IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN RE APPRAISAL OF PANERA BREAD COMPANY ) ) ) C.A. No. 2017

- 0593

- MTZ

MEMORANDUM OPINION Date Submitted: October 7 , 201 9 Date Decided: January 31, 2020

Samuel T. Hirzel, II, Elizabeth A. DeFelice , and Melissa N. Donimirski , HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Steven M. Hecht, Michael T.G. Long, Jarett N. Sena, Natalie F. Dallavalle, Frank T.M. Catali na, Edoardo Murillo, and Jonathan M. Kass, LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP, New York, New York; Attorneys for Petitioners.
Paul J. Lockwood, Jennifer C. Voss, Jenness E. Parker, Alyssa S. O’Connell, Kaitlin E. Maloney, Daniel S. Atlas, Bonnie W. David , and Andrew D. Kinsey , SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP , Wilmington, Delaware; Attorneys for Respondent.

Zurn , Vice Chancellor.1

In this ap praisal action, I must determine the fair value of each share of the subject company on the closing date of its acquisition

. I find that the process by
which th e company was sold bore several objective indicia of reliability, which were not undermined by flaws in that process. I therefore find that the deal price is persuasive evidence of fair value, and give no weight to other valuation metrics. I deduct some synergies, but find others were not adequately proven. I undergo that synergies analysis solely to fulfill my statutory mandate, rather than to effectuate any transfer of funds b etween the parties, because the company prepaid the entire deal price and has no recourse for a refund under the appraisal statute.
I. BACKGROUND 1 This appraisal action generated an extensive record. During six days of trial, the parties introduced 1 , 336 exhibits and lodged seventeen depositions in evidence. 2

1 Citations in the form “PTO ¶

–– ” refer to stipulated facts in the pre

- trial order. See Docket Item (“D.I.”) 108. Citations in the form “[Name] Tr.” refer to witness testimony from the trial transcript. Citations in the form “[Name] Dep.” refer to witne ss testimony from a deposition transcript. Citations in the form “JX

–– at

–– ” refer to a trial exhibit.
2 See D.I. 103, Ex. 1. The subset of exhibits the parties relied on is set forth on the schedule of evidence. See D.I. 148, Ex. A; D.I. 151.2

Five experts and six fact witnesses testified live. These are the Court’s findings based on a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent Panera Bread Company (“Panera” or the “ Company”) is a
natio nal bakery

- cafe concept in the United States and Canada. 3 Panera is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri. 4 Until July 18, 2017, Panera’s stock was listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange un der the symbol “PNRA.” 5 On that date, JAB Holdings B.V. purchased Panera for $315.00 per share. 6 That entity is a private limited liability company incorporated under the laws of the
Netherlands that indirectly has a controlling interest in JAB Holding Company,
LLC. 7 J AB Holding Company, LLC is a private limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Delaware and headquartered in Washington D.C. that indirectly has held a controlling interest in Panera since the acquisition

. 8 JAB Holding Comp any S.à.r.l. has an ultimate controlling interest in JAB Holdings B.V.,

3 P TO ¶¶ 48, 89.
4 Id. ¶ 48.
5 Id. ¶ 49.
6 Id. ¶ 1.
7 Id. ¶¶ 66

– 67.
8 Id. ¶ 65.3

JAB Holding Company, LLC and Panera. 9 I refer to all of these entities collectively
as “JAB.” In the wake of JAB’s acquisition, certain dissenting Panera stockholders (“Petitioners” o r “Dissenting Stockholders”) are entitled to an appraisal of the fair
value of their Company shares in accordance with their demands. 10 Petitioners hold 785,108 shares of Panera’s common stock. 11 Petitioners include Short Hills Capital Partners, holding 35 ,800 shares of Panera common stock; 12 Weiss Asset Management, including 2017 Arlington, LLC, holding 154,669 shares of Panera common stock; 13 Canyon International LLC, holding 31,794 shares of Panera common stock; 14 and Yellowstone Global LLC, holding 47,692 shares of Panera
common stock. 15 Each of the Petitioners demanded appraisal before the vote on the merger, held the appraisal shares through the merger date, and maintained their appraisal demand.

9 Id. ¶ 68.
10 Id. ¶ 20.
11 Id. ¶ 22.
12 Id. ¶ 26.
13 Id. ¶ 32.
14 Id. ¶ 37.
15 Id. ¶ 42.4

Relevant non

- parties include Panera board members Do menic Colasacco, Fred K. Foulkes, Larry J. Franklin, Diane Hessan, Thomas E. Lynch, William W. Moreton, Ronald M. Shaich, Mark Stoever , and James D. White. 16
Shaich founded Panera in 1981

. 17 He served on the board from 1981 to
December 2018 in various capa cities , including Chairman, Co

- Chairman, Executive Chairman, and Non

- Executive Chairman. 18 Shaich served as Chief Executive Officer from 1984 to May 2010 , when he stepped back from the Company to

co - fo und an organization called “No Labels , ” which he hoped would reduce partisan ship in American politics. 19 During this time, Shaich remained Panera’s largest stockholder and Executive Chairman , and Moreton served as CEO

. 20 In 2012, Moreton had a family issue and asked Shaich to return to a greate r leadership position. 21 Shaich agreed and served as Co

- Chief Executive Officer , along with
Moreton , from March 2012 to August 2013. 22 At that time, Moreton step ped down
as Co

- Chief Executive Officer, and Shaich resumed his role as sole Chief Executive

16 Id. ¶ 50. These directors served from January 2016 until the merger closed.
17 Id. ¶ 51.
18 Id.
19 Id. ; Shaich Tr. 936:2

– 937:10.
20 Shaich Tr. 937:11

– 938:1.
21 Id. 940:12

– 21; accord PTO ¶ 51.
22 PTO ¶ 51.5

Off icer until January 1, 2018. 23 The market and the restaurant industry both recognize Shaich as a visionary. 24 Moreton joined Panera’s board in May 2010, after serving as Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer from October 1998 to March 2003 an d
Executive Vice President and Co

- Chief Operating Officer from November 2008 to May 2010. 25 Moreton also served as President and Co

- Chief Executive Officer from March 2012 to August 2013, Chief Financial Officer (Interim) from August 6, 2014 to April 15, 2 015, and Executive Vice Chairman from August 2013 to July 18,
2017. 26 Colasacco, the lead independent director, served as an outside director along with directors Hessan, Foulkes, Franklin, Lynch, Stoever, and White. 27 Panera’s relevant management includes Blaine Hurst, who began serving as Panera’s Chief Executive Officer after Shaich left that post in January 2018. 28 Prior to that time, Hurst served as Execut ive Vice President and Chief Trans formation and

23 Id. ; see also JX0005.
24 PTO ¶ 98.
25 Id. ¶ 52.
26 Id.
27 See i d. ¶¶ 53

– 59.
28 Id. ¶ 60.6

Growth Office r from December 2010 to December 2016. 29 Then, Hurst served as Panera’s President from Dec ember 2016 to January 2018. 30
Michael Bufano has served as Panera’s Chief Financial Officer, since April
2015. 31 Bufano also served as the Vice President of Planning from July 2010 to August 2014. 32 Andrew Madsen was Panera’s President from May 2015 to December 9, 2016 , when he left the Company. 33
A. Shaich Founds Panera And Leads It Through Unmatched Growth.
In 198 0 , Shaich founded a single 400

- square - foot cookie store. 34 That store would eventually become Panera. In 1982, Shaich merged the cookie store with a small regional bakery called Au Bon Pain. 35 That entity purchased the Saint Louis Bread Company in 1987. 36 Shaich took this company public in 1991, 37 rebranded
the Saint Louis Bread Company as Panera in 1997, and divested the Au Bon Pain

29 Id.
30 Id.
31 Id. ¶ 61.
32 Id.
33 Id. ¶ 62.
34 Id. ¶ 86; Shaich Tr. 924:4

– 17.
35 PTO ¶ 86

. 36 Id.
37 Id. ; Shaich Tr. 926:20

– 927:3.7

division in 1999. 38 After the divestiture, Shaich changed the company’s name to Panera Bread Company. 39 After divesting Au Bon Pain, Panera stock traded at $6 .00 per share. 40
Paner a pioneered a new restaurant segment called “fast casual,” which found
a niche between “quick service restaurants like McDonald’s and Wendy’s and restaurants like that and casual dining, full sit

- down service.” 41 From 2000 to 2010, Panera expanded rapidly into a national restaurant chain. 42 Panera operated in three segments: company bakery

- cafe operations, franchise operations, and fresh dough and other product operations. 43 By 2004, Panera’s stock was trading around $ 3 0 .00 per share, and by 2010 , it was trading around $70 .00 per share. 44 Despite the Company’s growth, by 2010 or 2011, Shaich felt “great distress” because Panera’s same store sales were weakening and market share gains slowed. 45

38 PTO ¶ 86.
39 Id.
40 JX0400 at 17.
41 Moreton Tr. 710:23

– 711:12.
42 Moreton Tr. 714:5

– 20 , 732:11

– 24. From 2007

– 2009, Panera also expanded by acquiring Paradise Bakery & Café, a Phoenix, Arizona

- based concept with over 70 locations in 10 states. PTO ¶¶ 87

– 88.
43 PTO ¶ 92.
44 See JX0400 at 18.
45 Shaich Tr. 938:2

– 16.8

Increasingly, Panera f

aced competitive pressures and needed to differentiate for future growth. 46 In response to these pressures, Shaich spent his time as Executive Chairman focusing almost exclusively “on a range of strategic and innovation efforts for Panera.” 47 During this t ime, Shaich wrote “the Amazon memo” on how he would compete with Panera if he were not part of the Company. 48 His vision focused on changing the guest experience, creating a new ordering system, and providing a delivery service. 49 After discussing these in itiatives with Moreton, Shaich led the effort to prototype these ideas during the 2010

– 2012 period before re - assuming a management post as c o - CEO in 2012. 50 In 2013, Panera signaled to the market that it was “deploying significant
transaction

- driving init iatives.” 51 By early 2014, Fortune magazine featured Panera’s “big bet on tech , ” detail ing how Shaich’s early prototypes had developed into new company initiatives. 52 A fter launching th at technology in fourteen cafes,

46 Id. 938:2

– 939:22.
47 PTO ¶ 102.
48 Shaich Tr. 938:7

– 939:8.
49 Id. 938:7

– 939:10.
50 Id. 938:7

– 939:16; see also PTO ¶ 51; Moreto n Tr. 742:23

– 743: 8.
51 JX0006 at 1.
52 See JX0007 (examining Panera 2.0 and the associated costs of the investments); see also JX0008 (CheatSheet article detailing the purchase of a “to

- go bread bowl via smart phone”).9

the Company formally announced the Pan era 2.0 initiative in April 2014. 53 Panera 2.0 offered “a series of integrated technologies to enhance the guest experience” 54 through “new mechanisms for ordering, payment, food production, and , ultimately, consumption.” 55 Panera 2.0 enhanced ordering through Rapid Pick

- Up, fast lane kiosks, and online /mobile ordering

. 56 Panera also committed to “operational excellence” with new production equipment and systems to increase capacity and
accuracy. 57 Along with these changes , Panera focused on “activat[ing] innovation in store design.” 58 To adopt these initiatives, Hurst “create[d] a ‘digital flywheel’ whereby all systems and consumer touchpoints

— point of sale (PoS), back of house, integrated customer data, big customer data, one - to

- one marketing

— are interconnected for operational gain.” 59 These initiatives rolled out in stages. In 2014, the Company kicked off Panera 2.0 with Rapid Pick

- Up, an advanced ordering system. 60 Over the next two years,

53 JX0009 at 1

– 2.
54 Id. at 1.
55 Id. at 2.
56 Id. at 1

– 2.
57 Id. at 2.
58 Shaich Tr. 946:3

– 8.
59 JX2009 at 2; accord JX0564 at 79.
60 PTO ¶¶ 113

– 14.10

the Company rolled out the rem aining Panera 2.0 initiatives to all company

- owned bakery

- cafes. 61
Panera developed other initiatives during th is period of innovation. In 2013, the Company rolled out two initiatives including Panera at Home, providing consumer packaged goods , as well as Panera catering hubs , which were attached to bakery

- cafes. 62 In 2015, Panera launched its “Food As It Should Be” campaign, developing “clean food” without “ artificial colors, flavors, preservatives, and
sweeteners.” 63 In 2016, Panera rolled out its national delivery program. 64 While leading Panera through these initiatives, in early February 2015, Shaich
informed the board that he wanted to step away from Panera and pursue other
endeavors. 65 Shaich had returned to Panera when Moreton needed him. An d although Shaich extended his time with the Company through 2015, he did not want to remain at Panera forever. 66 Shaich explained to the board that after working on innovations as Executive Chairman during the 2010 to 2012 period, he “had come
back to tra nsform” Panera and felt he had “done [his] work in getting [Panera 2.0]

61 Id. ¶¶ 115, 121, 126.
62 Id. ¶¶ 106

– 109.
63 Shaich 945:19

– 23.
64 PTO ¶ 122.
65 Moreton Tr. 718:21

– 719:11

. 66 Shaich Tr. 1017:23

– 1018:10.11

going.” 67 The board outlined a succession plan during a board meeting held on February 26, 2015. 68 The identified succession candidate, Madsen, became Panera’s president in May 2015 wi th the intention of replacing Shaich as CEO in 2016

. 69 But

t he board did not view Madsen as a suitable replacement, 70 so Shaich stayed on as
CEO . Shaich annually reminded the board of his desire to leave. 71 At the time of the merger, Shaich owned approxima tely six percent of Panera’s outstanding stock. 72
B. Panera Tracks Its Initiatives Through A Five
- Year Strategic Plan And Five
- Year Financial Model . In May 2015, management assembled all of Panera’s new initiatives into a strategic plan (the “Five

- Year Strategic Plan”). 73 To track the financial effects of these initiatives, management also created a five

- year financial model (the “Five

Year Financial Model”) that tracked “between 15 and 30 key initiatives and many projects underneath each of them that we had various assumptions on, how they would perform, how they would roll out” and forecasted five years of future results. 74

67 Id. 1017:23

– 1018:10

. 68 JX0010 at 3; accord Moreton Tr. 718:14

– 719:11.
69 PTO ¶ 62.
70 Moreton Tr. 800:3

– 17.
71 Shaich Tr. 1017:23

– 1018:10.
72 Id. 1026:11

– 24.
73 PTO ¶ 117; JX0315; Moreton Tr. 724:4

– 725:6.
74 Moreton Tr. 724:18

– 22, 768:19

– 769:8 ; accord PTO ¶ 118.12

Management based the Five

- Year Financial Model on the Five

- Year Strategic Plan
and would evaluate them side

- by

- side “to really unde rstand what the vision involved and the costs involved in what we saw.” 75 This Five

- Year Financial Model operated as a “roadmap” that management updated every six months and that the board
discussed , at least in part , at every meeting. 76 At its core, th e 2015 Five

- Year Financial Model set a goal to double earnings per share over the next five years and “re

- engage” double

- digit earnings growth, including projected earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) of nearly $750 milli on by 2019. 77 Shaich recognized that “[f]ew companies have taken on as audacious a path to renewal

. ” 78

75 Moreton Tr. 724:4

– 725:6.
76 PTO ¶ 118 ; see also Moreton Tr. 734:19

– 735:4, 764:17

– 765:8 ; Shaich T r. 1015: 19

– 21; Colasacco Dep. 197:19

– 198:19. Petitioners object to Respondent’s use of Colasacco’s deposition testimony at trial. See D.I. 108 ¶ 216; D.I. 131; D.I. 148 Ex. A at 9. Under Court of Chancery Rule 32, “[t]he deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the Court finds . . . that the witness is out of the State of Delaware, unless it appears that the absence of the witness w as procured by the party offering the deposition.” Ct. Ch. R. 32(a)(3)(B). Colasacco is a Massachusetts resident and Petitioners do not contend that Panera procured Colasacco’s absence from Delaware. D.I. 119 at 24:2

– 14, 25:9

– 11. Petitioners argue that even if the testimony could come in under Rule 32, Delaware Rule of Evidence 802 precludes this testimony. See Trial Tr. at 642:11

– 16. Rule 32 testimony is not an out of court statement, but treated “as though the witness were then present and testifyin g.” Ct. Ch. R. 32(a). Colasacco’s testimony is thereby admissible under Rule 32.
77 JX0315 at 3

– 4; accord Shaich Tr. 941:10

– 943:18 (“So I had a goal of sustained double

digit earnings but reengaging this company and moving it forward

— it was mature

— and t aking it to the next place.”).
78 JX0 315 at 131; JX 0 134 at 118.13

Some board members were skeptical. Moreton described the Five

- Year Financial Model as “what’s classically called a hockey stick projection” that faced “healthy skepticism in the board.” 79 Lynch wrote to Shaich in October 2016, “I
worry, though not with a lot of basis , that we are overestimating our future earnings power. We are now in a negative 3 transaction comp environment and I am
concerned that we could be overestimating our ability to fight this headwind.” 80 Moreton recognized management risk

- adjusted the Five

- Year Financial Model “in part,” but “major” risk remained around execution. 81 Colasacco considered Panera’s
Five

- Year Strategic Plan as “not impossible, not a lie, not a bad faith effort in any
way , ” but “one possible range of scenarios that could play out[.]” 82 Some analysts

79 Moreton Tr. 729:2

– 20; accord Colasacco Dep. 217:3

– 219:15 (understanding that “if it worked I would have considered it a home run,” but recognizing “there aren’t many companies that can do” “25 percent per annum compounded for five years,” so the model “had some risk attached to achi eving it”).
80 JX0 228 at 2 (emphasis in original).
81 Moreton Dep. 21 8:23

– 219: 20 (“So the risk then switches to: Is it possible? Yes. Is it a guarantee? No. And what’s the major . . . risk . . . is around execution. So

. . . that’s really the time pe riod that we’re in and how Panera saw it during my time.”). Petitioners identify the Company’s 90% confidence in its ability to achieve several initiatives in the model. See JX0616 at 29. In using this to cast the Five

- Year Financial Model as risk adjus ted, however, Petitioners improperly conflate the model’s “comp buffer”

— designed to learn how different initiatives overlap

— with risks associated with competition or execution. See Moreton Tr. 740:4

– 741:15, 860:15

– 861:7.
82 Colasacco Dep. 217:3

– 219: 15.14

agreed: “ [ W ] e remain on the sidelines as PNRA’s stock appears to incorporate the benefits of its strategic initiatives and the outlook is not without risks.” 83
C. Investors React , And Panera Weighs Its Options.
In reaction to the Five

