paragon must pay the reasonable fees and
costs incurred by the defendants in filing the motion for sanctions. See Beard Rsch., 981
A.2d at 1194 (“To impose monetary sanctions, this Court need only find that a party had a
duty to preserve evidence and breached that duty . . . .”).
136
Gad Aff. ¶ 12 (explaining that he did not “clear” messages with counsel at Thompson
Hine because he and counsel “communicate on an ongoing basis” such that their text thread
“appears at the top of [his] list of messages” that he generally does not “clear”); see DX 35
at 4 (“We inquired as to why Mr. Gad’s iPhone did not contain OPT-related texts with
anyone other than counsel at Thompson Hine. Mr. Gad did not recall specifically why this
would be the case but thought it might be because at some point he had cleared his phone
of messages, as is his periodic practice.”).
137
See Weiser Dep. 37, 168-69 (testifying that OPT’s value was and is greater than
Paragon’s value).
26
in a potential conflict of interest with [OPT] or any of its subsidiaries.”138 The Notice

provided no responsive disclosure about whether the proposed nominees serving as

directors of Paragon might have a conflict of interest in choosing between Paragon

and OPT if they were elected to the Board.139

Section 1.10(a)(3)(i)(M) also mandates the disclosure of “all other

information relating to such Proposed Nominee that would be required to be

disclosed” in a contested meeting proxy statement “pursuant to Regulation 14A.”140

Regulation 14A would, among other things, require Paragon to disclose “any

substantial interest, direct or indirect” that Paragon has in seeking control of the

Board.141 But the Notice stated: “None of Paragon, its controlling persons, or the

138
PX 10 at ‘0016. The First Deficiency Letter cited the lack of disclosure about potential
conflicts of interest as grounds for rejection. PX 36 at 4. Paragon responded on September
12: “Paragon does not believe there would be a conflict between the fiduciary duties owed
by the Paragon directors to Paragon and the fiduciary duties owed to the Company if they
are elected to the Company's board; therefore, no disclosure is required.” PX 39 at ‘4503.
The Second Deficiency Letter stated that the Board “continue[d] to believe” Paragon did
not comply with the Amended Bylaws, “refer[red] back” to the First Deficiency Letter, and
said that Paragon had not “adequately addressed” the issues raised in the First Deficiency
Letter. PX 40 at 2.
139
In its First Deficiency Letter, the Board asked for Paragon to provide OPT with a
discussion of how the Paragon directors would reconcile any potential conflicts. PX 36 at
4. Paragon provided nothing in response.
140
PX 10 at ‘0017.
141
17 C.F.R § 240.14a-101.

27
Nominees has any interest in the nomination of the Nominee at the Annual Meeting

other than the protection and advancement of Paragon’s investment in [OPT].”142

b. Other Alleged Violations

The Board raised numerous other deficiencies in rejecting the Notice.143

Several turn on disputed facts. Others are minor compared to those addressed above.

And some appear meritless. Rather than sort through them all, I will focus on two

of note.

One alleged deficiency concerns Section 1.10(a)(3)(i)(K) of the Amended

Bylaws, which requires disclosure of all “events, occurrences, and/or circumstances

involving or relating to the Proposed Nominee that could impact, impede, and/or

delay” the candidate’s ability to obtain a federal security clearance.144 The

defendants argue that Paragon flouted this bylaw by failing to disclose that Gad and

his father are citizens of another country and hold foreign passports, and that Weiser

is “financially overextended.”145 Their position is based on lengthy federal

guidelines that are nowhere mentioned in the bylaw provision and on an expert

142
PX 33 at ‘3249.
143
See PX 36; PX 40.
144
PX 10 at ‘0016.
145
DX 36 ¶¶ 31-32; PX 46 at ‘2044-45.

28
opinion about the sort of matters that would affect the attainment of a security

clearance.146

Paragon avers that this bylaw is ambiguous since stockholders are left to guess

about the sorts of “events, occurrences, and/or circumstances” that “could impact”

attaining a security clearance.147 I tend to agree. It is unclear how a stockholder

could predict if, for example, a nominee’s credit card debt might impede this

process.148 Even so, Gad—who is not a United States citizen—stated that there were

“no facts that would prevent” him from obtaining a security clearance despite

consulting with “legal counsel with extensive experience with U.S. government

security clearances.”149 On this record, I cannot say with any degree of certainty

