Delaware Court Upholds Contractual Freedom in Dismissal of CityMD Merger Challenge
In a landmark decision with far-reaching implications for private equity-backed ventures and minority investors in Delaware limited liability companies, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a lawsuit brought by former minority unitholders of urgent care provider CityMD. The case, Faiz Khan and Ralph Finger v. Warburg Pincus, LLC, et al. (April 30, 2025), reaffirms the primacy of negotiated contract terms and the enforceability of fiduciary duty waivers in limited liability company agreements.
Background
In 2019, CityMD merged with Summit Medical Group, forming WP CityMD Topco LLC, with Warburg Pincus holding a 60% majority stake via Class A units and physician co-founders Dr. Faiz Khan and Dr. Ralph Finger (alongside other minority investors) holding 17% through Class B units. The LLC agreement included typical minority protections such as tag-along rights and pro-rata consideration in change-of-control transactions. Crucially, it also contained broad waivers of fiduciary duties, explicitly allowing the Warburg-affiliated investors to act in their own interests, provided they complied with the agreement's terms.
In 2022, Warburg Pincus negotiated a merger with VillageMD, a Walgreens-controlled primary care provider. Under the terms of the $8.9 billion transaction, Class A unitholders were to receive an all-cash payout of $3.3 billion, while Class B unitholders were offered a mix of $1.6 billion in cash and $2 billion in VillageMD equity. This structure required an amendment to the LLC agreement to eliminate the tag-along rights of the minority investors—and an amendment that was approved by the requisite majority of affected Class B unitholders.
The Lawsuit
Following a post-closing drop in VillageMD’s valuation, Khan and Finger sued Warburg Pincus, VillageMD, and Walgreens, alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs contended they were coerced into approving the amendment and were inadequately informed of the conflicts of interest and disparate treatment.
However, the Court, led by Vice Chancellor Lori Will, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice, holding that the LLC agreement explicitly allowed for the actions taken and did not leave any “gaps” that would justify the application of such an implied covenant.
Key Takeaways
- Contractual Clarity Controls: The Court emphasized that the LLC agreement clearly permitted amendments affecting unitholder rights with the consent of a majority of the affected class. As such, the implied covenant could not be used to rewrite the agreement or create protections the parties did not negotiate.
- Fiduciary Duties Effectively Waived: Delaware law permits parties to waive fiduciary duties in LLC agreements. The Court held that such waivers are enforceable, and that plaintiffs could not substitute implied covenant claims for eliminated fiduciary obligations.
- No Free-Floating Duty of Disclosure: Plaintiffs’ claims that the disclosures surrounding the vote were insufficient were also rejected. The Court noted that, absent an express contractual obligation to provide specific disclosures, no general duty existed, particularly in light of the fiduciary duty waivers.
- No Basis for Tort or Equity Claims: Because no breach of an express or implied term was found, the Court dismissed related claims of tortious interference and unjust enrichment, reinforcing that equitable doctrines cannot override explicit contract provisions.
Practical Implications
This decision is a potent reminder: Delaware courts will enforce LLC agreements as written. Minority investors should negotiate for the specific protections they want at the outset, particularly if fiduciary duties are being waived. The ruling also signals that LLC members should not rely on equitable claims to challenge the outcomes of contractual arrangements—especially when those arrangements include express mechanisms for amendments and waivers.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
In 2022, Warburg Pincus negotiated a merger with VillageMD, a Walgreens-controlled primary care provider. Under the terms of the $8.9 billion transaction, Class A unitholders were to receive an all-cash payout of $3.3 billion, while Class B unitholders were offered a mix of $1.6 billion in cash and $2 billion in VillageMD equity. This structure required an amendment to the LLC agreement to eliminate the tag-along rights of the minority investors—and an amendment that was approved by the requisite majority of affected Class B unitholders.
The Lawsuit
Following a post-closing drop in VillageMD’s valuation, Khan and Finger sued Warburg Pincus, VillageMD, and Walgreens, alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs contended they were coerced into approving the amendment and were inadequately informed of the conflicts of interest and disparate treatment.
However, the Court, led by Vice Chancellor Lori Will, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice, holding that the LLC agreement explicitly allowed for the actions taken and did not leave any “gaps” that would justify the application of such an implied covenant.