- Year Strategic Plan, an investment fund called Luxor Capital threatened a proxy contest because it opposed the “very significant capital spending” necessary to support the plan. 84 The board engaged Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (“Goldman”) in March 2015 to advise it in a strategic review of potential opportunities to maximize stockholder value. 85 On June 25, 2015, Goldman presented potential strategic alternatives alongside valuation scenarios under the
Five

- Year Strategic Plan. 86
C onsistent with the Five

- Year Financial Model, Goldman “assume[d] 100% implementation su ccess with no probability weighting adjustment.” 87 For this reason, Goldman called the Five

- Year Strategic Plan “aggressive” because “everything would have to go exactly as was foreseen,” which “[t]hey didn’t think

83 JX0104 at 1; see also JX0343 at 19 (analysts acknowledging that Panera’s strategic initiatives were “a very ambitious target”).
84 Moreton Tr. 720:18

– 721:20; Colasacco Dep. 65:19

– 66:20.
85 PTO ¶ 75.
86 See JX0019 at 18

– 25 ; PTO ¶ 120.
87 See , e.g. , JX0019 at 19

– 20, 24, 33, 34, 41, 42, 44, 50, 52, 56.15

[] was very likely.” 88 Goldman advised th at Panera’s “growth initiatives were too early on in the game for the market . . . to give [Panera] full credit for [the Five

- Year Strategic Plan].” 89 Goldman evaluated a potential sale and advised that a financial sponsor would not have interest in Panera , 90 but identified a “limited number of potential strategic buyers,” with Starbucks as the most likely. 91 At the end of the meeting, the board determined

that while the Company would, as it had done in the past, continue to observe the markets and consider activities in the best interest of shareholders on an ongoing basis, given current conditions it was not in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders to engage in a process to initiate and pursue a strategic transaction or solicit interest fro m potential purchasers at this time. 92 After consulting with Goldman, Panera agreed to some of Luxor’s demands. 93 Luxor dropped their remaining demands after Panera “convince[d] them that [its]

88 Moreton Tr. 773:9

– 774:5.
89 Id. 770:24

– 771:15.
90 JX0019 at 18; Shaich Tr. 956:4

– 22; Moreton Tr. 770:24

– 771:19.
91 See Shaich Tr. 955:24

– 957:7, 958:1

– 19; accord Moreton Tr. 770:24

– 771:19.
92 JX0019 at 2.
93 See Moreton Tr. 722:11

– 19 (“[W]e agreed to increase our share buyback, again a program we’d had going on for a long time, but we agreed to buy back $500 million worth of shares over a 12

- month period. We agreed to evaluate selling company stores to franchisee s without a specific number.”).16

G&A actually was average to low for the industry as a whole, and the technology investments were necessary for initiatives.” 94
D. Panera Counteracts Failures And Plants Seeds For Future Rewards. In 2016, following the adoption of the Five

- Year Strategic Plan, Panera reduced its estimate for 2019 EBITDA by almos t $128 million as “revenues hadn’t increased in line with” expectations and the Plan was not “going quite as smoothly as [Panera] had hoped.” 95 Panera offset the initiatives’ high costs by orchestrating share buybacks, refranchising, and implementing nonst rategic cost reduction. 96 In the wake of this setback, Shaich led efforts to publicize the Five

- Year Strategic Plan to generate market recognition. Through “hundreds” 97 of presentations, Shaich shared Panera’s plan of “sustained double

- digit EPS earnings
gr owth.” 98 The market responded and gave Panera “a great deal of credit for the initiatives already done.” 99 Panera’s sto ck rose to $214.54 by July 2016. 100

94 Id. 722:11

– 23.
95 Id. 776:5

– 778:16, 778:17

– 779:2.
96 Id. 785:17

– 786:8; JX0238 at 33.
97 Shaich Tr. 948:6

– 13, 960:8

– 961:3; see, e.g. JX0194 at 1; JX0192 at 5, 11; JX2028 at 3, 17; JX0032 at 51; JX0041 at 5, 22; JX0064 at 2; JX0260 at 4

– 5, 15; JX0331 at 3

– 4; JX0345 at 4

– 5, 14; JX0029; JX1039; JX0063 at 3; JX0304.
98 JX0063 at 3.
99 Moreton Tr. 792 :4

– 13.
100 JX0104 at 1.17

E. Panera and Shaich Weigh Their Options. In the midst of Shaich’s PR campaign, Shaich received an unusual call from Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, proposing a visit. 101 Shaich discussed the visit with
Colasacco and other board members , explaining , “ Howard doesn ’ t come up on a Saturday afternoon for just anything. Maybe he [i] s interested in a transactio n. ” 102 To prepare, Shaich asked Goldman for an updated comparison of selected restaurant companies that Goldman had presented the year before in 2015. 103 This comparison included updated financial metrics for Starbucks and other restaurants in the fast growt h, quick service, and casual dining segments. 104 When Schultz and Shaich met on July 31, 2016, Schultz proposed a collaboration between Starbucks and Panera “whereby Panera would provide food to Starbucks for lunch and breakfast and [Starbucks] would upgr ade [Panera’s] coffee program.” 105 After the meeting, Shaich updated Moreton, Colasacco, and Lynch. 106 Lynch viewed this as “[t]he first step of the dance,” so that Starbucks

101 Shaich Tr. 965:11

– 966:5; accord Moreton Tr. 793:14

– 22.
102 Shaich Tr. 967:13

– 19.
103 JX0111.
104 See i d. at 4

– 5.
105 See JX0110; JX0118 ; JX0772 at 56; Moreton Tr. 793:14

– 22.
106 JX0116; JX0118 ; JX1012; accord Shaich Tr. 968:22

– 969:5.18

could pursue “a potential acquisition attempt by Starbucks of Panera.” 107 Colasacco commented that the proposed collaboration was “[c]ertainly worth exploring further, though raises many questions.” 108 And Moreton thought it was “interesting . . . even if not tying every thing up in a nice bow.” 109 At the August 2 board meeting, the board reviewed elements of the Five

- Year Strategic Plan and Five

- Year Financial Model, per usual. 110 During the executive session of that meeting, Shaich informed the board about Starbucks’ proposed
collaboration. 111 Moreton characterized the bo a rd’s response by explaining, “i f [Starbucks] wanted to take advantage of our food and things, the best way to do that would be to acquire the company.” 112 With that directive, Shaich had a new focus
for future conversations with Schultz. 113
Schultz had invited Shaich to Sea ttle to visit Starbucks’ roastery that fall ; 114
the teams met October 4 through 5

. 115 Starbucks came to discuss a joint venture,

107 JX0118; Shaich Tr. 969:17

- 970:1.
108 JX1012.
109 JX0116.
110 See JX0122 at 2; JX0128.
111 JX0116; JX0122 at 1; JX0125 at 4; accord Moreton Tr. 794:8

– 796:8.
112 Moreton Tr. 796:3

– 8.
113 See i d. 796:9

– 17.
114 See JX0239 at 2

– 3.
115 See JX0156; JX0153 ; accord Shaich Tr. 970:14

– 21.19

with Starbucks selling Panera’s food and Panera selling Starbucks coffee. 116 Shaich used this opportunity to attempt to solicit an offer. 117 Both Shaich and Schultz discussed their companies’ “very intimate strategic plans.” 118 During the visit, Shaich pitched Schultz the Five

- Year Strategic Plan. 119 On October 26, Shaich rejected Schultz’s joint

- venture idea, but floated the idea that S tarbucks could purchase Panera. 120 Schultz responded: “we’re really interested in this. Let’s get a group of people to work on it.” 121 Moreton worked with Shaich to interface with Starbucks and help conduct financial analyses. 122 In November, the companies discussed their shared goal “to determine whether [the] companies can unlock significant value by combining.” 123 Panera proposed EBITDA and synergies figures for the combined companies, which Starbucks generally found reasonable. 124 Starbucks took this anal ysis and ran the

116 See JX0156 at 4.
117 Shaich Tr. 970:6

– 972:8.
118 Id. 971:20

– 972:8.
119 Id. 970:14

– 21.
120 JX0197; accord Shaich Tr. 972:12

– 973:3.
121 Shaich Tr. 973:4

– 16.
122 JX0243; JX0250; Moreton Tr. 797:2

– 798 :22; Shaich Tr. 974:2

– 10.
123 JX0243.
124 See JX0250; Moreton Tr. 798:6

– 17.20

numbers internally. 125 At the end of November, 126 Schultz called Shaich to explain that after giving it “some serious thought,” 127 Starbucks was “not going forward ”
with the transaction. 128 Although Starbucks viewed the combination as a “pretty good idea,” Starbucks could not “get to [Panera’s] public market price, let alone pay a premium” 129 and “there were other things going on within Starbucks.” 130 The parties did not discuss any further. 131 In tandem with Panera’s conversations with Starbucks, in August 2016, Shaich acted on his own initiative and asked Goldman to facilitate an introductory meeting with JAB. 132 Goldman inquired after JAB’s C EO Olivier Goudet, 133 but JAB postponed meeting with Pa nera until “early the next year” 134 because JAB was busy pursuing an acquisition that fall. 135

125 Moreton Tr. 796:21

– 797:1.
126 JX0266; JX0263.
127 Shaich Tr. 973:4

– 11.
128 Id. 975:15

– 24.
129 Id. 974:11

– 22, 975:15

– 976:10; accord JX0625 at 4 (“There were conversations with Starbucks last year, they ultimately declined to proceed citing that Panera was trading too richly (and it has since only traded up). ”) ; JX0772 at 56; Moreton Tr. 798:23

– 799:10.
130 Shaich Tr. 976:1

– 4.
131 Moreton Tr. 799:24

– 800:2.
132 Shaich Tr. 976:11

– 23; accord Bell Tr. 1143:12

– 15.
133 Bell Tr. 1143:4

– 22.
134 Id. 1143:16

– 22.
135 Id. 1143:12

– 22; accord Shaich Tr. 976:24

– 977:6.21

F. Panera Reaches An “Inflection Point , ” And Shaich Engages With JAB. Although Panera continued to face competitive pressures, it experienced impressive growth an d success with its initiatives. Panera’s stock price rose from $170 .00 per share in 2014 to $210.00 per share in early December 2016. 136 As of October 2016, Panera was the ninth most valuable restaurant company in America with a market capitalization of $4 .5 billion. 137 Panera completed its Panera 2.0 rollout for company

- owned bakery

- cafes by the end of 2016. 138 And by the end of 2016, Panera served approximately 9 million customers per week, making it one of the largest food service companies in the United States. 139
B y January 13, 2017, Panera removed all of its “No No List” ingredients in pursuit of its “clean food” goal. 140 Panera hit another benchmark on February 8, 2017, when MyPanera accounted for 51% of the Company’s transactions, becoming
the largest customer loyalty program in the restaurant industry. 141 Other Panera 2.0

136 Moreton T r. 792:4

– 13; accord Shaich Tr. 976:5

– 10; JX0631 at 10.
137 JX1041 at 4.
138 PTO ¶ 126.
139 Id. ¶ 91.
140 Id. ¶ 127; JX0306.
141 PTO ¶ 129

. Panera completed rollout of its MyPanera customer loyalty program in November 2010. See JX0003.22

initiatives experienced success , with digital orders representing 26% of sales 142 and the Rapid Pick

- Up Program representing about 9% of sales. 143 On February 7, 2017, Shaich ann ounced 2017 to be Panera’s “inflection point” 144 : “[w]ith peak investments and significant scale behind us, we are now focused on completing the rollout of our initiatives and reaping the benefits.” 145 In particular, “[t]he company has guided to double digit EPS growth for 2017.” 146 The market reacted positively to this announcement and Panera’s stock rose $20.00 that day. 147 In this positive environment, Shaich prepared to meet JAB’s Chief Executive Officer, Olivier Goudet, and Head of M&A, David Bell. 148 Shaich prepared for the meeting with Goldman, who arranged his introduction to JAB

. 149 Shaich informed
some of Panera’s directors before the meeting , and Colasacco helped Shaich gather JAB’s public information. 150 JAB hosted Shaich at its Washington, D.C. office on

142 JX0741 at 1.
143 JX0359 at 4.
144 JX0331 at 3

– 4.
145 JX034 2 at 7

. 146 JX0129 at 1

. 147 See Moreton Tr. 801:20

– 21; JX0364 at 1; JX0342 at 7

. 148 JX0334.
149 Shaich Tr. 976:11

– 977:6; accord JX0318; JX0334.
150 See Shaich Tr. 977:17

– 978:7; JX0338.23

February 9. 151 During the meeting, Shaich presented Panera’s standard external investor presentation. 152 Bell interpreted the presentation as a way to try to entice
JAB to come and make an offer for Panera

. 153 During his pitch, Shaich discussed
his thirty

- year career at Panera, but was “very uncertain” about his personal plans

. 154
Shaich saw that Goudet ’s eyes lit up as Shaich discussed Panera. 155 On Friday, February 24, Shaich, Goudet, and Bell had a follow

- up phone
discussion during which JAB expres sed its interest in acquiring Panera. 156 The next day, Shaich and Colasacco met to discuss JAB’s expression of interest. 157 At this time, Shaich did not engage a financial advisor or engage in negotiations. 158 Shaich planned to inform the rest of the board at the upcoming Wednesday, March 1 board meeting. 159

151 PTO ¶ 130.
152 See JX0374; PTO ¶ 130.
153 Bell Tr. 1147:11

– 1148:8.
154 Id. 1148:9

– 22.
155 Shaich Tr. 1043:15

– 1043:24.
156 PTO ¶ 131.
157 See JX0287 at 9; accord Shaich Tr. 980:11

– 981:4 ; 1045:15

– 22.
158 Shaich Tr. 1044:5

– 1044:24.
159 PTO ¶ 131; JX0407 at 1; JX0408 at 3

– 4.24

At that board meeting, Shaich informed the full board of JAB’s interest. 160
Shaich did not mention that he had initiated the conversation with JAB. 161 The board discussed Shaich’s introductory meeting and conversations with JAB, as well as JAB’s potential interest in an acquisition of the Company. 162 “[T]he Board authorized Mr. Shaich to continue conversations with JAB and to report back to the Board with an update as to the discussions and the status of any offer.” 163 At that time, the board d id not retain a financial advisor, as it had not received a formal
offer

. 164 At this same meeting, the board reviewed 2016 financial results and tracked them against the Five

- Year Strategic Plan and the projections in th e Five

- Year
Financial Model. 165 Panera management typically updated the Five

- Year Financial

160 JX0408 at 3

– 4.
161 Shaich Tr. 1048:2

– 1048:17.
162 PTO ¶ 131; JX0408 at 3

– 4.
163 PTO ¶ 131; JX0408 at 4.
164 Shaich Tr. 984:14

– 23 (“ I don’t think anybody on the board, myself or anybody on the board would have thought to bring an investment banker in. We had be en through this kind of process before, and bankers are very expensive, and we had no offer. So I think we needed to understand, what was JAB going to say. ”) ; accord Moreton Tr. 804:18

– 805:1; Colasacco Dep. 138:18

– 139:15.
165 See JX0407 at 47

– 102; JX0408 at 1 (“The agenda for the Board of Directors meeting included the following matters: administrative matters, Special Focus topics, including a review of the 2016 Key Initiatives, 2017 Key Initiatives and financial plan and related business strategy updates, review of financial results . . . .”).25

Model every spring and fall since May 2015. 166 In March, management updated the
Five

- Year Financial M odel in preparation for merger discussions with JAB

. 167
G. JAB Ma kes An Offer , And Both Parties Secure Advisors. On March 10, 2017, Shaich met with Bell and Goudet in Washington D.C. 168 JAB offered to acquire Panera at a price of $286.00 per share in cash. 169 At this time, Panera ’s stock was trading at $234.9 1 ; the offer represented a 21.7% premium. 170 JAB was a serial acquirer that maintained a “playbook” for their acquisitions. 171 Following that playbook, JAB conditioned their offer to Panera on (i) a confidentiality provision; (ii) a public support measure for Shaich an d certain affiliates; (iii) a no

- shop provision with a fiduciary out; (iv) matching rights; and (v) a 4.0% termination fee. 172 JAB’s terms did not include a financing or regulatory
condition. 173 JAB expressed the desire and ability to sign on April 7, 2017, with an

166 PTO ¶ 118; Moreton Tr. 780:24

– 781:9, 859:4

– 16.
167 Moreton Tr. 828:22

– 830:18.
168 PTO ¶ 132.
169 Id.
170 JX0631 at 6.
171 Bell Tr. 1107:24

– 1108:22; Shaich Tr. 1039:22

– 24.
172 PTO ¶ 132.
173 Id.26

announcement on April 10, 2017. 174 At trial, Bell explain ed the “playbook.” 175 Regarding the deal’s speed, JAB was “not interested in a protracted negotiation that results in significant management distraction, so they always go very quickly.” 176
Beca use of this short timeline, JAB also never discusses post

- merger leadership roles during negotiations. 177 Bell also explained that a bilateral deal is part of the JAB playbook in part because it typically leads to the lowest price. 178
JAB hired Ernst & Youn g in March 2017 to conduct their due diligence
review of Panera. 179 JAB conducted their diligence in five days because Panera’s public information and “transparency is off the charts.” 180 During the process, Bell expressed satisfaction with the smooth diligence and was “really impressed by the speed and quality of the data.” 181 He also noted that Panera was one of the “cleanest companies they have ever seen. ” 182

174 Id. ¶ 133.
175 Bell Tr. 1104:2

– 1106:9, 1107:24

– 111:8.
176 JX0581.
177 Bell Tr. 1109:17

– 1111:8.
178 Bell Dep. 49:9

– 14.
179 PTO ¶¶ 79

– 80.
180 JX0581.
181 Id.
182 Id.27

As for financing, Goudet tol d Shaich that JAB would “use [Goldman] for our financing, so it is logical we take them on the buyside

. ” 183 Shaich and Moreton were not concerned about using another advisor, despite Panera’s prior relationship with
Goldman. 184 JAB recommended that Panera us e Adam Taetle from Barclays or David Ciagne from Morgan Stanley because it was “important [for Panera] to pick someone who understands [JAB’s] playbook, otherwise could be dangerous.” 185 Ciagne was JAB’s coverage banker at Morgan Stanley. 186 Upon receipt of a n offer, on March 14, the board engaged advisors. The board retained Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (“Sullivan & Cromwell”) as the board’s outside