146
PX 45 at 13 (stating that the Notice violated “Section 1.10(a)(3)(i)(K) of the Amended
Bylaws” because the “Notice does not disclose in reasonable detail the events,
occurrences, and/or circumstances involving or relating to the Purported Nominees that
could impact, impede, and/or delay the Purported Nominees’ ability to receive a security
clearance from the United States Government that would allow them access to classified
information” and citing 32 C.F.R. § 147); see also DX 36.
147
Pl.’s Opening Br. 45. Paragon also asserts that this issue was “abandoned” in the
Second Deficiency Letter. Id.; see supra note 120 (explaining that the Second Deficiency
Letter incorporated the First Deficiency Letter).
148
See DX 36 (opining that financial irresponsibility would impair or delay the ability to
obtain a security clearance); see also infra note 174 (discussing the other information that
the defendants believe would need to be disclosed in addressing this bylaw). The Board
members could not even agree on what one needed to disclose to satisfy the bylaw. PX 58
(“Lorenz-Anderson Dep.”) 128-30, 133, 143-44, 146; PX 55 (“Purcel Dep.”) 88; Slaiby
Dep. 98-106.
149
PX 39 at ‘4503. Gad did, however, answer “No” in response to a director questionnaire
inquiry asking: “Are you a citizen of the United States of America?” PX 33 at ‘3411-12.
29
whether Gad was confused about what the bylaw required or made no attempt to

comply.150

The Board also rejected the Notice as “inaccurate” under Section 1.01(c)(1)

of the Amended Bylaws.151 The purported inaccuracies involve Paragon’s

statements that OPT’s current Board members have “grossly neglected and violated

their fiduciary obligation[s],” have engaged in “self-serving entrenchment actions,”

and are “unfit to serve OPT stockholders.”152 Whether true or not, these seem to be

the sort of opinions often voiced in heated proxy contests—not statements of fact

that could be called objectively wrong.153

150
See Openwave Sys., 924 A.2d at 240-41 (holding, after trial, that alleged confusion did
not excuse a stockholder’s failure to comply with an advance notice bylaw given the lack
of evidence supporting this contention). As discussed below, the bylaw is suspicious. See
infra notes 173-78 and accompanying text.
151
PX 10 at ‘0022 (“If any information contained in a Stockholder Notice submitted
pursuant to this Section 1.10 is determined to be inaccurate in any respect, such
Stockholder Notice may be deemed not to have been provided in accordance with this
Section 1.10.”); see PX 36; PX 40; see also PX 45 at 9-10, 17.
152
PX 45 at 9-10, 17; see PX 33 at ‘4194-97.
153
See Agar v. Judy, 151 A.3d 456, 485-86 (Del. Ch. 2017) (concluding that allegations in
a fight letter sent during a proxy contest that directors “loot[ed] the Company” were
“personal opinion[s]” and not statements of fact); see also Cummins v. Suntrust Cap. Mkts.,
Inc., 649 F. Supp. 2d 224, 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (holding that a defendant’s statement
“accus[ing] the plaintiff of breaching his fiduciary duty . . . was plainly an opinion based
on the disclosed factual circumstances . . . rather than an actionable assertion of a materially
false fact”). Gad testified that he personally holds the beliefs expressed in the Notice. Gad
Dep. 129-30. The Board cited the same allegations of mismanagement as violating Rule
14a-9. See PX 45 at 16-17. “Rule 14a-9 in no way prohibits the expression of an honest
opinion” regarding the capabilities of incumbents. Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Curtiss-
Wright Corp., 449 F. Supp. 951, 960 (S.D.N.Y. 1978), rev’d on other grounds, 584 F. 2d
1195 (2d Cir. 1978); see also Proxy Voting Advice, Exchange Act Release No. 34-95266,
30
Had Paragon not sought mandatory relief, I might have concluded that it was

reasonably likely to prevail on some of these interpretative challenges.154 I decline

to complete that needless exercise. Given the higher standard that applies and my

conclusion above regarding the plans and proposals disclosure provision (and

potentially others), Paragon cannot prove as a matter of law that it complied with the

Amended Bylaws. I go on to consider reasonableness of the Board’s actions, which

I turn to next.