Key Takeaways
- Contractual Clarity Controls: The Court emphasized that the LLC agreement clearly permitted amendments affecting unitholder rights with the consent of a majority of the affected class. As such, the implied covenant could not be used to rewrite the agreement or create protections the parties did not negotiate.
- Fiduciary Duties Effectively Waived: Delaware law permits parties to waive fiduciary duties in LLC agreements. The Court held that such waivers are enforceable, and that plaintiffs could not substitute implied covenant claims for eliminated fiduciary obligations.
- No Free-Floating Duty of Disclosure: Plaintiffs’ claims that the disclosures surrounding the vote were insufficient were also rejected. The Court noted that, absent an express contractual obligation to provide specific disclosures, no general duty existed, particularly in light of the fiduciary duty waivers.
- No Basis for Tort or Equity Claims: Because no breach of an express or implied term was found, the Court dismissed related claims of tortious interference and unjust enrichment, reinforcing that equitable doctrines cannot override explicit contract provisions.
Practical Implications
This decision is a potent reminder: Delaware courts will enforce LLC agreements as written. Minority investors should negotiate for the specific protections they want at the outset, particularly if fiduciary duties are being waived. The ruling also signals that LLC members should not rely on equitable claims to challenge the outcomes of contractual arrangements—especially when those arrangements include express mechanisms for amendments and waivers.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Lawyers
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
In a landmark decision with far-reaching implications for private equity-backed ventures and minority investors in Delaware limited liability companies, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a lawsuit brought by former minority unitholders of urgent care provider CityMD. The case, Faiz Khan and Ralph Finger v. Warburg Pincus, LLC, et al. (April 30, 2025), reaffirms the primacy of negotiated contract terms and the enforceability of fiduciary duty waivers in limited liability company agreements.
Background
In 2019, CityMD merged with Summit Medical Group, forming WP CityMD Topco LLC, with Warburg Pincus holding a 60% majority stake via Class A units and physician co-founders Dr. Faiz Khan and Dr. Ralph Finger (alongside other minority investors) holding 17% through Class B units. The LLC agreement included typical minority protections such as tag-along rights and pro-rata consideration in change-of-control transactions. Crucially, it also contained broad waivers of fiduciary duties, explicitly allowing the Warburg-affiliated investors to act in their own interests, provided they complied with the agreement's terms.
In 2022, Warburg Pincus negotiated a merger with VillageMD, a Walgreens-controlled primary care provider. Under the terms of the $8.9 billion transaction, Class A unitholders were to receive an all-cash payout of $3.3 billion, while Class B unitholders were offered a mix of $1.6 billion in cash and $2 billion in VillageMD equity. This structure required an amendment to the LLC agreement to eliminate the tag-along rights of the minority investors—and an amendment that was approved by the requisite majority of affected Class B unitholders.
The Lawsuit
Following a post-closing drop in VillageMD’s valuation, Khan and Finger sued Warburg Pincus, VillageMD, and Walgreens, alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs contended they were coerced into approving the amendment and were inadequately informed of the conflicts of interest and disparate treatment.
However, the Court, led by Vice Chancellor Lori Will, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice, holding that the LLC agreement explicitly allowed for the actions taken and did not leave any “gaps” that would justify the application of such an implied covenant.
Key Takeaways
- Contractual Clarity Controls: The Court emphasized that the LLC agreement clearly permitted amendments affecting unitholder rights with the consent of a majority of the affected class. As such, the implied covenant could not be used to rewrite the agreement or create protections the parties did not negotiate.
- Fiduciary Duties Effectively Waived: Delaware law permits parties to waive fiduciary duties in LLC agreements. The Court held that such waivers are enforceable, and that plaintiffs could not substitute implied covenant claims for eliminated fiduciary obligations.
- No Free-Floating Duty of Disclosure: Plaintiffs’ claims that the disclosures surrounding the vote were insufficient were also rejected. The Court noted that, absent an express contractual obligation to provide specific disclosures, no general duty existed, particularly in light of the fiduciary duty waivers.
- No Basis for Tort or Equity Claims: Because no breach of an express or implied term was found, the Court dismissed related claims of tortious interference and unjust enrichment, reinforcing that equitable doctrines cannot override explicit contract provisions.