183 JX0418 at 2

. Goldman participated in a $3 billion credit facility in connection with the merger. Goldman agreed to provide 33.3% of the credit facility, along with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and the Bank of America Corporation. PTO ¶ 76. Petitioners move d to restrict Respondent’s use of any JAB evidence to support its case. See D.I. 139 at 12 n.53. I considered and denied this argument in my March 20, 2019 bench ruling on Petitioners’ motion in limine. See D.I. 111. I maintain that Petitioners’ attempt and failure to obtain additional discovery in the Netherlands precludes their later attempt to restrict use of any documents in this Court. See i d. at 5:9

– 6:9. Petitioners deposed Bell and received documents from Bell as a custodian. Petitioners used Bell’s testimo ny and JAB documents in its post

- trial arguments. Petitioners have not shown that Respondent relied on any JAB documents that were not produced in discovery. For these reasons, along with those explained in my March 20 bench ruling, Petitioners’ request is denied.
184 Moreton Tr. 775:17

– 22; Shaich Tr. 988:19

– 999:4 (“I knew Goldman, but I knew many bankers. I had worked with others. And I think that I felt we could be well represented in many ways.”).
185 JX0418 at 2

. 186 Kwak Tr. 1194:7

– 13.28

legal counsel for the potential transaction with JAB. 187 Frank Aquila served as
Sullivan & Cromwell ’s lead partner o n the matter. 188 Shaich proposed engaging Barclays Capital or Morgan Stanley as Panera’s financial advisor, 189 but did not tell the board that JAB had suggested those firms, or specifically Ciagne. 190 After deliberation and discussion, the board directed the C ompany to explore a potential engagement and selected Morgan Stanley as its financial advisor. 191 Specifically, on Aquila’s recommendation, Panera selected Mi chael Boublik of Morgan Stanley. 192 Boublik had not worked for JAB, and neither Bell, nor anyone els e at JAB, knew
him. 193 On March 15, Morgan Stanley cleared an initial conflicts check. 194 Two days later, Mor gan Stanley gave Panera a key request list that included the Five

- Y ear

187 PTO ¶ 77.
188 Id. ¶ 78.
189 Id. ¶ 135.
190 See JX0421 at 2.
191 PTO ¶ 135; JX0421 at 2. On March 15, the board initiated the engagement process with Morgan Stanley. PTO ¶ 137. On April 2, the Company entered into an engagement letter with Morgan Stanley. JX0596.
192 JX0466 at 2. Boublik was the lead senior banker from Morgan Stanley advising Panera management and the board in connection with the potential transaction with JAB during the Panera engagement. At Morgan Stanley, he served as Chairman of M&A for the Americas and Managing Director. PTO ¶ 71.
193 Bell Tr. 1113:21

– 1114:4.
194 PTO ¶ 141.29

Strategic Plan, and started putting together initial valuation metrics. 195 Then, on March 20, Sullivan & Cromwell informed the board that Morgan Stanley “had cleared an initial conflicts check on March 15 and the parties were now negotiating an engagement letter for the transaction.” 196 On March 29, Panera management and Morgan Stanley met to review the
Five

- Year Strategic Plan and Five

- Year Financial Model as updated after the March 1 board meeting. 197 Paul Kwak, a Vice President of M&A at Morgan Stanley, 198 prepared questions about Panera’s Five

- Year Financial Model. 199 In cond ucting its analysis, Morgan Stanle y “ immediately noticed that [management projections] were clearly more bullish and had higher growth, higher margins than what the street

consensus was , ” 200 but used the Five

- Year Financial Model to develop its management ca se DCF analysis. 201

195 JX0689; Kwak Tr. 1256:8

– 1258:8.
196 JX0448 at 1.
197 PTO ¶ 151.
198 Id. ¶ 72.
199 See JX0606.
200 Kwak Tr. 1219:23

– 1220:16.
201 See JX0625 at 3.30

On March 30, the bank sent its engagement letter. 202 Panera agreed to pay Morgan Stanley $42 million: $8 million became payable upon execution of the merger agreement, and the remainder was contingent upon closing. 203 The
disclosure let ter identified the scope of conflict and formally disclosed all of Morgan Stanley’s prior dealings with JAB. 204 Morgan Stanley disclosed they “have provided, currently are providing, and/or in the future may provide, certain investment banking and other fin ancial services to the Company, The Potential Buyer, and the Buyer Related entities.” 205 Morgan Stanley also included in the letter
that other than Patrick Gallagher , no senior deal team member “is a member of the coverage team for the Potential Buyer or t he Buyer Related Entities. ” 206 Even though Panera’s deal team did not include any JAB coverage bankers, a
JAB coverage banker twice passed messages between the JAB and Panera deal teams. First, on March 27 (before execution of the engagement letter), Ciag ne emailed Boublik to communicate JAB’s fears that Morgan Stanley was not doing enough to assure Panera that JAB could finance the deal. 207 Second, on April 1,

202 JX0562.
203 JX0789 at 52

– 53.
204 PTO ¶ 155 ; JX0562.
205 JX0562 at 2.
206 Id. at 3.
207 See JX2021.31

Boublik caused Ciagne to deliver the board’s message to JAB that “Panera is serious,
and there has to be a higher price.” 208 The board did not know that Ciagne had previously communicated with Boublik about financing. 209 Indeed, Shaich and
Moreton learned about that communication for the first time at trial. 210
H. Panera Rejects JAB’s Offer , And JAB Comp resses The Timeline. On March 14, the board met to discuss JAB’s $286.0 0 offer. 211 The board agreed that JAB would need to raise its offer and authorized Shaich to pursu e further discussions in pursuit of a higher price. 212 The board instructed Shaich to inform
JAB “that the Board would not agree to any proposed offer for the Company that was not significantly higher than the $286.00 per share currently proposed by
JAB.” 213 The next day, Morgan Stanley conducted initial valuation work with Panera’s
tradi ng history, trading multiples, and precedent transaction multiples

. 214 From this

208 Moreton Tr. 837:9

– 838:9.
209 Shaich Tr. 1068:21

– 1070:1.
210 Id. 1068:21

– 1070:1; Moreton Tr. 905:7

– 908:11.
211 PTO ¶¶ 134, 136.
212 Id. ¶¶ 134, 136.
213 Id. ¶ 134.
214 See Kwak Tr. 1208:6

– 1209:9.32

and JAB’s bidding precedents, Morgan Stanley was comfortable that it could negotiate a price that was above $300 .00

. 215 On March 17, Morgan Stanley advised Shaich and Moreton on JAB’s historical bidding approach and helped them formulate a strategy to raise JAB’s offer price

. 216 Shaich stayed up until 3 a.m. digesting JAB’s historical bidding approach

. 217 While reviewing, Shaich wrote to Moreton that he wanted to push JAB on price; Moreton cautioned him not to push it to o hard by being too greedy, because “pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.” 218 The next day, o n March 18, Shaich informed JAB that although the board approved continued discussions and targeted due diligence, it expected that JAB
would have to increase their $286.00 offer north of $300.00 per share. 219 JAB agreed to discuss the possibility of offering a higher price internally and to get back t o Shaich on March 20. 220

215 See i d.

. 216 JX0455.
217 See Shaich Tr. 996:10

– 997:5.
218 JX0435; accord Moreton Tr. 822:9

– 823:1.
219 PTO ¶ 139.
220 Id.33

On March 20, JAB made a second offer of $296.50 per share, with the warning
that JAB would “not go one penny over 299. We’re not going to hit 300.” 221 Panera’s stock had closed at $255.24 the day before, so the offer represented a 16.2% premium to that trading price. 222 The board met that same day to review the second
offer. 223 The board “supported continued discussions with JAB and JAB initiating
due di ligence on the Company but expressed its expectation that any final offering price be significantly higher.” 224 Boublik agreed and commented, “I would hope that we get another collective move of at least the same magnitude.” 225 On March 22, Shaich and Moreton communicated to Bell and Goudet the board’s expectation to Bell and Goudet that JAB find additional value in the Company

. 226 Shaich explained, “You’ve made a meaningfu l move once, and I and my board appreciate that, but it’s going to take another meaningful move once again . . . I’m confident that once we sit down and go through our business plan and you’ve done your diligence you’ll be able to get there.” 227

221 Id. ¶ 140; accord Shaich Tr. 1002:9

– 23 ; JX0483.
222 JX0552 at 3.
223 PTO ¶ 141.
224 JX0448 at 1 ; see also JX0432 at 2

. 225 JX0456 at 2.
226 PTO ¶ 142.
227 JX0494 at 1.34

A few days la ter, on March 26, JAB and Panera signed a confidentiality agreement and discussed the due diligence process. 228 Bell testified that when JAB makes an offer without a financing contingency, they conduct due diligence at “the appropriate level” “to have this minimum amount of information in order to ensure that [ they ] could get the debt commitments” from their lenders. 229 In these discussions, JAB asked Panera to move up the transaction with an anticipated announcement during the week of April 3

. 230 Shaich recog nized that JAB wanted to move quickly, 231 but responded that it was “material” to Panera that JAB “robustly (and genuinely) understand the drivers in the business [s]o they can fully appreciate the value that we understand is here and seek from them.” 232
Shai ch and Moreton also spoke with their legal and financial advisors abo ut the feasibility, benefits , and risks of JAB’s proposed accelerated timeline. 233 The

t ransaction was the fastest in Kwak’s career. 234 Nevertheless, Panera’s advisors said

228 PTO ¶¶ 144

– 45.
229 Bell Tr. 1105:3

– 1106:9.
230 See PTO ¶ 146

. 231 See JX0494 at 1.
232 JX0491.
233 PTO ¶ 143.
234 Kwak Tr. 1254:24

– 1255:3.35

that they had ad equate time. 235 The board liked the shortened timeline, valuing less
distraction. 236 It was feasible for the board because of its extensive review of the
Five

- Year Strategic Plan, Panera’s financial results, and the Five

- Year Financial
Model. 237 Shaich understood that the Company’s future value lay in its initiatives,

so he conditioned the compressed timeline on meeting with JAB to review the Five

Year Strategic Plan and Five

- Year Financial Model. 238 JAB agreed and the parties agreed to work towa rd entering into a definitive agreement during the week of April
3

. 239
O n March 27, JAB’s counsel provided Sullivan & Cromwell a draft merger agreement and a draft voting agreement

. 240 The board did not counteroffer on deal price or deal terms at that time. Also on March 27, the Company learned that a Bloomberg reporter had called Bell inquiring about a possible sale of Panera. 241 Shaich wrote in an email that he learned this through “a desperate call from [D] avid [B] ell [after] Bloomberg called

235 Moreton Tr. 827:10

– 24; accord Kwak Tr. 1233:10

– 20.
236 Colasacco Dep. 142:11

– 143:15.
237 See, e.g. , Moreton Tr. 748:4

– 13, 768:13

– 769:8, 780:22

– 781:9, 805:2

– 16 , 839:17

– 840:3; Shaich Tr. 951:18

– 952:2, 1015:15

– 21.
238 JX0491; accord JX0490

. 239 PTO ¶ 146

. 240 Id. ¶ 149; JX1011.
241 PTO ¶148 ; JX0513.36

him inquir ing about Panera.” 242 At trial, Shaich commented that during the call, Bell had “anxiety in his voice” and “was very nervous and concerned about it.” 243 Despite the JAB playbook’s tenet of confidentiality, 244 JAB did not walk after the leak. Instead, JAB bega n their diligence in Panera’s data room on March 28. 245 While JAB was conducting their due diligence, Morgan Stanley presented its initial valuation analysis to the board. 246 At the March 30 board meeting, Morgan Stanley presented seven different valuation metrics to guide the negotiations and frame JAB’s outstanding offer of $296.50. 247 Morgan Stanley also identified and ranked “Potential Interlopers” by their strategic ratio nale and ability to pay. 248 In order, these included Starbucks, Chipotle, Restaurant Brands International (“RBI”),

242 JX0513.
243 Shaich Tr. 1007:7

– 17.
244 See JX0418 at 2 (“We are making a friendly, confidential offer. If there is a leak, we will walk away.”); Bell Tr. 1104:5

– 16 (referencing JX0418 and stating “the way we give offers at JAB, among other things, is to require confidentiality. We think it’s in the mutual interests of both parties. It’s just the way we work. And so we said that fundamental to our offer was the fact that it had to remain confidential .”); Kwak Tr. 1196:22

– 1198:1 (testifying that Morgan Stanley was familiar with the JAB playbook and understood that JAB’s threat to walk was real).
245 PTO ¶ 150.
246 Id. ¶ 154; JX0545 at 1

– 2; JX0552.
247 PTO ¶ 154; accord JX0552 at 3

– 12 (valuing the Company through a multiples

- based valuation matrix from the str eet and management cases, historical trading and multiples analyses, comparable companies analyses and a precedent transactions analysis )

. 248 JX0552 at 14

– 15.37

Dunkin’, Domino’s, McDonald’s, Yum!, and Darden. 249 Morgan Stanley ruled out financial sponsors, 250 focused on strategic buyers like Starbucks, a nd explained why others were unlikely to compete. 251 In its analysis, Morgan Stanley recognized that Starbucks had “ [ p ] reviously engaged with [Panera] in acquisition discussions ,” and “[h] ad mentioned concerns that acquisition multiple would be above where Starbucks traded.” 252 This analysis fit with Shaich’s and the board’s deep knowledge of the industry. 253 According to Shaich, the “big three” were not viable options: Starbucks had just passed on Panera months earlier ; Chipotle was in an E. coli crisis ; a nd RBI had just acquired Popeyes. 254 As for the remainder, Shaich knew Dunkin’ very well, had discussions with them, and knew they were 100% franchised, operated at smaller volume, and would not be interested in Panera. 255 Shaich knew Domino’s CEO as
a dear friend and understood their business was 100% franchised and 100% pizza

249 Id.
250 Kwak Tr. 1199:9

– 1200:3, 1228:18

– 1229:5.
251 See JX0552 at 14

– 15.
252 Id. at 14.
253 Shaich Tr. 1019:18

– 1021:16; Moreton Tr . 811:19

– 812:17, 824:3

– 12, 912:12

– 16.
254 Shaich Tr. 1019:18

– 1020:13.
255 Id. 1020:14

– 19.38

and that they were not acquiring. 256 Shaich previously had discuss ions with McDonald’s and knew that , based on mistakes in their acquisition history , they had pulled back and were not acquiring , so Panera “wouldn’t be for them.” 257 Shaich also had discussions with Yum! years earlier and knew that , at the time of the merger, Yum! faced activist pressure to leave China and also would not run company

stores. 258 Finally, Shaich knew that Darden was acquiring Cheddars and faced activist pressure. 259 Shaich explained: “ [I] t was just patently clear to me that, knowing what I know, and knowing these people and where this had played out, that there really wasn’t a viable inter ested party.” 260 The b oard agreed. Moreton explained that “there was nobody else out there talking to [the board] about potentially acquiring [the Company], nor did [the board] think there would be.” 261

256 Id. 1020:20

– 23.
257 Id. 1020:24

– 1021:4.
258 Id. 1021:5

– 9.
259 Id. 1021:10

– 12.
260 Id. 1021:13

– 16.
261 Moreton Tr. 811:19

– 812:17; accord i d. 912:7

– 11 (“[T]here was nobody else to reach out to . . . [w] e went through the process.”).39

I. JAB Reviews Panera’s Five
- Year Strategic Plan And Fiv e - Year Financial Model And Makes Their Final Offer.
Shaich met with four JAB leaders on March 31 , as well as two of their
advisors. 262 The group met for three to four hours , and Shaich presented a deck titled “Five

- Year Strategy & Financial Model.” 263 T he Company presented nonpublic
information , including the status of the Five

- Year Strategic Plan and the financial projections contained in the Five

- Year Financial Model. 264 Days later, on April 2,
JAB confirmed its pre

- diligen ce estimates for cost savings 265 and internally revised
their target price upwards from $290.00 to $ 305.00 per share. 266 The next day, o n the morning of April 3, Bloomberg reported that Panera was exploring strategic options, including a possible sale of the Company to potential
suitors such as JAB, Starbucks , and Domino’s. 267 In response to the leak, Panera’s stock price jumped to $261.87, an 8% increase from the pre

- public speculation price , and close d at $282.63. 268

262 JX0546 at 1. These leaders included Bell, Axel Bhat (JAB partner and CFO), Trevor Ashley (JAB principal), and Tim Hennessy (JAB Beech CFO). Id.
263 Shaich Tr. 1010:9

– 22; JX0564.
264 See generally JX0564; accord Moreton Tr. 840:14

– 23.
265 JX0593 at 49

– 50 (confirming JAB’s pre

- diligence estimates and predicting $365 to $570 million in cost savings).
266 Compare JX0400 at 44 , with JX0593 at 65.
267 PTO ¶ 159; JX0609.
268 See, e.g. , JX0631 at 5; JX0982 at 61.40

Later that day, o n April 3, Shaich, Hurst, and Bufano met with JAB’s se nior partners includ ing Goudet, Bell, Peter Harf ( JAB senior partner), Bart Becht ( JAB partner and chairman), and two of their advisors. 269 The Company presented a deck also titled “Five

- Year Strategy & Financial Model,” 270 which was substantially
similar to the deck delivered to the other JAB leaders on March 31. 271 Both deck s contained an in

- depth look into the Five

- Year Strategic Plan and the Five

- Year
Financial Model. 272 Both decks discussed Panera’s opportunities in international franchising, 273 “ Panera At H ome ” (including coffee), 274 and technology. 275
T he April 3 deck contemplated “other opportunities” that would stem from combining JAB and Panera. 276 These opportunities included joint efforts in consumer packaged goods (“CPG”) , coffee , international expansion , technology , marketing , real estat e modeling, sourcing , and franchising. 277 The parties did not

269 JX0546 at 1.
270 JX0607.
271 Compare JX0564 , with JX0607.
272 See JX0564; JX0607; accord Moreton Tr. 840:14

– 23.
273 See JX0564 at 131 ; JX0607 at 145.
274 See JX0564 at 141

– 152 ; JX0607 at 155

– 169.
275 JX0564 at 154

– 158 ; JX0607 at 171

– 175.
276 JX0607 at 229.
277 Id.41

quantify the amount of savings generated by these efforts. 278 After this discussion,
Bell explained that JAB

did some back

- of

- the

- envelope math and got excited about it. But since we had no discussion with anyone about it, and it was a short period of time, we didn’t, quote/unquote, put it in the model, finan cially. But I will tell you