2. Whether the Rejection Can Withstand Enhanced Scrutiny

Paragon claims that the Board breached its fiduciary duties by impairing

Paragon’s right to freely vote for director candidates.155 A “context-specific” form

of the Unocal enhanced scrutiny standard guides my review of this claim.156 The

standard is “one of reasonableness” with the directors bearing the burden of proof.157

at 51 (July 13, 2022) (available at www.sec.gov/files/rules/final/2022/34-95266.pdf)
(“Rule 14a-9 liability does not extend to mere differences of opinion.”). The SEC has not
indicated to Paragon that it believes there has been a violation in Paragon’s public filings.
See PX 22; PX 48 at 12, 22.
154
The above analysis is not exhaustive. Given the procedural posture of the motion and
the exceedingly limited time to rule, I have not addressed every purported deficiency.
155
See Totta v. CCSB Fin. Corp., 2022 WL 1751741, at *12 (Del. Ch. May 31, 2022),
aff’d, 302 A.3d 387 (Del. 2023); see also Sternlicht, 2023 WL 3991642, at *14 (asking
whether there is “some basis in equity to excuse strict compliance” with an advance notice
bylaw).
156
Lee Enters., 2022 WL 453607, at *16; see also Coster, 300 A.3d at 671-72; Pell v. Kill,
135 A.3d 764, 787 (Del. Ch. 2016).
157
Coster, 300 A.3d at 671-72 (citation omitted); see also Mercier v. Inter-Tel. (Del.), Inc.,
929 A.2d 786, 810 (Del. Ch. 2007).
31
The court first reviews “whether the board faced a threat ‘to an important

corporate interest or to the achievement of a significant corporate benefit.’”158 “The

threat must be real and not pretextual, and the board’s motivations must be proper

and not selfish or disloyal.”159 The court then assesses “whether the board’s response

to the threat was reasonable in relation to the threat posed and was not preclusive or

coercive to the stockholder franchise.”160

The Board contends that the rejection of the Notice “served valid corporate

objectives of ensuring orderly director elections and accurate and complete

disclosure by a nominating stockholder and its nominees.”161 Paragon insists that

this is a pretense. In Paragon’s view, the Board acted with the goal of entrenching

itself and thwarting stockholders’ voting rights.

The Amended Bylaws were approved after Paragon emerged as a significant

stockholder and the potential for a proxy contest was known to the Board. 162 Yet

158
Coster, 300 A.3d at 672; see also Lee Enters., 2022 WL 453607, at *15-16 (explaining
that the defendants must “identify the proper corporate objectives served by their actions”
and “justify their actions as reasonable in relation to those objectives” (citation omitted)).
159
Coster, 300 A.3d at 672.
160
Id. at 672-73.
161
Defs.’ Answering Br. 48.
162
See PX 70 at No. 24; PX 71 (Stratmann emailing Cryan on April 14 that Gad “posted a
letter demanding a board seat”). Paragon believes that the Amended Bylaws were not
adopted on a clear day. See Pl.’s Opening Br. 25-27. Although Paragon has pleaded a
claim challenging the adoption of the bylaws, it is not before me on the present motion.
See Order Granting with Modifications Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to File Am. and Suppl. Compl.
(Dkt. 76) (“To address prejudice to the defendants . . . the preliminary injunction hearing
32
the defendants presented some evidence that the Board decided to amend OPT’s

bylaws to align with the universal proxy rules recently adopted by the SEC.163 In

addition to incorporating provisions related to the universal proxy rules, the bylaws

were amended to include additional disclosure requirements.164 Several of the

Amended Bylaws enforced by the Board are consistent with these purposes.