Practical Implications
This decision is a potent reminder: Delaware courts will enforce LLC agreements as written. Minority investors should negotiate for the specific protections they want at the outset, particularly if fiduciary duties are being waived. The ruling also signals that LLC members should not rely on equitable claims to challenge the outcomes of contractual arrangements—especially when those arrangements include express mechanisms for amendments and waivers.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
In 2022, Warburg Pincus negotiated a merger with VillageMD, a Walgreens-controlled primary care provider. Under the terms of the $8.9 billion transaction, Class A unitholders were to receive an all-cash payout of $3.3 billion, while Class B unitholders were offered a mix of $1.6 billion in cash and $2 billion in VillageMD equity. This structure required an amendment to the LLC agreement to eliminate the tag-along rights of the minority investors—and an amendment that was approved by the requisite majority of affected Class B unitholders.
The Lawsuit
Following a post-closing drop in VillageMD’s valuation, Khan and Finger sued Warburg Pincus, VillageMD, and Walgreens, alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs contended they were coerced into approving the amendment and were inadequately informed of the conflicts of interest and disparate treatment.
However, the Court, led by Vice Chancellor Lori Will, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice, holding that the LLC agreement explicitly allowed for the actions taken and did not leave any “gaps” that would justify the application of such an implied covenant.
Key Takeaways
- Contractual Clarity Controls: The Court emphasized that the LLC agreement clearly permitted amendments affecting unitholder rights with the consent of a majority of the affected class. As such, the implied covenant could not be used to rewrite the agreement or create protections the parties did not negotiate.
- Fiduciary Duties Effectively Waived: Delaware law permits parties to waive fiduciary duties in LLC agreements. The Court held that such waivers are enforceable, and that plaintiffs could not substitute implied covenant claims for eliminated fiduciary obligations.
- No Free-Floating Duty of Disclosure: Plaintiffs’ claims that the disclosures surrounding the vote were insufficient were also rejected. The Court noted that, absent an express contractual obligation to provide specific disclosures, no general duty existed, particularly in light of the fiduciary duty waivers.
- No Basis for Tort or Equity Claims: Because no breach of an express or implied term was found, the Court dismissed related claims of tortious interference and unjust enrichment, reinforcing that equitable doctrines cannot override explicit contract provisions.
Practical Implications
This decision is a potent reminder: Delaware courts will enforce LLC agreements as written. Minority investors should negotiate for the specific protections they want at the outset, particularly if fiduciary duties are being waived. The ruling also signals that LLC members should not rely on equitable claims to challenge the outcomes of contractual arrangements—especially when those arrangements include express mechanisms for amendments and waivers.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Lawyers
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
News
In Billboard, Partner Precious Jacobs Discusses the Rise in Artist-Manager Litigation
Partner Precious S. Jacobs was featured in Billboard in “It’s Not Just Timbaland: Why Are So Many Artists Suing Their Managers Right Now?.” The article examines the recent wave of lawsuits between music artists and their managers and why that relationship is so prone to conflict.
November 12, 2026
Event
Partner Terri Mascherin to Speak at Illinois State Bar Association Seminar on Negotiation Ethics
On November 11, Partner Terri Mascherin will join a faculty panel for the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA) continuing legal education (CLE) seminar “Negotiation Ethics: Winning Without Selling Your Soul.”
November 11, 2026
Publications
Partner Emily Loeb Discusses Congressional Oversight Preparedness in The Washington Post’s Health Brief
Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block’s Congressional Investigations Practice, was quoted in The Washington Post’s Health Brief article examining how the 2026 midterm election results may reshape the health care policy landscape and the industry’s relationship with Washington.
November 10, 2026
Publications
Before You Sign: Key Contract Provisions for Tribes Considering Data Center Developments, ICT
Grace Signorelli-Cassady of Jenner & Block’s Native American Law Practice authored an opinion piece for ICT examining key contract provisions tribes should consider when approached about data center developments.
November 5, 2026
Publications
Jon Skladany and Kayvan Sadeghi Quoted on Fintech Investigation Readiness in Law360
Jenner & Block Partners Jon Skladany and Kayvan Sadeghi were quoted in a Law360 article examining how crypto and fintech companies are preparing for heightened congressional oversight following the 2026 midterm elections.
November 5, 2026