–– you even heard it earlier

— coffee was core to our strategy of doing this. It ’s just something that was difficult for us to quantify at the time we were doing diligence. 279 JAB did not quantify any growth opportunity synergies e ither before or after diligence

. 280
Also on April 3, Panera countered JAB’s draft merger agreement and proposed lowering the termination fee from 4.0% to 2.5% of the equity value of the
transaction. 281 In response to that counter, also on April 3, JAB communicated to Shaich a “best and final” offer of $315.00 per share and a 3.0% termination fee. 282 The $315. 00 offer represented a 34.1% premium from the March 10 trading price of $234.91 and a 20.3% premium from the March 31 pre

- public speculation trading

278 See i d.
279 See Bell Tr. 1129:2

– 24.
280 See JX0400 at 43; JX0593 at 64.
281 PTO ¶ 160.
282 Id. ¶ 161.42

price o f $ 261.87

. 283 JAB informed Panera that this offer would expire when the
United States market opened o n April 5

. 284
J. Morgan Stanley Offers Its Fairness Opinion , And Panera Approves The Deal.
At 9:00 p.m. on April 3 , Morgan Stanley’s fairness committee met to discuss the proposed transaction between Panera and JAB, and found that the $315.00 per
share offer exceeded the historical trading range, analyst price targets, public trading benchmarks, and the street discounted equity value analysis. 285 The analysis also showed that the $315.00 per share offer fell within the range of precedent transactions, manageme nt discounted equity value analysis, and both the street and
managem ent discounted cash flow analyse s. 286 The committee prepared to present these findings to the board the next day. On April 4 at 9:30 a.m., the board held a meeting to discuss JAB’s “last and final” offer. 287 Shaich, Bufano, and Hurst presented highlights from the “Five

- Year Strategic Plan & Financial Model” previously shared with JAB leaders. 288 During

283 JX0631 at 6.
284 PTO ¶ 161.
285 See JX0627 at 20

. 286 See id.
287 PTO ¶ 163.
288 Id. ; JX0608; JX0628 at 1 ; JX0629.43

this meeting, management also reviewed the Company’s full Five

- Year Financial
Model with t he board. 289 Morgan Stanley presented its fairness committee’s findings. 290 The analysis included the evolution of merger discussions; a summary of JAB proposals with implied transaction multiples; a JAB company and precedent transaction overview;
Panera’s historical stock performance, next

- twelve

- month multiple measu rements, and valuation comparables; and analyst perspectives on Panera. 291 Morgan Stanley also presented its preliminary standalone valuation summary
from both a street case and an internal management case based on the Five

- Year
Model

. 292 The discounted cash flow analysis for the street case ranged from $231.00 to $318.00 per share , while the management case ranged from $300.00 to $410.00 per share. 293 The board discussed these valuations at le ngth and asked Morgan Stanley questions about the underlying assumptions. 294 Morgan Stanley explained that the management case reflected assumptions for Panera’s various initiatives and that “all those initiatives had to go right in order to achiev e this ma nagement case

289 PTO ¶ 164; JX0629; JX0616; accord Moreton Tr. 840:4

– 20.
290 See PTO ¶ 165; JX0631.
291 JX0631 at 1

– 14.
292 Id. at 15

– 20.
293 Id. at 19.
294 JX0628 at 2; Moreton Tr. 843:14

– 845:3.44

and then . . . there was execution risks in executing or in getting all those initiatives to the point that management was assuming within their management case.” 295 While Morgan Stanley highlighted the effect of these assumptions, it accepted management’s data in creating the management case and did not test it for
reasonableness. 296 Morgan Stanley concluded that the merger consideration of $315.00 per share “was fair to and in the best interests of, from a financial point of view, the Company’ s shareholders and that it would be prepared to issue an opinion to the Company and its Board to that effect.” 297 After the board discussed their perspectives on the proposed transaction and the valuation of the Company, “[t]he directors expressed their st rong support for the proposed transaction, noting particularly that the price was fair for the Company’s

295 Kwak Tr. 1236:18

– 1237:10. Kwak explained: A few considerations: You’ve got to believe that 80+% of your value is in the terminus Everything has got to go right ; there is always risk of execution which may not be captured by our calculated WACC All init iatives are proven strategies, but not all are proven on a large scale Restaurant space is competitive

– our guys are ahead of the pack now in terms of technology, for instance, but it’s a r[i]sk that others are striving to catch up[.] JX0625 at 3

– 4.
296 Kwak Tr. 1221:2

– 11, 1235:17

– 1236:8, 1240:11

– 13.
297 JX0628 at 2.45

shareholders and that the deal protection mechanisms in the merger agreement were not preclusive to an alternative proposal for the Company’s shares.” 298 The board
then recessed and reconvened at 4:00 p
. m
. for the final review of the proposed
transaction. 299 At that time, Sullivan & Cromwell updated the board about the merger agreement, the voting agreement , and the non

- competition agreement. 300 Boublik orally delivered Morgan Stanley’s fairness opinion (confirmed the next day in writing) 301 that the merger was fair from a financial point of view to Panera and its
stockholders. 302 The board unanimously approved the proposed resolutions to adopt,

ex ecute , and deliver the merger agreement. 303 On April 5, Panera and JAB issued a joint press release announcing the
merger. 304

298 Id. at 3

. 299 Id.
300 PTO ¶ 167 ; JX0630 at 1.
301 JX0647.
302 PTO ¶ 167; JX0628 at 2.
303 PTO ¶ 167 ; JX0630 at 2.
304 PTO ¶ 170; accord JX0655.46

K. Panera Solicits And Obtains Stockholder Approval. On May 12, Panera filed a preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14A

recomme nding that Panera’s stockholders vote in favor of the merger. 305 On June 1,
Panera issued a definitive Schedule 14A proxy statement, by which Panera notified all stockholders of their appraisal rights for their shares of Panera common stock pursuant to 8 De l. C. § 262, and attached a copy of 8 Del. C. § 262 as Annex C to the proxy. 306 On June 16, Panera issued supplemental disclosures. 307 On July 11, Panera stockholders approved the merger at a special meeting, at which over 97%
of votes cast favored the merge r, representing 80. 26 % of the outstanding shares. 308 The merger closed on July 18. 309 N o potential bidders emerged at any time, including after Bloomberg’s March 27 request for comment or after the parties
announced the deal on April 5

. 310 As of the merger date, Panera operated 910
company - owned bakery

- cafes and 1,132 franchisee bakery

- cafes across 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Ontario, Canada. 311

305 PTO ¶ 2.
306 Id. ¶ 3.
307 Id. ¶ 4.
308 Id. ¶¶ 5

- 6 ; JX0842 at 3.
309 PTO ¶ 7.
310 Kwak Tr. 1215:24

– 1218:2; Moreton Tr. 842:22

– 843:2.
311 PTO ¶ 89.47

On November 8, Panera announced that effective January 1, 2018, Shaich would step do wn as Chief Executive Officer of Panera and remain with the Company as Executive Chairman, and Hurst would succeed Shaich as Chief Executive
Officer. 312
L. Dissenting Stockholders Seek Appraisal. In early July 2017, thirty Dissenting Stockholders notified Panera of their desire to exercise their appraisal rights pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 262 over a collective 1,863,578 shares of Panera common stock

. 313 The Dissenting Stockholders did not
withdraw the i r demands within sixty days of the effective date of the merger. 314 Between August 16, 2017 and September 13, 2017, Dissenting Stockholders filed five separate petitions seeking appraisal relating to the merger. The Court consolidated those petitions into this action. 315 Between December 19, 2017 and May 10, 2018, Panera prepaid twenty

- nine of the Dissenting Stockholders the full amount of the merger consideration, $315.00,

312 Id. ¶ 180.
313 Id. ¶ 9.
314 Id. ¶ 10.
315 Id. ¶ 11.48

and statutory interest accrued through the payment date, for each share of Panera

comm on stock beneficially owned. 316
C ertain Dissenting Stockholders withdrew their demands, and Panera and these Dissenting Stockholders jointly stipulated to di smiss their petitioners from this
action

. 317
The Court held a six

- day trial between April 1 and Apr il 8, 2019. Post

- trial briefing was completed on August 1. 318 The Court ordered supplemental briefing on August 22, 319 which the parties completed on September 27. 320 The Court held post

- trial argument on October 7. 321
II. ANALYSIS
Petitioners contend that the fa ir value of their shares is $ 361 .00

. 322 Petitioners support this valuation with a three

- pronged approach. They give no weight to deal price. 323 Instead, they give 60 % weight to a discounted cash flow model prepared

316 Id. ¶ 13.
317 See i d. ¶¶ 14

– 19.
318 See D.I. 134.
319 D.I. 142.
320 See D.I. 144.
321 See D.I. 154.
322 JX0983 at 10.
323 Id. ; accord Shaked Tr. 394:10

– 12.49

by their expert, Israel Shaked, professor of finance and economics at Boston University ’s Questrom School of Business

. 324 Petitioners attribute 30 % of their
valuation to Shaked’s comp arable companies analysis, and 10 % to his precedent transaction analysis. Throughout this proceeding, incl uding a t trial, Respondent pursued a
valuation of $304 .44

. 325 Respondent argue d that d eal price minus synergies deserves dispositive weight

. Respondent’s expert was Glenn Hubbard, the Dean and Russell
L. Carson Professor in finance and economics at the Graduate School of Business of Columbia University, as well as professor of economics at Columbia University. 326 Seizing on Bell’s trial testimony regarding revenue synergies , Respondent lowered
its valuation to $ 293 .44 in post

- trial briefing. Respo ndent seeks a refund of any difference between its prepayment at $315.00 per share and fair value.

A. Legal Standard “An appraisal proceeding is a limited legislative remedy intended to provide shareholders dissenting from a merger on grounds of inadequacy of the offering price with a judicial determination of the intrinsic worth (fair value) of their shareholdings.” 327 “Section 262(h) unambiguously calls upon the Court of Chancery

324 JX0983 at 6.
325 See JX0982 at 55

– 56 ; accord Hubbard Tr. 1479:23

– 1480:6.
326 JX0982 at 5.
327 Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc. , 542 A.2d 1182, 1186 (Del. 1988).50

to perform an independent evaluation of ‘fair valu e’ at the time of a

transact ion

. . . [and] vests the Chancellor and Vice Chancellors with significant discretion to consider ‘all relevant factors’ and determine the going concern value of the underlying company.” 328 The determination of fair value is intended to ensure
the stockhold er is “paid for that which has been taken from him, viz. , his proportionate interest in a going concern.” 329 Valuation of the corporati on as a going concern must be “ based upon the op erative reality of the company as of the time of the merger, taking into a ccount its particular market position in light of future prospects.” 330 “ Given that ‘[e] very company is different; every merger is different,’ the appraisal endeavor is ‘by design, a flexible process.’” 331 “In a statutory appraisal proceeding, both sides have the burden of proving
their respective valuation positions by a preponderance of [the] evidence. ” 332 In

328 DFC Glob

. Corp. v. Muirfield Value P ’ rs, L.P. , 172 A.3d 346, 364 (Del. 2017) (quoting Golden Telecom , Inc. v. Glob. GT LP , 11 A.3d 214, 217

– 18 (Del. 2010)); accord 8 Del. C. § 262(h).
329 Tri

- Continental Corp. v. Battye , 74 A.2d 71 , 72 (Del. 1950 ); accord Verition P ’ rs Master Fund Ltd. v. Aruba Networks, Inc. , 210 A.3d 128, 132

– 133 (Del. 2019).
330 In re Appraisal of Stillwater Min. Co. , 2019 WL 3943851, at *19 (Del. Ch. Aug. 21, 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting M.G. Bancorp., Inc. v. Le Beau , 737 A.2d 513, 525 (Del. 1999 )), judgment entered 2019 WL 4750400 (Del. Ch. Sept. 27, 2019).
331 Dell, Inc. v. Magnetar Glob. Event Driven Master Fund Ltd. , 177 A.3d 1, 21 (Del. 2017) (footnote omitted) ( quoting In re Appraisal of PetSmart , 2017 WL 2303599, at *26 (Del. Ch. May, 26, 2017) , and then quoting Golden Telecom , 11 A.3d at 218 )

. 332 M.G. Bancorp. , 737 A.2d at 520.51

evaluating the parties’ positions, “[n]o presumption, favorable or unfavorable,
attaches to either side’s valuation , ” 333 and “[e]ach party also bears the burden of proving the constituent elements of its valuation position . . . , including the propriety of a particular method, modification, discount, or premium.” 334 Because the Court
determines fair valu e based on an adversarial present ation blend ing facts, opinions, and argument, the Court’s conclusions in one appraisal proceeding may not squarely
inform its conclusions in another. 335 The appraisal exercise occurs in the context of the efficient market hy pothesis, “long endorsed” by the Delaware Supreme Court. 336 “It teaches that the price produced by an efficient market is generally a more reliable assessment of fair value than the view of a single analyst, especially an expert witness who caters her
valua tion to the litigation imperatives of a well

- heeled client.” 337 In view of this principle, the Delaware Supreme Court has acknowledged “the economic reality that

333 Pinson v. Campbell

- Taggart, Inc ., 1989 WL 17438, at *6 (Del. Ch. Feb. 28, 1989).
334 Stillwater , 2019 WL 3943851, at *18 (quoting Jesse A. Finkelstein & John D. Hendershot, Appraisal Rights in Mergers and Consolidations , Corp. Prac. Series (BNA) No. 38

- 5th, at A

- 90 (2010 & 2017 Supp.)).
335 See In re Appraisal of Jarden Corp. , 2019 WL 3244085, at *1 (Del. Ch. July 19, 2019), reargument granted in part, denied in part , 2019 WL 4464636 (Del. Ch. Sept. 16, 2019). Merion Capital L.P. v. Lender Processing Servs., L.P. , 2016 WL 7324170, at *16 (Del. Ch. Dec. 16, 2016); Glob. GT LP v. Golden Telecom, Inc. , ( Golden Telecom Trial ), 993 A.2d 497, 517 (Del. Ch.), aff’d , 11 A.3d 214 (Del. 2010);
336 Dell , 177 A.3d at 24.
337 Id.52

the sale value resulting from a robust market check will often be the most reliable
evidence of fair value, and . . . second

- guessing the value arrived upon by the collective views of many sophisticated parties with a real stake in the matter is hazardous.” 338 At the same time, the Delaware Supreme Court does not view “the market [a]s always the best indicator of value, or that it shoul d always be granted some weight. ” 339 “There is no presumption that the deal price reflects fair value.” 340 “[T]he persuasiveness of the deal price depends on the reliability of the sale process that generated it.” 341 I f th e sale process is not open or sufficiently reliable, “the deal price should not be regarded as persuasive evidence of fair value.” 342

338 DFC , 172 A.3d at 366.
339 Dell , 117 A.3d at 35

. 340 Stillwater , 2019 WL 3943851, at *21 ( citing Dell , 177 A.3d at 21; DFC , 172 A.3d at 366

– 67).
341 Id.
342 Id. at *22 ; a ccord Aruba , 210 A.3d at 137 ( “[A] buyer in possession of material nonpublic information about the seller is in a strong position (and is uniquely incentivized) to properly value the seller when agreeing to buy the company at a particular deal price, and that view of value should be given considerable weight by the Court of Chancery absent deficiencies in the deal process.”); Jarden , 2019 WL 3244085, at *23 (“This court has heeded the Supreme Court’s guidance and regularly r ests its appraisal analysis on the premise that when a transaction price represents an unhindered, informed and competitive market valuation, that price ‘is at least first among equals of valuation methodologies in deciding fair value.’” (quoting In re App raisal of AOL Inc. , 2018 WL 1037450, at *1 (Del. Ch. Feb. 23, 2018))).53

T here is no checklist or set of minimum characteristics for giving weight to the deal price. 343 Indeed, Delaware Supreme Court precedent announced in “ Aruba , Dell , and DFC do [es] not establish legal requirements for a sale process.” 344 A deal price serves as a persuasive indicator of fair value where the sale process bears “objective indicia of fairness that rendered the deal price a reliable indicator of fair value.” 345 Vice Chancellor Glasscock described a “ Dell compliant” process as one “where (i) information was sufficiently disseminated to potential bidders, so that (ii) an informed sale could take place, (iii) without undue impediments imposed by the deal structure itself.” 346 In Stillwater , Vice Chancellor La ster recited several objective indicia of reliability approved by the Delaware Supreme Court : negotiations “[at] arm’s

- length”; 347 board deliberations without “any conflicts of interest”; 348 buyer “due diligence and recei[pt of] confidential information about [ the

343 See Stillwater , 2019 WL 3943851, at *21.
344 Id. at *22.
345 Id. at *44

. 346 AOL , 2018 WL 1037450, at *8.
347 Stillwater , 2019 WL 3943851, at *22 (citing DFC , 172 A.3d at 349).
348 Id. ; see also DFC , 172 A.3d at 375

– 76.54

company’s ] value”; 349 and seller “extract[ion of] multiple price increases.” 350 The Delaware Supreme Court has particularly stressed the absence of post

- signing bidders as an objective indicator that the sale process was reliable and probative of
fair v alue. 351 The presence of objective indicia of reliability does not establish a presumption in favor of the deal price. 352 W here these indicia are present, I must determine whether they outweigh weaknesses in the sale process, or whether those
weaknesses un dermine the persuasiveness of the deal price. 353

349 Stillwater , 2019 WL 3943851, at *23 (citing Aruba , 210 A.3d at 13 7

– 3 8); see also Dell , 177 A.3d at 30 (review of “the Company’s confidential information”); DFC , 172 A.3d at 355

– 56 (same).
350 Stillwater , 2019 WL 3943851, at *23 (citing Aruba , 210 A.3d at 139 ; Dell , 177 A.3d at 28).
351 Id. (citing Aruba , 210 A.3d at 136 (“It cannot be that an open chance for buyers to bid signals a market failure simply because buyers do not believe the asset on sale is su fficiently valuable for them to engage in a bidding contest against each other.”); Dell , 177 A.3d at 29 (“Fair value entails at minimum a price some buyer is willing to pay

— not a price at which no class of buyers in the market would pay.”); id

. at 33 (find ing that absence of higher bid meant “that the deal market was already robust and that a topping bid involved a serious risk of overpayment,” which “suggests the price is already at a level that is fair”)).
352 Id. at *22.
353 Cf. i d. ( synthesizing the three recent Su preme Court appraisal decisions in Aruba , Dell , and DFC ).55