Rejecting a nomination notice for failing to disclose plans or proposals falling

within Item 4 promotes the disclosure function of advance notice bylaws.165 If

Paragon sought to undertake a stock for stock transaction with OPT, the Delaware

General Corporation Law might not require stockholder approval.166 “The prospect

set for November 28 will only concern the plaintiff’s original claims (Counts I and II).”).
I consider the Board’s adoption of the Amended Bylaws to the extent it is relevant to my
assessment of the Board’s response to Paragon’s Notice.
163
See Cryan Dep. 23 (“I reached out to Mr. Gottfried . . . because I wanted to consider
engaging him to do a review and potential update of the bylaws . . . At no time during that
conversation did I mention Paragon or the conversation that had taken place between Mr.
Gad and Dr. Stratmann.”); id. at 29-30; Stratmann Dep. 123 (Q: “And I think you said these
bylaws really were unconnected to my client [Paragon] coming forward and sending you a
letter, right? A: “Correct.” Q: “And unconnected to the phone call you had with my client?”
A: “That’s correct. Yes.”); DX 14.
164
Paragon asks me to reject the Board members’ testimony and find that the Board
amended the bylaws with the goal of impairing its ability to run a proxy contest. To do so
would require me to make credibility assessments, which I am not equipped in this
procedural posture. For now, there is a genuine factual dispute about whether the Board
perceived Paragon as a threat at the time that it approved the Amended Bylaws.
165
Bylaws § 1.10(a)(3)(iv)(B); see Lee Enters., 2022 WL 453607, at *18.
166
See Rosenbaum v. CytoDyn Inc., 2021 WL 4775140, at *20 (Del. Ch. Oct. 13, 2021)
(describing a bylaw requiring the disclosure of a past acquisition proposal as essential since
any future acquisition could be approved unilaterally by the board).
33
that a nominee may seek to facilitate an insider transaction is the type of potential

conflict that stockholders are entitled to know about when voting for directors” in a

contested election.167 The Board’s enforcement of provisions requiring the

disclosure of potential conflicts and “substantial interests” pursuant to Regulation

14D is also related to this end.168

I could stop there, but fear that I would leave the reader with an impression

that nothing appears amiss. The preliminary record prompts me to look skeptically

at the Board’s response to the Notice. The goalposts were never fixed. Paragon

submitted its Notice with three weeks left in the nomination window, which would

give it time to cure any deficiencies. In response, though, the Board chastised

Paragon for “inexplicably rush[ing].”169 The Board continuously declined to provide

a complete list of deficiencies when it rejected the Notice—nearly five weeks after

167
Id. at *17; see id. at *20.
168
Bylaws § 1.10(a)(3)(i)(I), (M); see also van der Fluit v. Yates, 2017 WL 5953514, at *8
(Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2017) (“[S]tockholders are ‘entitled to know that certain of their
fiduciaries ha[ve] a self-interest that [is] arguably in conflict with their own.’”) (citation
omitted).
169
PX 34.

34
receiving it.170 A litany of new deficiencies were then identified in the defendants’

written discovery responses.171

The defendants argue that their delay was the result of Paragon submitting a

confusing Notice that attached hundreds of pages of documents without cross-

referencing the relevant Amended Bylaw provisions. Maybe so. Or perhaps the

Board was sifting through the Notice to dig up deficiencies. Some of the

shortcomings identified by the Board are nitpicky.172 Others are suspect.

170
See PX 36 (First Deficiency Letter; “OPT notes that this letter does not contain a
complete listing of all the deficiencies in the Purported Nomination Notice.”); PX 39
(Paragon asking OPT on September 12 to inform it of any deficiencies so it could “cure”
them); PX 40 (Second Deficiency Letter; “OPT notes that this letter, together with our
September 8 letter, does not contain a complete listing of all the deficiencies in, and our
concerns with respect to, the Purported Nomination Notice.”).
171
PX 45.
172
For example, the Board said that the Notice was deficient because Paragon filed a July
7 stockholder letter under the cover of Schedule 13D rather than as proxy soliciting
materials, in purported violation of Rule 14a-12 and Section 1.10(c)(8) of the Amended
Bylaws. See PX 36 at 2-3. The SEC did not share the defendants’ view. PX 22; PX 48 at
No. 5. As another example, the defendants cited the failure to disclose that Gad and Harpen
served on a Las Vegas condominium board together as a deficiency “call[ing] into
question” Harpen’s independence of Gad. PX 45 at 18. The defendants also highlighted
Jacobs’ failure to disclose two prior lawsuits from 2005 and 2009 as violating Section
1.10(a)(3)(i)(F), which requires a “description in reasonable detail of any and all litigation”
relating to prior board service. See PX 46 (disclosing litigation on October 31, 2023). Cf.
CytoDyn, 2021 WL 4775140, at *19 (confirming that the board acted appropriately where
it rejected a notice for failure to disclose “vitally important information” and explaining
that “the Board was not nitpicking when it flagged the omission as material and ultimately
disqualifying”).
35
The security clearance bylaw stands out.173 I could see utility in a bylaw

requiring a nominee to disclose known barriers to obtaining a security clearance if

the Board needed to oversee matters involving classified information. The Board

required much more and rejected the Notice because Paragon could not divine

whether its candidates had personal issues that might touch on federal guidelines

unreferenced in the bylaw.174 None of the country’s three largest defense contractors

have a bylaw resembling that of OPT.175 And none of the current Board members

have a security clearance; only Stratmann (as CEO) is working to obtain one. 176 In

fact, OPT has no contracts at this time that would require a security clearance.177