B. Panera’s Sale Process Was Sufficiently Reliable To Make Deal Price Persuasive Evidence Of Fair Value. I find several objective indicia of reliability in this case. As a prefatory matter, Panera’s stock traded in an efficient market, such that indicia of reliability in Panera’s sale process support giving weight to deal price

. 354 First, as Petitioner s ’
process expert James Redpath recognized , the parties negotiated in an arm’s

- length

354 This point does not appear to be in serious dispute. Petitioners’ opening post

- trial brief did not assert that Panera’s stock did not trade in an efficient market. The parties discussed the efficiency of the market for Panera’s stock only while talking past each other about whether weight should be given to Panera’s stock price. Compare D.I. 138 at 60

– 65 , and D.I. 141 at 23, with D.I. 140 at 40

– 46. Out of an abundance of caut ion, I make the unsurprising finding that Panera “ha[d] many stockholders; no controlling stockholder; ‘highly active trading’; and . . . information about the company [was] widely available and easily disseminated to the market.” See Dell , 177 A.3d at 25 (citation omitted). Panera also had a large market capitalization, substantial public float and trading volume, a low bid

- ask spread, a high number of equity analysts, and a rapid response to transaction rumors. See id. at 7, 25. Hubbard’s report on th ese factors was persuasive and supported by evidence presented at trial. JX0982 at 58

– 61; Hubbard Tr. 1504:11

– 1505:14, 1506:11

– 24. In my view, these straightforward factors are plainly present and provide conclusive evidence of an efficient market for Pa nera’s stock. This conclusion is undisturbed by Shaked’s analyses of market reactions to Panera news, which I find to be plagued by subjectivity in what is “new and material” information, and a failure to account for trading volume. See JX0988 at 83

– 84, 90

– 92.56

transaction. 355 Redpath similarly conceded that the board was independent, and
labored without conflicts of interest. 356 Second, JAB assessed Panera’s value using both Panera’s e xtensive public
information and focused due diligence into Pane ra’s confidential information. 357 In
DFC , deal price was the best evidence of fair value in part because it was “informed by robust public information [] and easy access to deepe r, non - public
information .” 358 Bell found Panera’s “transparency [was] off the charts[,]”and JAB’s legal advisors shared the view that “much of [JAB’s diligence] is check the box and that they have reviewed everything that is public .” 359 Shaich explained that he presented the Five

- Year Strategic P lan “ hundreds of times ” to “internal groups,

355 Redpath Tr. 635:6

– 9. Redpath is a senior investment banking partner at Cypress Associates, a “nationally recognized investment banking firm.” See i d. 499:9

– 14, 505:18

– 21.
356 Id. 635:24

– 638:9, 643:12

– 644:8. Petitioners claim a special committee was necessary here, but Petitioners cannot point to a conflict that a special committee could remedy where Panera had seven independent board members on its nine

- member board.
357 JX0476 at 2; JX0583 at 1.
358 172 A.3d at 349.
359 JX0461 at 1; JX0581 ; accord JX0476 at 2 (“Remember, this is a very clean public company, so have to tone down the voluminous generic requests . . . .”).57

external groups” and “every investment conference” he attended (“twenty a year”) “to get everybody to understand [] what’s the vision and where we were.” 360 In addition, JAB received and reviewed the specific no npublic information
that Shaich believed would lead JAB to see greater value in Panera. 361 After reviewing that information, JAB internally raised their offer from $296.50 to $305.00 , as the information confirmed a “[s]ignificant [c]ash [o]pportunity” throu gh working capital and other cost savings. 362 Ultimately, JAB offered Panera $315.00. 363 Although JAB limited their access to non

- public information, they did

so as a natural result of Panera’s widespread public dissemination of meaningful
information. Third, Panera used Boublik’s guidance 364 and Shaich’s doggedness to extract
two price increases. 365 Even operating under their own preferred terms of

360 Shaich Tr. 921:7

– 9, 948:2

– 18, 960:8

– 961:3, 962:17

– 23; see, e.g . , JX0194 at 1; JX0192 at 5, 11; JX2028 at 3, 17; JX0032 at 51; JX0041 at 5, 22; JX0064 at 2; JX0260 at 4

– 5, 15; JX0331 at 3

– 4; JX0345 at 4

– 5, 14; JX0029; JX1039; JX0063 at 3; JX0304.
361 JX0490; accord Moreton Tr. 840:7

– 23.
362 JX0593 at 49

– 50. These findings are discussed further in Section II(D), infra

. 363 PTO ¶ 161.
364 Kwak Tr. 1206:15

– 1207:6; accord Moreton Tr. 821:7

– 14 (“Q. Did Panera at any time in the negotiations give a, quote, unquote, counteroffer in the sense of a specific price point at which it would agree to a deal? A. No. We never did. This was part of the strategy that Morgan Stanley helped craft, that there was no reason to do that. At this point, it was just a push for more.”).
365 Shaich Tr. 999:9

– 1002:4.58

engagement , JAB raised their price twice

. T he board rejected JAB’s initial $286.00 offer, communicating its expectation that JAB would find more value for the Company during the diligence process. 366 Boublik agreed and encouraged Shaich , the lead negotiator, and Moreton, a board negotiation advisor, to seek additional
value. 367 When JAB revised their offer to $29 6 .50, JAB also explained that they
would not raise the offer a penny over $299.00

. 368 This was still too low for the
board. 369 Shaich and Moreton listened to Morgan Stanley’s guidance and believed the Company c ould break JAB’s stated ceiling price without gi ving a counteroffer

. 370 Morgan Stanley was right. After conducting diligence , confirming its anticipated cost savings, and review ing the Five

- Year Strategic Plan and Five

- Year Model, JAB raised its price to $315.00. 371

366 PTO ¶¶ 139, 141 ; JX0448 at 1 ; accord Moreton Tr. 822:1

– 8 (“JAB’ s transactions had gone from the initial discussions and initial bids, through due diligence, to the end, and how they had a history of raising their offer price as they went through. ”).
367 Moreton Tr. 820:4

– 13 ; accord JX0519 at 1.
368 PTO ¶ 140; accord Shaich Tr. 1002:9

– 23; JX0483.
369 PTO ¶ 141 ( “The Board supported moving forward with further discussions and due diligence but again expressed its expectation that any final offering p rice be significantly h igher.”).
370 See Moreton Tr. 821:7

– 822:8.
371 PTO ¶ 161.59

Fourt h , no other potential bidders emerged , despite a leak during negotiations and nonpreclusive deal protections

. 372 A leak gives potential bidders notice of the transaction and an opportunity to bid. 373 According to Kwak, leaks typically happen at the tail end of a process , 374 a nd a potentially interested buyer with the capacity to acquire a $7 billion company would “have the experience and the know

- how and the team members to know that you do need to move swiftly because at any point they could sign a transaction with the rumored bu yer. ” 375 Kwak explained that when a rumored transaction surfaces, coverage bankers immediately identify and contact potential buyers “to explore whether th [ose] compan[ies] ha [ve] interest in pursuing an acquisition.” 376 The first evidence of a leak emerged on March 27 , when Bloomberg called
JAB for a comment

. The leak concerned Bell greatly, evidencing that JAB feared

372 Id. ¶¶ 148, 159; Kwak Tr. 1215:24

– 1218:2.
373 In re Appraisal of Solera Hld gs . , Inc. , 2018 WL 3625644, at *14 (Del. Ch. July 30, 2018) (analyzing Dell and commenting that “[g]iven leaks in the press that Dell was exploring a sale . . . the world was put on notice of the possib ility of a transaction so that any interested parties would have approached the Company before the go

- shop if ser ious about pursuing a deal. ” (internal quotation marks omit ted) ); cf. DFC , 172 A.3d at 376 (identifying “the failure of other buyers to pursue the company when they had a free chance to do so” as an objective indicator of fairness supporting deal price).
374 Kwak Tr. 1216:11

– 121 7 : 16

. 375 Id. 1216:11

– 23.
376 Id. 121 6:24

– 1217:16.60

another bidder might surface. The transaction became public on April 3, when Bloomberg published its article. 377 No bidders surfaced.
Further , no third

- party bidders expressed interest or submitted a bid during
the three

- month post

- signing period after the parties announced the deal

. 378 Panera’s deal protections included a no

- shop provision with a fiduciary out, matching rights,
a 3% termination fee, and 104 days between signing and closing. 379 Morgan Stanley considered each post

- signing protection to be customary or insufficiently preclusive to post

- signing bidders. 380 Kwak viewed a 3 to 4% break

- up fee as “typical” and 3% as “customar y , ” 381 and recognized that even “customary” matching rights “may discourage in a way and make it more challenging” for other bidders to come forward, but such rights would not prevent them. 382 Kwak testified at trial that an interested bidder “could contact a nd put forth an offer to the company.” 383 Kwak

377 JX0609.
378 Kwak Tr. 1242:11

– 1243:3. In Kwak’s view, the leak gave interested bidders sufficient time to come forward before signing. Id. 1242:11

– 23. Redpath agreed. JX0985 at 76 (“ There was sufficient time for a topping bidder to emerge post

- signing. ”)

. 379 PTO ¶¶ 132, 161; JX0789 at 71

– 75, 79

– 81; see also JX0772 at 97

– 100, 106

– 107.
380 See, e.g. , Kwak Tr. 1240:14

– 21, 1241:10

– 2 4

. 381 Id. 1241:10

– 15.
382 Id. 1241:16

– 24.
383 Id. 1241:5

– 9.61

concluded there was sufficient time between signing and closing, noting, “ [I] f there was someone, we would have expected to at least get some form of an inbound.” 384 Petitioners have not meaningful ly challenge d the terms Panera’s post

- signing passive market check, or offered any evidence that an interested bidder did not have
a reasonable chance to bid. 385 To the contrary, Redpath conceded, “[t]here was

384 Id. 1242:11

– 23.
385 This Court has recently posited that deal price is persuasive evidence of fair value, even with a limited pre

- signing outreach , if the merger agreement’s deal protections are sufficiently open to permit a post

- signing passive market check in line with wha t decisions have held is sufficient to satisfy enhanced scrutiny

. Stillwat er , 2019 WL 3943851, at *24

– 30

. As Stillwater ’s holdings have been appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court, I limit my holding today to the unremarkable conclusion that no bidders e merged in the face of nonpreclusive deal protections. But with the aid of the parties’ briefing on the issue, it seems to me that Panera’s post

- signing market check would survive enhanced scrutiny and therefore under Stillwater , would support deal price a s fair value. For example, in C & J Energy , the parties bargained for a suite of deal protections , including a no

- shop clause subject to a fiduciary out, a 2.27% termination fee , and a post

- signing passive market check lasting 153 days. See C & J Energy Servs., Inc. v. City of Miami Gen. Emps. , 107 A.3d 1049, 1063 (Del. 2014). The Delaware Supreme Court explained that under this suite, “a potential competing bidder faced only modest deal protection barriers,” id. at 1052, and “there were no material barr iers that would have prevented a rival bidd er from making a superior offer, ” i d. at 1070. In support, the Delaware Supreme Court approvingly cited In re Dollar Thrifty Shareholder Litigation , 14 A.3d 573, 612

– 13, 615 (Del. Ch. 2010). In Dollar Thrifty , this Court found the board used reasonable judgment to deal exclusively with the buyer without conducting a pre

- signing market check where deal protections included a no

- shop provision with a fiduciary out , matching rights, a 3.9% termination fee , and a pa ssive post

- signing market check lasting 126 days. Id. at 592

– 93, 614

– 16. And in In re PLX Tech nology In c. Stockholders Litigation , the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed this Court’s damages ruling where the trial court determined damages based on a quasi

a ppraisal theory that the company should have remained a standalone company. 211 A.3d 137 (Del. 2019) (TABLE), aff’g In re PLX Tech. Inc. S’holders Litig. , 2018 WL 5018535 (Del. Ch. Oct. 16, 2018). At trial, this Court found that the sale process as a who le was sufficiently reliable to reject a DCF methodology where the process included a fifty

- day passive, post

- signing market check with a suite of deal protections , including a no

- shop with a fiduciary out, unlimited match ing right s, and a 3.5% termination fee

. PLX , 201862

sufficient time for a topping bidder to emerge post

- signing.” 386 After the leak and the public deal announcement, other market participants “failed to pursue a merger when they had a free chance to do so.” 387 “The failure of any other party to come forward provides significant evidence of fairness, beca use ‘[f]air value entails at minimum a price some buyer is willing to pay

— not a price at which no class of buyers in the market would pay.’” 388 In particular, none of the “big three” 389 potential bidders that Morgan Stanley
identified

— Starbucks, Chipotle, an d RBI

— show ed any interest in bidding for
Panera , both before and after the parties announced the deal

. Chipotle knew about the leak before the deal signed, but did not express interest before or after signing

. 390

WL 5018535 at *2, *26

– 27, *44, *55

. Panera’s deal protections differ little from those in C & J Energy , Dollar Thrifty , and PLX . Panera’s 3.0% termination fee falls on the low end of the range presented by these deals. As for the time between announcement and closing or injunction, Panera’s falls in the middle. Each deal contained a no

- shop provision with a fiduciary out, and D ollar Thrifty and PLX included matching rights. Panera’s deal protections fall within what Delaware courts have held to satisfy enhanced scrutiny.
386 JX0985 at 76.
387 DFC , 172 A.3d at 376 ; accord Stillwater , 2019 WL 3943851, at * 35.
388 Stillwater , 2019 WL 3943851, at *42 (quoting Dell , 177 A.3d at 29); see also Dell , 177 A.3d at 32

– 34; Aruba , 210 A.3d at 136.
389 Shaich Tr. 1019:18

– 1020:13.
390 See JX0700 at 2.63

B oth RBI and Chipotle sent post

- announcement congratulatory messages to Morgan Stanley after the parties announced the deal. 391 Finally , Panera solicited all logical buyers consistent with its knowledge of the Company’s value and the market. The Delaware Supreme Court has identifie d “outreach to all logical buyers” as a key indicator of reliability. 392 Petitioners contend that Panera engaged in a closed, single

- bidder strategy during the pre

signing process. Respondent asserts that Panera engaged “all logical buyers.” 393
In Dell , the board similarly limited its pre

- signing canvass to two bidders , based on its financial advisor’s recommendation that th os e two firms were “among the best qualified potential acquirers” and that “there was a low probability of strategic buyer interest i n acquiring the company.” 394 The Dell board also conducted
a go - shop, soliciting interest from sixty

- seven potential bidders. 395 As a result, the

391 See i d. ; JX0654 at 1

– 2

. The other referenced potential bidder in the Bloomberg article, Domino’s, expressed that it was not interested and was not “ having any conversations regarding the purchase of Panera” because it has “a lot more opportunity for growth in pizza.” JX0609 at 2, 4.
392 Dell , 117 A.3d at 35.
393 Id.
394 Id. at 9 (quoting In re Appraisal of Dell , 2016 WL 3186538, at *6 (Del. Ch. May 31, 2016), aff’d in part, rev’d in part sub nom. Dell, Inc. v. Magnetar Glob. Event Driven Master Fund Ltd

. , 177 A.3d 1 (Del. 2017) ).
395 Id. at 12.64

Supreme Court determined the deal price “deserved heavy, if not dispositive , weight .” 396
P anera led outreach to all logical buyers: Starbucks and JAB . The negotiations with the two companies followed the same pattern. Shaich assert ed Panera’s value based on the Five

- Year Strategic Plan to “sell[]” the company, or solicit interest, 397 listened to gauge interest , and then consulted with the board. 398 The failed negation with Starbucks prepared Shaich and the board to negotiate with
JAB. As a recap, in June 2015, Goldman identified several potential strategic bidders, and identified Starbucks as Panera’s most like ly buyer. 399 Starbucks w as the most likely bidder because Panera was “such a valued company” “trading at very high multiples.” 400 Goldman concluded a financial buyer was unlikely, and t he
board understood that financial sponsors were limited and none could a fford the Company. 401 With that analysis, the board decided that it should remain an

396 Id. at 23.
397 Compare Sha ich Tr. 970:14

– 21; 971:20

– 973:3, with i d. 978:8

– 979:18; accord Bell. Tr. 1147:11

– 1148:8.
398 Compare Shaich Tr. 968:9

– 969:5 , with i d. 980:8

– 981:4 , 983:7

– 984:13.
399 JX0019 at 18; Shaich Tr. 955:7

– 956:3, 958:1

– 19; accord Moreton Tr. 770:22

– 771:19.
400 Shaich Tr. 955:18

– 23; accord Moreton Tr. 770:22

– 771:19.
401 Shaich Tr. 956:14

– 957:7.65

independent company, but that “the Company would, as it had done in the past,
continue to observe the markets and consider activities in the best interest of

s harehol ders on an ongoing basis. ” 402
About a year later, in July 2016, Starbucks initiated a possible collaboration 403
and the board instructed Shaich to solicit Starbucks’ interest in an acquisition

. 404 In August 2016, Shaich started the conversation with JAB, another potential buyer that was conducting acquisitions at “huge multiples.” 405 Shaich explained:

I saw an article in Nation’s Restaurant News, I think [JAB] had just done an acquisition. They were buying companies every six months at huge multiples. And I thought they were at least worth getting to know in some way, so I picked up the phone and called Goldman, said do you know these guys and can you introduce me. That was August. 406
After Au gust, Panera continued its negotiations with Starbuck s, which concluded by
December 2016. 407 JAB expressed interest in meeting with Shaich, but with an other

402 JX0019 at 2; accord JX0022 at 3

– 4 (Goldman’s November 4, 2015 board presentation confirming the board’s decision to remain a st andalone company due to the broader market trends).
403 See JX0110; JX0118; JX0772 at 56.
404 JX0125 at 4; Moreton Tr. 795:10

– 796:17.
405 Shaich Tr. 976:11

– 23.
406 Id.
407 Id. 975:15

– 24; Moreton Tr. 798:23

– 799:10.66

ongoing acquisition, JAB did not engage with Shaich until February 2017. 408 After JAB expressed inter est in acquiring Panera on March 24, Shaich probed Goldman
for more information about the acquisition landscape , especially after RBI
announced its acquisition of Popeyes on February 21. 409 Goldman replied, “Best buyer today is a JAB, with a long term perspective that counters near term valuation trends. Or Starbucks. Or a merger with someone like Chipotle.” 410 Shaich shared Goldman’s analysis with Colasacco. 411 As conversations with JAB p roceeded, Morgan Stanley identified the same four strategic primary strategic buyers as Goldman: JAB, Starbucks, Chipotle, and
RBI. 412 Morgan Stanley also excluded other potential acquirers. Morgan Stanley recognized that Dunkin and Dominos were highly le veraged like RBI and all three would have difficulty paying all cash. 413 Beyond this, Morgan Stanley recommended that Dunkin and Dominos also had “slightly different business

408 Shaich Tr. 976:24

– 977:6; accord JX0318; JX0334.
409 JX0399 at 1

– 2

. 410 Id.

. 411 Id. at 1.
412 JX0625 at 4 ; JX0631 at 23. The companies that Petitioners cite as potential buyers were identified by Morgan Stanley and passed over because of fit or limitations. See JX0631 at 23

– 24; JX0625 at 4.
413 See JX0625 at 4.67

models” and lacked a clear strategic fit. 414 With this guidance from both Goldman and Morgan Stanley, the board viewed JAB as the only remaining logical bidder. Like Goldman, Morgan Stanley viewed Starbucks as the only other potential buyer that could afford Panera, 415 but the board had already exhausted that option. 416 The
board knew tha t Chipotle was recovering from a food safety cri sis and otherwise
focused on share buybacks. 417 And the board knew that RBI had agreed to acquir e Popeyes. 418 The board concluded that no other bidders were out there. 419 Morgan Stanley confirmed the board’s conclusion: “JAB represents the buyer with the most interest, wherewithal, and ability to pay and woul d be a good fit. ” 420 Moreton

414 Id.
415 JX0631 at 23; accord Kwak Tr. 1226:21

– 1227:12.
416 Shaich Tr. 974:11

– 22, 975:23

– 976:10 , 1019:18

– 1020:5 ; accord JX0625 at 4 (“There were conversations with Starbucks last year, they ultimately declined to proceed citing that Panera was trading too richly (and it has since only traded up) .”); JX0772 at 56; Moreton Tr. 798:23

– 799:10.
417 Shaich Tr. 1020: 6

– 9; JX0631 at 23.
418 See JX0631 at 23.
419 Moreton Tr. 811:19

– 812:17 ( “[T]here was nobody else out there talking to [the board] about potentially acquiring [the Company], nor did [the board] think there would be.” ); see also id. 912:7

– 11 (“[T] here was nobody else to reach out to

. . . [w]e went through the process.”). Market analysts confirmed this conclusion after the Blo omberg leak: “[W]e believe Starbucks is the only one with any real (even slight) probability. We also note that JAB might be interested, given its acquisitions of Krispy Kreme, Einstein/Noah, Keurig, Caribou, and Peet’s Coffee. . . . All

- in, we suspect J AB would be the more likely suitor than Starbucks, as we believe a newly minted CEO and a relatively sizable acquisition would increase Starbucks’ risk profile.” JX0609 at 12

– 13.
420 JX0625 at 4.68

summarized, “ we had just gone through the key strategic buyer. Starbucks had told

us no . And Morgan Stanley and Goldman had told us there were no financial bidders
out there. So we really thought this was an opportunity to see if we could get a price that was reasonable for shareholders.” 421 The leak added certainty to the board’s
conclusio n
. 422 Petitioners argue that a logical buyer universe of only two buyers is “absurd” because “Panera could not have known buyers were ‘out’ without ever conducting a market check.” 423 The Delaware Supreme Court has held that when “the directors
possess a body of reliable evidence with which to evaluate the fairness of a transaction, they may approve that transaction without conducting an active survey of the market.” 424 And “if a board fails to employ any traditional value maximization tool, such as an au ction, a broad market check, or a go

- shop provision, that board must possess an impeccable knowledge of the company’s business for the Court to
determ ine that it acted reasonably.” 425

421 Moreton Tr. 824:3

– 12.
422 JX0625 at 4 (“Since the leak yesterday, no one has come forward to express an interest.”)

. 423 D.I. 140 at 17.
424 Barkan v. Amsted Indus., Inc. , 567 A.2d 1279, 1287 (Del. 1989).
425 In re OPENLANE, Inc. S ’ holders Litig. , 2011 WL 459 9662, at *5 (Del. Ch. Sept. 30, 2011 ).69

I find that the board possessed a robust body of evidence that it used t o determine the universe of logical buyers. The board’s impeccable knowledge of the market in the pre

- signing phase, and the lack of interested bidders in the post

- signing phase, leads me to find that the board led outreach to all logical buyers. Because Panera engaged with Starbucks first, JAB’s confidentiality requirement did not preclude the board’s outreach to all logical buyers. The absence of a wider canvass
or go - shop does not change the reliability of Panera’s outreach

. 426 This decision was confirmed when no other bidders came forward either after the leak or during the post

- signing passive market check. The preponderance of the evidence shows that

t he board used its knowledge of the market and its advisors’ advice to engage all logical buy ers in a value

- maximizing process
. Panera’s deal process bea rs many indicia of reliability, including an arm’s length negotiation, a disi nterested and independent board, numerous price increases , no emerging bidders post

- leak or post

- announcement , and outreach to all logical buyers. The process also terminated with a n open passive post

- signing market

426 Petitioners point to Morgan Stanley’s label of “Potential Interlopers” in claiming that Panera should have contacted additional potential bidders. As explained herein, the preponderance of the evidence shows that Panera contacted all logical buyers. Morgan Stanley’s label , which they later changed to “Potentially Interested Parties , ” does not disturb this result. Compare JX0552 at 14

– 15 , with JX0631 at 23

– 24; accord Kwak Tr. 1237:11

– 20. And even if the use of the term “interlopers” signaled a fear of intruders, as explained herein, Morgan Stanley advised the board to negotiate for less restrictive deal terms, enabling another interested party to bid.70

check. I therefore turn to the weaknesses in the process to determine whether they
undermine its reliability.

C. Weaknesses I n Panera’s P rocess Do Not Undermine The Deal Price’s Reliability. Petitioners point to weaknesses in the pre

- signing process that they believe undermine the deal price ’s reliability . They focus on actions taken by the board, Shaich, and Morgan Stanley. In all, I find that the t ransaction’s flaws do not
undermine its numerous indicia of reliability.

1. T he board did not undermine the deal process. Petitioners characterize the pre

- signing phase as exhibiting the board’s “apathy,” ignorance, and “flat

- footed[ness].” 427 According to Petitioners, these traits manifested in the board’s failures to 1) authorize Shaich’s initial outreach to JAB, 2) oversee the negotiations, 3) negotiate with a proper valuation, 4) reject JAB’s confidentiality and speed provisions, and 5) ne gotiate deal protections. First, while the board had authorized Shaich to solicit Starbucks’ interest in acquiring Panera, 428 Shaich did not obtain specific board authorization for his August 2016 outreach to JAB. Shaich’s independent outreach did not generate a response until early 2017. At that time, when JAB offered to meet with Shaich,

427 D.I. 139 at 20, 48.
428 See JX01 16; JX0122 at 1; JX0125 at 4; accord Moreton Tr. 794:8

– 795:13, 796:3

– 8.71

Shaich informed Colasacco and other board members. 429 When JAB expressed an interest in acquiring Panera on February 24, 2017, Shaich in formed Colasacco the next day , 430 and informed the board three business days later on March 1. 431 Thus, although Shaich initiated Panera’s outreach to JAB, he timely and fully updated the board when JAB expressed interest in a transaction. 432 Shaich did not n e gotiate for a role post

- merger or negotiate for change

- in

- control compensation. 433 Petitioners provided no evi dence that the outreach alone

–– Shaich’s only act that wa s not specifically authorized

— led to any diminution in value or in the board’s power to
neg otiate or decline a transaction with JAB. Second, while Shaich initiated and led the negotiations, the board exercised active oversight. The board of directors “has the sole power to negotiate the terms

429 See JX0338; Shaich Tr. 977:17

– 978:7; accord Moreton Tr. 803:7

– 11 (“Did any of the directors know about Mr. Shaich’s discussions with JAB before the March 1st board meeting? A. Cer tainly, I did. I believe Domenic did, and perhaps Tom [Lynch] did.”).
430 See JX0287 at 9; accord Shaich Tr. 980:11

– 981:4.
431 JX0408 at 3

– 4; accord Moreton Tr. 802:17

– 803:11. Moreton described Shaich’s “typical way of communicating [as] concentric circles, first with [him], and then Domenic [Colasacco], our lead director, and Tom Lynch, and then the board as a whole.” Moreton Tr. 794:2

– 7. Shaich te stified about this procedure, and explained that on an unspecified date he informed the board that he used Goldman to reach out to JAB. See Shaich Tr. 1048:2

– 23. Shaich had followed this same pattern in the Starbucks negotiations. When Schultz proposed a collaboration with Panera on July 31, 2016, Shaich informed Moreton, Lynch, and Colasacco that evening, and informed the board two days later on August 2. See JX0118; JX0116; JX0122 at 1; JX0125 at 4; accord Moreton Tr. 793:14

– 795:13.
432 JX0408; Shaich Tr . 983:7

– 984:13.
433 J X0421 at 1; Bell Tr. 1109:17

– 1111:8.72

on which the merger will take place and to arrive at a definitive merger agreement embodying its decisions as to those matters.” 434 The preponderance of the evidence shows the board negotiated the terms of the merger and unanimously approved the final merger agreement. A CEO’s rogue negotiations can unde rmine a deal process. In Jarden , the CEO “immediately took charge and, consistent with a stereotypical ‘cut to the chase’ CEO mentality, he laid Jarden’s cards on the table before the negotiations began in
earnest and before the board and its financial advisors had a chance to formulate a plan.” 435 Beyond this, the Jarden CEO failed to inform the board of the negotiations. 436 He also did not receive authorization from the board to suggest a price, make counteroffers, or negotiate his “change

- in

- control com pensation,” but did so anyway. 437 These facts contributed to the Court’s finding that the merger price was not a reliable indicator of fair value. 438

434 Stephen M. Bainbridge, Mergers and Acquisitions 56 (2d ed. 2009) (citing 8 Del. C. § 251(b)); accord 8 Del. C. § 141 (“The business and affairs of every corporation organized under this chapter shall be managed by or under the direction of a board of direc tors . . . .”).
435 Jarden , 2019 WL 3244085, at *24 (footnote omitted).
436 Id. at *9, *24.
437 Id. at *24.
438 Id. at *25.73

I do not find similar troubling facts in this case. Unlike in Jarden , the board directed Shaich’s negotiat ions , and Shaich observed the bounds of the board’s
authorization

. Shaich informed the board of JAB’s interest before JAB made an
offer. 439 At that time, the board authorized Shaich to “continue the conversations

w ith JAB and report back to the B oard with an update as to the discussions and the status of any offer.” 440 When JAB offered to acquire Panera on March 10, 2017, for $286.00 per share, Shaich formally informed the board on March 14. 441 The board
instructed Shaich to move forward with the discussions , 442 but directed him to communicate to JAB that the board “would not agree to any proposed offer for the Company that was not significantly higher than the $286.00.” 443
The board also used Sullivan & Cromwell as its outside legal counsel for the potential transaction with JAB. 444 Sullivan & Cromwell advised the board during

439 JX0408 at 3

– 4 ( Shaich reported, “while no offer had been made during those discussions, Olivier Goudet, Chief Executive Officer of JAB, and David Bell, Head of M&A of JAB, indicated that JAB had internally discussed the potential for a transaction with the Company and JAB was considering mak ing an offer to buy the Company ” ) ; accord Shaich Tr. 977:23

– 978:7

. 440 JX0408 at 4.
441 PTO ¶ 134.
442 JX0421 at 1

– 2.
443 PTO ¶ 134.
444 Id. ¶ 77.74

its March 14 meeting and helped the board select financial advisors. 445 On March 15, the board initiated the process to retain Morgan Stanley as its financial advisor. 446
From then on , Shai ch and Moreton worked with the board and Morgan Stanley to adopt a proven strategy to raise JAB’s price through diligence

. 447
When JAB raised their offer t o $296.50 per share on March 20 , 448 Shaich informed the board that same day. 449 At the meeting, the board considered the offer , and “various directors asked questions and provi ded their thoughts and

comments .” 450 Shaich testified that “the board supported [him] in pushing” JAB to a higher price 451 and “ expressed its expectation that any final offering price be significantly higher.” 452 Shaich conveyed that message to JAB and focused on generating additional value through the diligence process. 453 When JAB asked to move up the

445 Id. ¶¶ 134

– 135; JX0466 at 2.
446 PTO ¶ 137.
447 JX0455, JX2019 ; Kwak Tr. 1206:15

– 1207:6, 1208:6

– 1209:9; Moreton Tr. 821:7

– 14 , 821:15

– 822:8 ; Shaich Tr. 996:15

– 1000:11.
448 PTO ¶ 140;
449 Id. ¶¶ 140

– 41; see JX0448 at 1.
450 See JX0448 at 1.
451 Shaich Tr. 1004:14

– 18.
452 PTO ¶ 141; JX0448 at 1.
453 See JX0494 at 1 ; JX0491; JX0490 ; JX0519.75

announcement by a week, Shaich discussed this proposal with Moreton, Bufano, and
the Company ’s legal and financial advisors , and explained he did not find the compressed timeline material; he cared about JAB understand ing Panera’s value. 454 Accordingly, Shaich told JAB that “[w]e think we need to spend some more time with you so we can show you the prospects in our plan, in order to get you comfortable at a value that my board and I can support.” 455 While Shaich led diligence meetings between Panera and JAB, the board counteroffered against JAB’s 4.0% termination fee, proposing 2.5%. 456
A t the culmination of JAB’s diligence, Shaich informed the board of JAB’s
final offer. 457 The board then reviewed the Five

- Year Strategic Plan and Five

- Year Model, 458 vetted the deal with Morgan Stanley, 459 and ultimately “expressed their strong support for the proposed transaction.” 460 Later that same day, the board reconvened to discuss the proposed merger with Sullivan & Cromwell. 461 After

454 See JX0491.
455 JX0494 at 1; accord JX0490.
456 PTO ¶ 160.
457 Id. ¶ 163.
458 Id. ¶ 164 ; JX0608 ; JX0629.
459 PTO ¶ 165; JX0631.
460 JX0628 at 3.
461 PTO ¶ 167.76

discussing the proposed merger, the board unanimously approved the proposed resolutions to adopt, execute and deliver the merger agreement. 462 The preponderance of the evidence shows that th e board directed Shaich’s negotiations and “arrive[d] at a definitive merger agreement embodying its decisio ns as to th [ ose ] matters.” 463 Petitioners have likewise failed to prove that Shaich acted outside the
boun ds of the board’s authorization.
T hird, Petitioners assert the board negotiated in the dark, without a formal valuation by its advisors. The board e ntered negotiations with an existing deep knowledge of internal metrics of Paner a’s value. During the negotiations, the board analyzed seven valuation metrics with Morgan Stanley. When considering JAB’s final offer, the board evaluated Morgan Stanley’s s tandalone valuation for Panera. Initially, the board did not have a full valuation, but it had steeped itself in management’s numbers. At several prior board meetings, the board reviewed parts of the Five

- Year Strategic Plan and Five

- Year Financial Model. Without a valuation, the board was not prepared to make a counteroffer w hen JAB’s initial offer came in, 464 so it limited its negotiating position to general pricing guidance.

462 Id. ; JX0630 at 2.
463 Bainbridge, supra note 434, at 56.
464 See Kwak Tr. 1214:18

– 1215:14 (“I don’t remember that we suggested that [the board] not offer a number. But . . . as an advisor, we certainly were not in a position to make any77

This dovetailed with Morgan Stanley’s advice , based on JAB’s bidding precedents, to focus on raising JAB’s ceiling. 465 On March 14, t he board instructed Shaich to convey to JAB that it would not agree to any proposed offer for the company that was not significantly higher than $286.00. 466 Again, w hen JAB raised its offer to $296.50 and stated a max price of $299, 467 t he board did not think JAB’s $296.50 was high enough and directed Shaich to communicate to JAB that they expected additional value. 468 Morgan Stanley met with management to review Panera’s updated Five

- Year
Financial Model , an essential input for Morgan Stanley’s valuation

. 469 Morgan Stanley incorporated these numbers into its implied transaction multiples and

recommendations of a number at that time because we had not completed our valuation analysis.”).
465 See supra Section II(C)(3)(d).
466 PTO ¶ 136. Moreton explained that “significantly higher” would “convey that [the board] had to get the best price that we could, and that we thought that they had to go over their ceiling. And we thought that when they had a chance to go through and do the diligence on the company, that they would be able to do that.” Moreton Tr. 823:14

– 824:2. In rejecting JAB’s initial offer, Shaich explained, “[i]n order for our Board to get fully comfortable with and supportive of a transaction, your value will need to reflect a price ‘that begins with a 3’ . . . [a]lthough I am not suggesting you need to be deeply in the $300s, I am also not talking about $300.00 either.” JX2019 at 2.
467 PTO ¶140; accord Shaich Tr. 1002:9

– 23 ; JX0483.
468 PTO ¶ 141; JX0448 at 1.
469 PTO ¶ 151.78

illustrativ e valuation matrices. 470 On March 30, Morga n Stanley p resented its preliminary valuation analysis to the board. 471 This presentation contained two illustrative valuation matrices, Panera’s historical stock performance, next

- twelve

month multiples, operating comparables, valuation comparables, preced ent transactions, and JAB’s precedent transaction overview. 472 This presentation did not include Panera’s standalone valuation

. Morgan Stanley’s full valuation , including Panera’s standalone valuation, came on April 4, the day after the board received JA B’s final $315.00 per share
offer. 473 Also on April 4, t he board discussed the updated Five

- Year Financial
Model

. 474 The standalone valuation included two DCFs : the management case generated from Panera’s Five

- Year Financial Model, and the street case generated
from consensus of broker projections

. 475 The board assessed these metrics using its knowledge of the Five

- Y ear Financial Model

. When reviewing the management case DCF, Morgan Stanley cautioned the board that risks could prevent Panera from
reach ing the valuation predicted using the Five

- Year Financial Model. Morgan

470 See JX0552 at 3, 6.
471 PTO ¶ 153 ; JX0545; JX0552.
472 See JX0552.
473 PTO ¶¶ 161, 165.
474 Id. ¶ 164; JX0608; JX0629; Moreton Tr. 831:22

– 832:5.
475 See JX0628 at 2.79

Stanley explained that “[y] ou’ve got to believe that 80+% of your value is in the terminus” and highlighted risks in competition and execution. 476 The board asked questions about “assu mptions used in the presentation and differences among the various valuation techniques.” 477 The board ultimately decided that the management case “wasn’t the proper way to look at the valuation.” 478 Morgan Stanley presented
its oral fairness opinion for the transaction , which it would provide in writing the following day