Given this context, I must wonder about the Board’s intentions in adopting and

enforcing this bylaw. The Board apparently considered that Paragon’s nominees

173
Bylaws § 1.10(a)(3)(i)(K).
174
The defendants say that the Notice violated Section 1.10(a)(3)(i)(K) of the Amended
Bylaws because it did not disclose information that might affect the candidates’ ability to
receive a security clearance from the federal government pursuant to 32 C.F.R. § 147.4.
PX 45 at 13-14. But the Part 147 guidelines contain multiple subsections that involve
everything from “foreign influence” to “sexual behavior” and “alcohol consumption.” 32
C.F.R. § 147(c)(2), (4), (7).
175
Lockheed Martin and RTX (Raytheon) have no security clearance provision in their
bylaws. PXs 64-65. Boeing has a provision that requires disclosure “of any instance in
which such nominee was denied (and not subsequently granted) or has applied for and not
been granted, a security clearance.” PX 66 at 8.
176
See Hewlett Dep. 51-56; Lorenz-Anderson Dep. 99; Slaiby Dep. 82.
177
See Hewlett Dep. 51; Lorenz-Anderson Dep. 102. Again, there is nothing in the record
to the contrary.
36
might have difficulty obtaining a security clearance before it approved the Amended

Bylaws.178

Additionally, a bylaw mandating the accuracy of a nomination notice bears a

facial link to the goals of maintaining orderly elections and ensuring appropriate

disclosure. But Section 1.10(c)(1), which allows the Board to reject an “inaccurate”

notice, was adopted after the directors discussed that Paragon’s May 18 letter

contained “incorrect” statements that were “critical” of OPT.179 The Board cited this

bylaw in finding the Notice noncompliant because it deemed Paragon’s criticisms of

the OPT’s directors and management to be inaccurate. If a board could call a

nomination notice deficient simply because it disagreed with opinions voiced by the

nominating stockholder, rejection would be a foregone conclusion.180 Irrespective

of any good intentions in ensuring that notices are accurate, the Board’s dismissal of

the Notice based on Paragon’s opinion statements appears preclusive in effect.

178
Hewlett Dep. 130 (Q: “It was discussed at the June 5, 2023 board meeting that these
individuals may have difficulty obtaining a security clearance, correct?” A: “To the best of
my recall.”); see also PX 9 at 3 (June 5 minutes: “The Board moved on to a discussion on
the appropriate profile of Board candidates . . . and the need for security clearances at the
Board and senior management levels.”); id. at 2 (“Mr. Gottfried presented the Board with
the publicly available background with respect to Paragon, and its key personnel . . . and
its history as an activist shareholder with other companies.”).
179
PX 9 at ‘2941.
180
Cf. Agar, 151 A.3d at 485 (noting that a stockholder reading a fight letter sent during a
proxy contest would anticipate exaggerated characterizations of the incumbent directors
and would not reasonably conceive of allegedly false statements as being “anything other
than an expression of [the stockholder’s] opinion”).
37
* * *

Paragon is (perhaps rightly) frustrated by aspects of the Board’s denial of the

Notice. Rather than focus on disqualifying matters, the Board slowly rolled out ever-

growing lists of deficiencies with varying degrees of significance. Nevertheless,

equity does not compel me to grant the motion. Paragon has not asked for a

prohibitive injunction, such as one preventing the annual meeting from going

forward until a trial could occur. It asks me to force the Board to accept its

nomination and include its director candidates on OPT’s universal proxy card.

On this preliminary record—and particularly given Gad’s curious deletion of

texts—it would be irresponsible to hold that the Board breached its fiduciary duties

in rejecting the Notice.181 Factual disputes abound. Critically, there are indications

that Gad had undisclosed plans for OPT’s business, leaving me unable to conclude

that Paragon fully complied with the Amended Bylaws.182 If Paragon were hiding

181
See C&J Energy Servs., Inc. v. City of Miami Gen. Empls.’ & Sanitation Empls.’ Ret.
Tr., 107 A.3d 1049, 1053-54 (Del. 2014) (“Mandatory injunctions should only issue with
the confidence of findings made after a trial or on undisputed facts.”); Richard Paul, Inc.
v. Union Improvement Co., 86 A.2d 744, 748 (Del. Ch. 1952) (“Relief by mandatory
injunction should only be awarded in a clear case, free from doubt, and when necessary to
prevent irreparable harm.”).
182
See Jorgl, 2022 WL 16543834, at *17 (denying a motion for a mandatory preliminary
injunction where the plaintiff purportedly concealed “information [that] would have been
necessary for stockholders to make an informed choice”).
38
such crucial information, the Board’s decision to reject the Notice would be

reasonable.183 Whether this was pretextual will be resolved after trial.

B. The Exemption Request Claim
An “NOL poison pill’s principal intent . . . is to prevent the inadvertent

forfeiture of potentially valuable assets, not to protect against hostile takeover

attempts.”184 “Notwithstanding its primary purpose, an NOL poison pill must also

be analyzed under Unocal because of its effect and its direct implications for hostile

takeovers.”185 Accordingly, I first consider whether the Board had “reasonable

grounds for concluding that a threat to the corporate enterprise existed.”186 I then

assess whether the Board’s “response was reasonable in relation to the threat

identified.”187

1. Whether the Board Reasonably Identified a Threat

To determine if the Board identified a legitimate threat, the court undertakes

“a process-based review.”188 In doing so, the court considers whether the Board

183
See CytoDyn, 2021 WL 4775140, at *21 (explaining that the board’s rejection of the
notice was appropriate where it “legitimately suspected” that undisclosed motivations were
behind a nomination and evidence discovered in litigation corroborated those suspicions).
184
Versata Enters., Inc. v. Selectica, Inc., 5 A.3d 586, 599 (Del. 2010) (“Selectica II”).
185
Id.
186
Id.
187
Id. at 601 (citation omitted).
188
Air Prods. & Chems., Inc. v. Airgas, Inc., 16 A.3d 48, 92 (Del. Ch. Feb. 15, 2011).

39
engaged in a “good faith and reasonable investigation.”189 “Proof of a good faith

and reasonable investigation is ‘materially enhanced . . . by the approval of a board

comprised of a majority of outside independent directors.’”190 Independent board

approval, “coupled with the advice rendered by [outside advisors] and legal counsel,

constitute[s] a prima facie showing of [a] good faith and reasonable

investigation.”191

Paragon does not assert that preserving the value of OPT’s NOLs is an

illegitimate corporate objective.192 It argues that this purpose is pretextual, with the

only “threat” being to the Board’s incumbency.193 Some facts support Paragon’s

position. For example, the Board appears to have developed a heightened concern

with protecting its NOLs after the April 14 call between Gad and Stratmann.194 This

189
Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 493 A.2d 946, 955 (Del. 1985).
190
Airgas, 16 A.3d at 92 (quoting Unocal, 493 A.2d at 955); see also Selectica, Inc. v.
Versata Enters., Inc., 2010 WL 703062, at *12 (Del. Ch. Feb. 26, 2010) (“Selectica I”),
aff’d, 5 A.3d 586 (Del. 2010).
191
Polk v. Good, 507 A.2d 531, 537 (Del. 1986) (citing Moran v. Household Int’l, Inc.,
500 A.2d 1346, 1356 (Del. 1986)); see also Selectica I, 2010 WL 703062, at *12.
192
See Selectica I, 2010 WL 703062, at *15 (confirming that “the protection of company
NOLs may be an appropriate corporate policy meriting a defensive response when
threatened”).
193
Pl.’s Reply Br. in Supp. of its Mot. for a Prelim. Inj. (Dkt. 129) (“Pl.’s Reply Br.”) 31.
194
PX 70 at No. 29; PX 71.

40
is bolstered by the subsequent adoption of the Section 382 Plan as part of “Project

Echo” along with the Amended Bylaws.195

There is, however, evidence that the Board undertook a good faith and

reasonable investigation. The Section 382 Plan was adopted after the Board received

a report from OPT’s Chief Financial Officer that reflected an outside accounting

firm’s analysis. This report stated that OPT’s NOLs were of substantial value and

worth preserving.196 When evaluating the Exemption Request, the Board held two

meetings where it received a presentation from EisnerAmper and guidance from

counsel.197 The record also indicates the Board believed that the NOLs have

“significant” value exceeding OPT’s market capitalization,198 that OPT sees a path