. 479 After Morgan Stanley left, t he board met in executive session and
discussed the transaction and the Company’s valuation. 480 T he board found JAB’s $315.00 offer consistent with its understanding of Panera’s value and unanimously approved the transaction. 481 It is problematic that the board, through Shaich, gave early guidance toward a price that was not “deeply in the $300s , ” 482 but t his pricing guidance was not a potentially binding c ounteroffer, and did not set a ceiling on the price. T he board

476 JX0625 at 3

– 4.
477 JX0628 at 2; accord Moreton Tr. 843:14

– 845:3.
478 Moreton Tr. 843:14

– 845:3.
479 PTO ¶¶ 167, 171; JX0630 at 1; JX0647.
480 JX0628 at 3.
481 PTO ¶ 167; JX0628 at 3 ( stating that after conferring as a board, “[t]he directors expressed their strong support for the proposed transaction, noting particularly that the price w as fair for the Company’s shareholders and that the deal protection mechanisms in the Merger Agreement were not preclusive to an alternative pr oposal for the Company’s shares ”); JX0630 at 2.
482 JX2019 at 2.80

rejected JAB’s initial offer because it knew Panera’s value from its continual review
of the Five

- Year Financial Model

. Panera’s strategy of pressuring JAB to raise its ceiling ushered in an offer that Morgan Stanley opined was fair and the board found consistent with its understanding of Panera’s value. The board checked its understanding of Panera’s value against Morgan Stanley’s seven valuation metrics
on March 31. And t he board reviewed and discussed the Company’s standalone
value in depth on April 4 by reviewing the Five

- Year Financial Model and Morgan Stanley’s DCF valuations

. Although the board did not have each of these valuation metrics at the outset of the negotiations, it reviewed each of them before it accept ed JAB’s final offer

. Fourth, while JAB conditioned its offer on confidentiality and speed, Panera’s
board valued those traits as a way to minimize disruption. The board had enacted confidentiality protections in its discuss ions with Starbucks , too . In both negotiations , Shaich and other board members used their Gmail accounts. 483 Shaich did this because he worried “intensely” about disruption. 484 At trial, Shaich explained:

483 Compare JX0118 , and Shaich Tr. 969:6

– 10, with JX0318 at 1, and JX0435 , and JX0491, and Shaich Tr. 1000:12

– 23; 1004:19

– 1005:7.
484 Shaich Tr. 1000:15

– 23, 1004:19

– 1005:13.81 I am very sensitive to any discussion about anythi ng that could be perceived as a potential acquisition and upsetting the company. . . . It would upset our relationships with our franchisees, our vendors, and, quite frankly, would shut down the work on this transformation plan for three to six months, wh atever time period that would be the basic discussion in the company. 485 Thus, JAB’s desire for s peed benefit t ed the Company. 486 Moreton explain ed it was “to our advantage to go quickly from the standpoint we don’t want to disrupt our people either, if things got out in the press. So everyone said they had adequate time, so we said, Okay. Let’s shoot for it.” 487 C olasacco agreed : “I would like this period to be as short as possible, because I believe that eventually management becomes aware, general ma nagement becomes aware. In the due diligence process

— other processes, it’s hard

— it’s very hard to keep a secret.” 488 This internal practice aligned with Morgan Stanley’s guidance to limit outreach outside of Panera. Morgan Stanley advised that JAB would “walk away if

485 Id. 969:6

– 16; accord id. 957:8

– 24.
486 JX0581 ( stating JAB is “not interested in a protracted negotiation that results in significant management distraction, so they always go very quickly”).
487 Moreton Tr. 827:17

– 24.
488 Colasacco Dep. 142:11

– 25; see also id. 143:6

– 9 (“[A] short period, a yea or nay period on whether [JAB] would . . . have an actual interest in signing an agre ement was a positive.”).82

[Panera] or its advisors talk [ed] to other parties.” 489 Morgan Stanley encouraged compliance: Based on our familiarity with [JAB’s] behavior, we did

believe that their threat to walk was real. And we do see potential buyers throughout our projects really do walk away if, for example, a deal leaks or they get roped into an auction process, because there are certain buyers that just have no interest being in part of an auction process. 490 Redpath confirmed th at “if you were serious about JAB, y ou would need to pursue those discussions on an exclusive basis.” 491
W hen JAB sought to accelerate the process by one week, Shaich conditioned the tight timeframe on “a full vetting of the five

- year and our strategic presentation because for [Panera] this is a discussion of value” to ensure that JAB would “robustly (and genuinely) understand the drivers in the business [s]o they [could] fully appreciate the value that we understand is here and seek from them.” 492 The board
also ensured Pane ra’s advisors had adequate time

. 493 After conducting diligence and

489 JX0418 at 2.
490 Kwak Tr. 1197:16

– 1198:7.
491 Redpath Tr. 658:1

– 11.
492 JX0491.
493 Moreton Tr. 827:17

– 24; accord Kwak Tr. 1233:14

– 20.83

attending these meetings, JAB internally revised their target price upwards to $305.00 per share 494 and eventually offered $315.00. 495 Finally, contrary to Petitioners’ complaint, the board negotiated for less
restrictive deal protections

. Panera’s deal protections included a no

- shop provision with a fiduciary out , matching rights, and a 3% termination fee. 496 During negotiations, t he board achieved a reduction in the termination fee from 4.0% to
3.0% by counteroffering 2.5%

. 497 Kwak testified, “a 3 percent break

- up fee is customary. And our rule of thumb is, generally for a transaction of this size, 3 to 4 percent is typical.” 498 Kwak testified that the deal’s no

- shop with the fiduciary out
and matchin g rights were also customary. 499 Redpath agreed. 500 The board successfully negotiated a lower termination fee. Otherwise, it
assented to the no

- shop with a fiduciary out because the board understood that JAB was the only remaining logical buyer. The board otherwise assented to the deal

494 JX0593 at 65.
495 PTO ¶ 161.
496 Id. ¶¶ 132, 161; JX0789 at 71

– 75, 79

– 81 ; see also JX0772 at 97

– 101, 106

– 107.
497 PTO ¶ ¶ 160

– 61.
498 Kwak Tr. 1241:10

– 15.
499 Id. 1240:14

– 21, 1241:16

– 24.
500 JX0990 at 39.84

terms , including matching rights, which its advisors viewed as “customary.” 501 Petitioners have not shown that the board failed to challenge JAB’s suggested deal protections. Instead, the board “bargain[ed] for value in negotiating the deal protections and only acceded to the termination fee when it reached terms regarding price a nd deal certainty that it viewed as attractive.” 502
T he preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that the Panera
board was apath etic , ignorant , or flat

- footed. Rather, I find that the board started the negotiations well versed in Panera’s financials and projections; empowered Shaich

to press JAB to raise its price and fully consider Panera’s internal evidence of value , and supervised the negotiations ; obtained a full valuation in time to meaningfully consider JAB’s final offer within JAB’s compressed timeline ; and successfully negotiated less restrictive deal protections. The board’s performance does not render Panera’s pre

- si g n ing process unreliable.

501 Kwak Tr. 1241:16

– 22 (“Q. And there were also matching rights in the merger agreement here. In Morgan Stanley’s view, did matching rights prevent other bidders from coming forward? A. It doesn’t prevent. It may discourage in a way and make it more challenging, but it doesn’t prevent other bidders from coming forward.”).
502 Dollar Thrifty , 14 A.3d at 6 14.85 2. Shaich ’s personal interests did not undermine the sale process. Petitioners contend that Shaich led negotiat ions despite personal conflicts , specifically his desire to retire. Shaich’s prior attempts to step down had been
unsuccessful , and Shaich disliked aspects of running a public company

. 503 According to Petitioners , Shaich acquiesce d to JAB’s demand for exclusivity and
left value on the table so that he could separate from the C ompany
. 504
I n Aruba , the Delaware Supreme Court used the deal price as the most reliable indicator of value when making its fair value determination. 505 T hat was true even though the company’s top executive had conflicting incentives over retirement . At trial, this Court found that these conflicts did not undermine the deal price as an
indicator of fair value because the conflict “ would n ot have changed [ the c ompany’s]
standalone value

. ” 506 The Stillwater Court recently synthesized the role of conflicts

503 See Shaich Tr. 1077:11

– 1079:14.
504 Petitioners present a secondary contention that Shaich was apathetic on price because he focused on closing a deal so that he could liquidate and diversify his assets. There is no evidence in the record that he wished to li quidate. Redpath Tr. 645:12

– 646:11 ( identifying no evidence of Shaich’s intent to liquidate his Panera assets); Shaich Tr. 1022:20

– 1023:1 (“I hadn’t diversified in 36 years. Why was I going to start now?”). For this reason, I focus my analysis on the po tential conflict from Shaich’s desire to step away from Panera

. 505 Aruba , 210 A.3d at 141

– 42.
506 See Stillwater , 2019 WL 3943851, at *32

– 34 (citing Verition P’rs Master Fund Ltd. v. Aruba Networks, Inc. , 2018 WL 922139, at *7

– 8 (Del. Ch. Feb. 15, 2018), reargument denied , 2018 WL 2315943 (Del. Ch. May 21, 2018), judgment entered (Del. Ch. 2018), rev’d and remanded , 210 A.3d 128 (Del. 2019)).86

in evaluating fair value : the “critical question” in considering a CEO’s motivation is whether “personal interests undermined the sale process.” 507
A CEO’s significant stock holdings may align her personal interests with the company’s. “When directors or their affiliates own ‘mat erial’ amounts of common stock, it aligns their interests with other stockholders by giving them a ‘motivation to seek the highest price’ and the ‘ personal incentive as stockholders to think about the trade off between selling now and the risks of not doin g so .’” 508 Alternatively , a CEO’s personal interests can derail negotiations and cast doubt on the reliability of deal price as a fair value. In Norcraft , the C ourt found the CEO was as focused on securing a role with the future company as he was on securing the best deal price

. 509 During the process, the CEO negotiated to divert funds from the merger into tax receivable agreements that would benefit him personally. 510 Petitioners have not proven that Shaich was conflicted or othe rwise

un committed to obtaining the best price possible because he wanted to retire

. The

507 Id. at *32.
508 Chen v. Howard

- Anderson , 87 A.3d 648, 670

– 71 (Del. Ch. 2014) (quoting Dollar Thrifty , 14 A.3d at 600) ; see also Merion Capital , 2016 WL 7324170, at *22 (noting the CEO in “ particular had an incentive to maximize the value of his shares, because he planned to retire.” ).
509 Blueblade Capital Opportunities LLC v. Norcraft Cos., Inc. , 2018 WL 3602940, at *25 (Del. Ch. July 27, 2018), judgment entered , (Del. Ch. Aug. 8, 2018).
510 Id.87

record shows that when the Company needed him, Shaich came back to his role as
Co

- CEO with Moreton. And when Moreton had to step down, Shaich stayed on.
Then , when S haich’s successor failed to materialize, he promised he would not leave the Company in a lurch. 511 Shaich repeatedly prioritized the Company’s success
over his preferred professional trajectory

. U nlike the executive in Norcraft , Shaich
did not negotiate future employment with JAB , 512 even with analyst speculation at closing that Shaich could now “run the company privately[,] [n]ot a bad deal!” 513
T he record shows that Shaich was intent on driving the price upwards. During the negotiations, the board caution e d Shaich, holding him back: o n March 17,
Moreton cautioned not to push it too hard by being too greedy, because “pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.” 514 The next day, Shaich informed JAB that they would have
to increase their initial offer beyond $300.00 per share. 515 D uring the negotiations, Morgan Stanley described Shaich as “supremely focused on finding a good home for the company and preserving the legacy of the business he’s built for 35 years.” 516
No evidence disturbs this conclusion.

511 Shaich Tr. 1017:23

– 1018:10.
512 Bell Tr. 1109:17

– 1111:8; Shaich Tr. 1023:10

– 13; Hurst Tr. 1349:14

– 1350:10.
513 JX0777 at 2.
514 JX0435; accord Moreton T r. 822:9

– 823:1.
515 JX2019 at 2.
516 JX0582 at 1.88

M y perceptions of Shaich from trial do not fit with Petitioners’ theory

. Shaich
testified that he would not have sold Panera without getting the best price. 517 I
believe him. Shaich’s commitment to realizing value for Panera appeared to run deep

. In my view, his commitment stemmed from his pride in Panera, a desire to
reward those who had built Panera with him, and an attachment to Panera itself. 518
C orrespondence between Moreton and Shaich on the date of the sale shows Shaich’s perspective . Moreton wrote:

Ron

- I imagine that you have thought about Louie and your Dad more than a few times these past few days. This morning I woke up thinking of George Kane and him asking you: Ronnie

- how much cash do we have. The answer today would be quite a lot. I am sure George (and your Dad and Louie) are resting peaceful and are incredibly proud of you. You have touched so many lives

. . . especially mine. 519 Shaich replied, “ Wonderful and very sad . . . Indeed I was thinking about my dad yeste rday. He always told me to take the money . . . I always ignored

517 Shaich Tr. 1024:7

– 1025:14.
518 See, e.g. , Moreton Tr. 856:11

– 857:15 (“Mr. Shaich went to bed thinking about Panera and how to make it better and woke up thinking about Panera and how to make it better. He had the shareholders’ interests in mind at all times.”); Shaich Tr. 1021:10

– 1022:19 (“This was my life, and I ve ry much wanted to maximize the value for that, and I very much wanted to do something that served all the constituencies of our company. In particular, our shareholders, who had hung with me through some tough times, and I wanted to deliver for them.”).
519 JX0657.89

him . . . Tho ugh that has never been my way [t] his is probably the right time . . .” 520 Shaich’s trial testimony on this email was credibly emotional. After weighing all the evidence, I am convinced that Shaich would not , and did not, agree to a deal after a 35

- year career before he found the right place and
value for Panera

. Shaich wanted to exit Panera and he led the negotiations. T hose parallel facts do not convince me that either he o r the impartial board accepted a low
offer

— or any offer

— because of Shaich’s personal goals. Shaich’s desire to retire
did not undermine the deal process or diminish Panera’s standalone value. “As a matter of professional pride, he wanted to sell [Panera] for the best price he could.” 521

3. Morgan Stanley’s actions and advice did not undermine the pre
- signing process. Petitioners view Morgan Stanley as a conflicted advisor because of the firm’s
late conflict disclosures, financial incentives, and backchannel discussions about financing via a JAB coverage banker . Petitioners also try to cast doubt on the adequacy of Morgan Stanley’s represent ation. Respondent counter s that Morgan Stanley informed th e board of its prior work with JAB , and the board determined Morgan Stanley was not conflicted; Panera and Morgan Stanley used JAB’s

520 Id.
521 Stillwater , 2019 WL 3943851, at *34.90

coverage banker to drive up value; and Morgan Stanley’s financial incentives aligned with Panera’s stockholders. I take ea ch in turn.

a. Morgan Stanley d isclosed i ts p rior JAB wo rk t o t he b oard. 522
On March 15, the board initiated the process to retain Morgan Stanley as its
financial advisor. 523 Moreton testified that he participated in those discussions , and that Morgan Stanley had disclosed its prior work for JAB. 524 Nothing in the record

casts doubt on this testimony. 525 Then, on March 20, Sullivan & Cromwell informed
the board that Morgan Stanley “had cleared an initial conflicts check on March 15 and the parties were now negoti ating an engagement letter for the transaction.” 526 Morgan Stanley provide d its formal disclosure of past work with JAB on March 30, but the board already knew that Morgan Stanley had previous engagements with
JAB. 527 There is no indication that these disclosures changed the board ’s view of

522 As I determined above, although Shaich passed along JAB’s suggestion that the board should choose either Barclays or Morgan Stanley, the board’s legal advisor recommended Michael Boublik of Morgan Stanley , and the board followed that recommendation

. See JX0466 at 2. Boublik did not have preexisting relationships with JAB . JAB did not select Panera’s financial advisors.
523 PTO ¶ 137.
524 Moreton Tr. 816:11

– 21.
525 Even Petitioners’ process expert conceded that Morgan Stanley cleared conflicts. Redpath Tr. 673:16

– 674:1.
526 JX0448 at 1.
527 JX0562; Kwak Tr. 1222:7

– 16; accord Moreton Tr. 833:21

– 834:1 (“[Q.] Was this the first time that the board was learning that Morga n Stanley had pre vious engagements with91

Morgan Stanley’s ability to serve as its financial advisor. Moreton reflected on the
disclosures and testified:

[Y]ou wonder if it might be an advantage because they might unde rstand JAB. And certainly, I had faith in the fact that the people that were going to work on the transaction on our behalf were of the utmost integrity, and so it didn’t bother me individually or t he board as a collective whole. 528
The facts here diverge f

rom those in Jarden , in which the board “made no inquiry” about advisor conflicts and “there [wa]s no indication that either [ the CEO]

or [ the advisor] made any effort to disclose their past relationships to the board .” 529 In this case, Morgan Stanley share d its past JAB work twice , including a formal representation letter. The board reviewed the formal disclosure in advance, even if only by a few days, before approving the deal. Petitioners have provided no basis
to conclude that the timing of Morgan Stanley’s disclosures undermined Panera’s sale process

.