195
See PX 6; PX 12.
196
DX 9; PX 14 at ‘4704-05; DX 10; see also DX 11; DX 12. Paragon argues that the
Board acted unreasonably because it “failed to obtain any analysis of the net present value
of its NOLs.” Pl.’s Reply Br. 32. As the court explained in Selectica I, however, the board
was not required to conduct “formal analysis of when the Company could reasonably
expect to receive tax savings from the use of its NOLs, as well as the amount of tax savings
it could reasonably expect to obtain.” 2010 WL 703062, at *16. It was enough that the
Board had “ample reason” to conclude that “the NOLs were an asset worth protecting and
[] that their preservation was an important corporate asset.” Id.
197
PX 38 at ‘5199-200; PX 67 at ‘5209-14; see Williams Cos. S’holder Litig., 2021 WL
754593, at *29 (Del. Ch. Feb. 26, 2021) (concluding that a board, comprised of “nearly all
independent, outside directors,” which considered rights plan at two meetings and were
advised by legal and financial advisors, conducted a good-faith, reasonable investigation).
198
Cryan Dep. 13; see also id. at 48-49, 70.

41
to profitability within two years, and that OPT expects to use its NOLs to offset

taxable income.199

Paragon asserts that its Exemption Request did not pose a threat to OPT’s

NOLs because even if it acquired 19.9% of OPT’s stock, “there would still be a

significant buffer before the 50% threshold was reached.”200 The Board has,

however, presented evidence that granting the Exemption Request would pose a risk

to OPT’s ability to utilize the NOLs. According to Cryan, Paragon increasing its

ownership to 19.9% “would place some significant limitations on the amount of

stock [OPT] could issue to raise capital . . . without triggering the change-of-control

limitation on the NOLs.”201 EisnerAmper advised that an investment of 19.9%

“would effectively cut the buffer in half” and take three years for the effect to drop

off.202

2. Whether the Board Acted Reasonably in Relation to the Threat

The second part of a Unocal review considers the proportionality of the

board’s response to a threat.203 The court must consider whether the Board’s actions

199
See DX 47; Cryan Dep. 48.
200
Pl.’s Opening Br. 59.
201
Cryan Dep. 315; see also Purcel Dep. 108-09, 201-02.
202
DX 48 at ‘4671.
203
See, e.g., Williams, 2021 WL 754593, at *35; Unitrin, Inc. v. Am. Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d
1361, 1373 (Del. 1995).
42
were “draconian, by being either preclusive or coercive,” and fall “within a range of

reasonable responses.”204 “Unocal and its progeny require that the defensive

response employed be a proportionate response, not the most narrowly or precisely

tailored one.”205

Paragon asserts that “[i]f the Exemption Request is not granted,” it “will be

deprived of the opportunity to purchase additional shares that it can vote at the

Annual Meeting.”206 But that is not the standard. Rather, “[f]or a measure to be

preclusive, it must render a successful proxy contest realistically unattainable given

the specific factual context.”207 I have no reason to believe that Paragon (had it

submitted a compliant Notice) would have been prevented from “marshal[ing]

enough shareholder votes to win a proxy contest.”208

In addition, the threat posed by Paragon’s acquisition of OPT shares is

“qualitatively different from the normal corporate control dispute that leads to the

adoption of a shareholder rights plan.”209 It would be reasonable for the Board to

204
Unitrin, 651 A.2d at 1367; see also id. at 1388 (recognizing the “need of the board of
directors for latitude in discharging its fiduciary duties to the corporation and its
shareholders when defending against perceived threats”).
205
Selectica I, 2010 WL 703062, at *24.
206
Pl.’s Opening Br. 60.
207
Selectica II, 5 A.3d at 603.
208
Id. By comparison, the incumbent Board members own less than 0.7% of OPT’s
stock—less than a fifth of that held by Paragon. PX 18 at ‘2588; DX 49.
209
See Selectica I, 2010 WL 703062, at *24.

43
conclude, in reliance on advice from tax and legal advisors, that granting the

Exemption Request could threaten OPT’s ability to raise capital (even in the absence

of NOL limitations).

On these facts, mandatory relief ordering the Board to grant the Exemption

Request would be inequitable. The Board was not required to gamble with its most

valuable corporate asset to satisfy Paragon. The motivations driving the Board to

reject the Exemption Request will be properly measured with the benefit of a trial.

III. CONCLUSION

Paragon has not succeeded on the merits of its claims. Therefore, I need not

consider whether it has demonstrated irreparable harm or if the balance of hardships

tips in its favor. Paragon’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

44