JAB? A. No. The board knew about it immediately, as we did, so this was just more formal.”).
528 Moreton Tr. 816:22

– 817:7 ; s ee also Kwak Tr. 1197:6

– 1197:10 (testifying that “because [Morgan Stanley] had team member s that [were] familiar with [JAB’s] strategy, we were able to, very quickly, have discussions with Ron Shaich and Bill Moreton and to educate them on JAB’s practices in the past”).
529 Jarden , 2019 WL 3244085, at *15 n.194.92 b. Morgan Stanley’s financial incentives were commonplace and unremarkable. Contingency clauses are standard in financial advisor agreements and seldom

create a conflict of interest. “Contingent fees for financial advisors in a merger context are somewhat ‘routine’ and previously have been upheld by Delaware
courts.” 530 This Court has recognized that “[c]ontingent fees are undoubtedly routine; they reduce the target’s expense if a deal is not completed; perhaps, they properly incentivize the financial advisor to focus on the appropriate outcome.” 531 Petitioners contend that Morgan Stanley’s compensation relied on the signing and closing of the deal with JAB

. Morgan Stanley ’s $40 million fee was contingent in part on signing for $8 million and in part on closing for $32 million. 532 The fee contingency does not specify that the signing and closing must have involved JAB for Morgan Stanley to be compensated under the terms of the agreement. Contrary to Petitioners’ contention, the fact remains that , h ad another bidder emerged, Morgan Stanley’s compensation would result from a “proposed sale of the Company” to “any buyer.” 533

530 Smurfit

- Stone , 2011 WL 2028076, at *23 (citing In re Atheros Commc’ns, Inc., 2011 WL 864928, at *8 (Del. Ch. Mar. 4, 2011); In re Toys ‘R’ Us, Inc., S’holder Litig ., 877 A.2d 975, 1005 (Del. Ch. 2005) ).
531 Atheros , 2011 WL 864928, at *8.
532 JX0789 at 52

– 53.
533 JX0594 at 1 ; Kwak Tr. 1190:15

– 17.93

A conflict in advising a company in favor of a sale rather than in remaining a standalone company is possible. No such conflict exists here. Morgan Stanley
pres ent ed the board with a full valuation analysis that included a standalone
valuation based on a number of metrics, including the comparatively high management case based on the Five

- Year Strategic Plan

. And although Petitioners
contend that Panera should n ot have agreed to JAB’s price because its standalone value was far higher , the $315.00 offer still fell within the management case’s valuation range. 534 Rather than accepting the management case, the board recognized that there was execution risk to the Fiv e - Year Strategic Plan, including that Shaich would not be there to guide Panera 3.0 and beyond. Both the board and Morgan Stanley found that the price was fair for the Company’s stock holders

. In any event, Morgan Stanley’s fairness opinion would not have precluded a board
determination that it was better for Panera to remain a standalone company

.
c. B oth parties used Morgan Stanley coverage contacts outside the deal team to press their respective advantages. In its disclosure letter, Morgan Stanley advised that with the exception of Gallagher, no senior deal team member “is a member of the coverage team for the Potential Buyer or the Buyer Related Entities. ” 535 Morgan Stanley did not create a

534 JX0631 at 19, 38; Kwak Tr. 1280:22

– 1281:5.
535 JX0562 at 3.94

wall between its J AB coverage team, including Ciagne, and its Panera senior deal

team

. 536 Kwak testified that Morgan Stanley “didn’t set up a wall because there was
no conflict [.]” 537 Ciagne , as a member of JAB’s coverage team, relayed two communications
between the deal teams. In the f irst, on March 27, JAB to ld Ciagne to tell Boublik
that JAB fear ed Morgan Stanley was not doing enough to assure Panera that JAB
could finance the deal

. 538 In the s econd, on April 1 , Boublik to ld Ciagne to tell JAB “Panera is serious, and th ere has to be a higher price .” 539 Although the board did not know that Ciagne passed JAB’s m essage to Boublik, 540 the board used Ciagne to
pass its own message to JAB

. 541 Petitioners point to Ciagne’s involvement as a fatal flaw in Panera’s process. If this channel affected the deal price, it would have increase d it . JAB limited their

536 Kwak Tr. 1195:1

– 16, 1293:3

– 12, 1294:24

– 1295:2.
537 Id. 1293:3

– 12.
538 See JX2021.
539 Moreton Tr. 837:9

– 838:9; accord JX0582 at 1 (“[O]ur goal is to have [Ciagne] deliver a message that (i) suggests our very strong confidence in [the] business and (ii) points to our valuation expectations, directionally.”).
540 Shaich Tr. 1068:21

– 1070:1; Moreton Tr. 905:7

– 908:11.
541 Mor eton Tr. 837:23

– 838:9 (“The purpose was not for this individual, who I never met, to negotiate. It was simply for one more message to Olivier that the price has to be over $300 and they have to do the best that they can. So we were pulling every lever we could think of to try to get the price increase.”).95

message to JAB financing, while the Company used it to ratchet up pressure and leverage the price. In my view, this flaw did not undermine a fair process.
d. Petitioners h ave n ot s hown t hat Morgan Stanley’s a dvice w as i nadequate . JAB’s negotiation playbook contains four key principles : bilateral, confidential, friendly , and fast. 542 The playbook earned respect in the marketplace
because JAB had intimated they would walk if their counterpart did not follow it. 543
But on one occasion when a JAB target, Krispy Kreme , pushed JAB to deviate to the target’s advantage , JAB still closed the deal. 544 Morgan Stanley knew about Krispy Kreme’s success, and Petitioners fault Morgan Stanley for not co unseling Panera to similarly pursue a go - shop or reduced termination fee

. Petitioners fail to acknowledge that Morgan Stanley informed the board of Krispy Kreme’s negotiation process and advised Panera to adopt a similar negotiation strateg y . 545 Morgan Stanley educated Shaich and Moreton “very quickly” on JAB’s negotiation playbook and assisted them in developing their own

542 Bell Tr. 1107:24

– 1108:17.
543 Kwak Tr. 1197:16

– 1198:7.
544 JX0455 at 13

– 23.
545 Id. at 5, 13

– 23.96

strategy. 546 On March 17, Boublik sen t Shaich and Moreton a proposed script and slide decks summarizing “JAB Historical Bidding Precedents” and “JAB Merger Backgrounds.” 547 Morgan Stanley presented these detailed precedent analyses when the board was “thinking about strategies in terms of how to go back to JAB in terms of negotiation . . . to show that JAB has bid up from th eir initial bid in the past
and

. . . to show how much they had bid up after their initial bid.” 548 Shaich reviewed
this deck and used it to inform his negotiation strategy. 549 Moreton viewed these decks as “very important” because “they were able to show us, in the bidding precedents, how JAB’s transactions had gone from the initial discussions and initial bids, through due diligence, to the end, and how they had a history of raising their offer price as they went through.” 550 Shaich stayed up digesting this deck until 3 a.m. , 551 and later thanked Boublik “for [his] very valued

546 Kwak Tr. 1196:22

– 1197:10 (attributing Morgan Stanley’s insights into the JAB playbook to Gallagher, who was a JAB coverage team member) , 1206:15

– 1207:6; accord JX0431 at 1; JX0432.
547 PTO ¶ 138; JX0455.
548 Kwak Tr. 1202:5

– 1203:9.
549 Shaich Tr. 997:6

– 998:3.
550 Moreton Tr. 821:15

– 822:8.
551 See Shaich Tr. 996:10

– 997:5.97

input ,” noting “ it r eally made a difference in how [ Shaich ] approached
it

. . . particularly relative t o the history of their other deals

. ” 552
The JAB Merger Backgrounds deck detailed the Krispy Kreme offer , strategy, and negotiation timeline. A fter JAB made Krispy Kreme an initial offer, Krispy
Kreme asked for more time because it did not have a complete long

- term financial plan and felt it could not yet “ appropriately assess JAB Holdings’ indication of interest.” 553 W hile Krispy Kreme was securing this information and advisors, JAB postponed the Krispy Kreme negotiations until af ter it closed an acquisition with
Keur ig Green Mountain, Inc

. 554 While JAB was working on the Keurig deal, a financial buyer expressed interest in Krispy Kreme, but did not engage in negotiations. 555 Four and a half months after the initial offer, JAB and Kr ispy Kreme
resumed the ir negotiations. 556 Krispy Kreme ’s board insisted on additional value

552 JX0456 at 2. At trial, Shaich explained how Boublik “pushed [him] at some critical times when there was a question to push for more price, and to push against JAB for more p rice.” Shaich Tr. 995:18

– 996:6; see also id. 1003: 11

– 21 (“He pushed me intensely. I mean, you know, ther e’s this question, you don’t want to blow this up. On the other hand, you want to push for as much as you can get, X plus 1. And Michael and I went through, and we went through their precedent history, and I think the sense was it was a wise, all conside red, smart bet to push this deal further, even though this was already a very attractive offer for the company.”)

. 553 JX0455 at 15.
554 Id. at 17.
555 Id.
556 Id. at 18.98

based on their internal diligence , and threatened a go - shop unless JAB increased the price and reduced the termination fee

. 557 JAB accepted Krispy Kreme’s counteroffer, resulting in a 1 2% bid premium and a reduced termination fee

. 558
Petitioners assert that Krispy Kreme negotiated for six months, when in reality, JAB postponed negotiations while pursuing another deal. Once they resumed negotiations, they las ted forty

- five days. In comparison, Shaich initially reached out to JAB in August 2016, but JAB was pursuing another transaction at the time. At t he conclusion of that deal, Panera and JAB negotiat ed for forty days. Unlike Krispy Kreme, Panera ’s board d id not
need additional time to educate itself on Panera’s long

- term financial plan : the Five

Year Financial Model was the board’s catechism. Like Krispy Kreme, the board insisted that JAB find additional value through diligence

. Petitioners assert tha t Morgan Stanley should have advised the board to s eek
a go - shop like Krispy Kreme. Krispy Kreme had another interested bidder. Panera’s
board and Morgan Stanley understood that there were no other bidders out there with
the interest and capacity to purc hase Panera

. 559 Accordingly , instead of pursuing a

557 Id. at 21.
558 Id. at 5.
559 Kwak Tr. 1200:4

– 17 (sharing Morgan Stanley’s perspective with the board that “it wasn’t likely that the potentially interested parties that we had, considering at that time their strategic rationale and a potential com bination with Panera, and . . . their ability to99

go shop, the board obtained a lower 3.0% termi nation fee and conditioned JAB’s
timeline on a review of the Five

- Year Strategic Plan and Five

- Year Financial M odel , which generate d an additional $18.50 in value. 560 In the end, no other party expressed an interest in acquiring Panera, which confirms the board’s understanding that a go

- shop would not result in a higher price for Panera stockholders. Morgan Stanley did not fail to advi se the board about prior negotiating strategies . Rather, I find Morgan Stanley helped the board implement a proven negotiation strategy , with the lessons learned from the Krispy Kreme transaction, to generate additional value. Next, Petitioners contend that Morgan Stanley provided inadequate
substantive advice by failing to perform a leveraged buyout (“ LBO ”) analysis , thereby failing to assess a financial sponsor’s ability to purchase Panera. Morgan Stanley understood that “for an LBO of [$] 6 to $7 billion, putting in equity that represents more than 60 percent of the total purchase price is just not what financial sponsors do for their LBO.” 561 Pet itioners’ process expert agreed that it was unlikely that a financial sponsor would be interested in Panera , 562 and Petitioner’s valuation

pay an all

- cash offer . . . [were] going to be likely to compete with a transaction that JAB had put forth”); Shaich Tr. 1021:13

– 16 (“[I]t was just patently clear to me that, knowing what I know, and knowing these people and where this had play ed out, that there really wasn’t a viable interested party.”)

. 560 JX0491; accord JX0490

. 561 Kwak Tr. 1199:9

– 24 ; see also id. 1228:18

– 1229:5.
562 See Redpath Tr. 663:10

– 664:22.100

expert failed to perform an LBO analysis. 563 Petitioners have not shown any flaw
with Morgan Stanley’s focus on strategic bidders. This is especially true when Morgan Stanley found that financial sponsors could not afford Panera, and identified only one bidder besides JAB that could afford Panera: Starbucks. 564 To Petitioners, Morgan Stanley’s most significant shortcoming is its failure to evaluate Panera’s standalone value until the final day of the transaction. Pe titioners have not shown that the board did not know Panera’s standalone value before it approved the merger. T he board had a deep knowledge of Panera’s performance and projections derived from the Five

- Year Strategic Plan that it reviewed at every meeting, 565 including the March 1 board meeting

. 566 T he board received and reviewed Morgan Stanley’s full valuation before vot ing for the merger

. 567 That
valuation included a standalone valuation derived from the Five

- Year Strategic
Plan. 568 Petitioners have not shown that reviewing the valuation earlier would have convinced the board to reject JAB’s offer, or that the valuation even encouraged remaining a standalone entity. The deal price fell within the range of the

563 See generally JX0983.
564 Kwak Tr. 1226:21

– 1227:12; Shaich Tr. 1019:18

– 1020:5.
565 Shaich Tr. 951:21

– 952:2.
566 See JX0407 at 1, 46

– 205 ; JX0408 at 2

– 3

. 567 See JX0631.
568 Id. at 15

– 20

.101

management case DCF

. 569 While the board had very little time with the valuation,
this flaw did not undermine value , particularly given the board’s facility with Panera’s financials

. In all, I find that some of the Company’s pre

- signing deal decisions were sub

optimal. Morgan Stanley’s JAB coverag e banker was involved in the deal communications, Shaich pushed for an offer “not deep in the 300s” before the board
receiv ed a full valuation, and the accelerated timeline meant the board had very little time with Morgan Stanley’s valuation. I find that these issues did not undermine the sale process “so as to prevent the deal price from serving as a persuasive indicator of fair value.” 570
Panera’s board had a deep knowledge of the market and of Panera’s value. The board led discussions with the two log ical bidders , which were identified by the board through their extensive personal knowledge, and by Goldman in 2015,
Goldman in 2017, and Morgan Stanley in 2017 . The board negotiated with JAB according to their advisors’ strategy , which was tailored to JA B and executable based on the board’s working knowledge of Panera’s value. The board authorized Shaich to lead these negotiations, which he did in reliance on board members and Morgan Stanley; in full transparency to the board; and in relentless pursuit o f value.

569 Id. at 19.
570 Stillwater , 2019 WL 3943851, at *30.102

That strategy successfully extracted two price increases totaling $18.50 per share
and a lower termination fee , and generated a final offer that the board concluded was fair in view of Morgan Stanley’s comprehensive valuation

. Panera’s outreach t o the only two logical buyers resulted in a deal that both the board and its advisors
identified as fair to its stockholders. Accordingly, I find Panera’s deal process to be persuasive evidence of fair value.

D. Respondent Has Proven $11.56 I n Synergies . Section 262 mandate s that I determine fair value “exclusive of any element of value arising from the accomplishment or expectation of the merger or consolidation.” 571 I must “exclude from any appraisal award the amount of any value that the selling company’ s shareholders would receive because a buyer intends to operate the subject company, not as a stand

- alone going concern, but as a part of a larger enterprise, from which synergistic gains can be extracted.” 572 This excludes not only “the gains that the part icular merger will produce, but also the gains that might be obtained from any other merger.” 573 And because deal price is a persuasive

571 8 Del. C. § 262(h) (“[T]he Court shall determine the fair value of the shares exclusive of any element of value arising from the accomplishment or expectation of the merger or consolidation . . . .”).
572 Aruba , 210 A.3d at 133 (quoting Union Ill. 1995 Inv. Ltd. P ’ ship v. Union Fin. Grp., Ltd. , 847 A.2d 340, 356 (Del. Ch. 2004) ).
573 Id. (citing Solera , 2018 WL 3625644, at *1; Highfields Capital, Ltd. v. AXA Fin., Inc. , 939 A.2d 34, 60

– 64 (Del. Ch. 2007); Union Ill. , 847 A.2d at 355

– 56 )

.103

metric of fair value in this case, I must also “excise[] a reasonable estimate of whatever share of synergy or other valu e the buyer expects from changes it plans to make to the company’s ‘going concern’ business plan that has been included in the purchase price as an inducement to the sale.” 574 Respondent bears the burden of proving any downward adjustment to deal price.
Res pondent contends that the Court should excise $21.56 per share from the deal price because it proved that JAB anticipated , and paid for, synergies from deploying their characteristic management framework. Respondent identifies three categories of such syn ergies : incremental cost savings, incremental leverage tax benefits, and revenue synergies. Petitioners generally assert that JAB is a financial sponsor, not a strategic buyer , and specifically challenge Respondent’s evidence of synergies.
Panera’s board and financial advisors viewed JAB as a strategic buyer , 575 and
JAB identified Panera as a strategic acquisition. 576 JAB had previously acquired

574 Id. (citing Solera , 2018 WL 3625644, at *1; Highfields Capital , 939 A.2d at 59

– 61 ; Union Ill. , 847 A.2d at 343) ; see also DFC , 172 A.3d at 368 (recognizing that a “going concern” valuation requires the court to excise “any value that might be attributable to expected synergies by a b uyer, including that share of synergy gains left with the seller as a part of compensating it for yielding control of the company”).
575 Shaich Tr. 956:4

– 957:7; Moreton Tr. 824:3

– 12 ; Kwak Tr. 1200:18

– 1201:14.
576 See JX0400 at 3

– 4

.104

Einstein Bros. , Caribou Coffee, and Krispy Kreme. 577 JAB identified Panera as a “Fresh Baked / Coffee Adjacenc y ” that would fill gaps in their portfolio by expanding JAB’s holdings in the coffee and fresh baked lunch category. 578 E ven if JAB were not a strategic buyer, labeling them as a financial acquirer would not do the work Petitioners hope it would . “[I]n t heory, if the acquisition of a company by a financial acquirer is at a market price that includes speculative elements of value which arise only from the merger, that acquisition value may exceed the going

concern value.” 579 That is the case here.
JAB has a three

- pronged “ playbook ” that they implement after a deal closes. That playbook addresses people, cost and cash, and growth. 580 Under the people prong, JAB develops a “short list of CEO candidates,” installs a “CFO and
establish [es] Product Management O ffice,” assesses the “management team , ” and deploys the “JAB ownership model. ” 581 Under their cost and cash prong, JAB identifies “[q]uick wins in cash, working capital (particularly AP), [ and ] cost

577 Id. at 4.
578 Id. at 3

– 4.
579 Huff Fund Inv. P’ship v. CKx, Inc. , 2014 WL 2042797, at *2 (Del. Ch. May 19, 2014), judgment entered, (Del. Ch. June 17, 2014), aff’d, 2015 WL 631586 (Del. Feb. 12, 2015) (TABLE) ; s ee also Petsmart , 2017 WL 2303599, at *31 n.364 (recognizing “syner gies financial buyers may have with target firms arising from other companies in their portfolio”).
580 JX0400 at 32.
581 Id.105

structure” to implement a “cas h and cost discipline culture. ” 582 As for growth, JAB conducts target

- specific analyse s and identifies strategic opportunities from combining companies under its umbrella

. 583 JAB approached Panera with the intention of extracting synergies through these plays. JAB’s pre

- diligenc e model , setting a target price of $290.00, was based in part on value gains from implementing their playbook at Panera. 584 First, JAB measured the investment opportunity for its cash and cost prong , recognizing Panera’s lack of “discipline culture” in wor king capital and supply
chain. 585 JAB’s initial investment model outlined $300 million in working capital savings. 586 JAB had successfully implemented working capital changes at Krispy Kreme, Caribou Coffee , and Peet’s Coffee. 587 JAB planned similar changes f or

582 Id.
583 Id.
584 See id. at 43

– 44.
585 Id. at 32, 34, 37.
586 Id. at 43.
587 JX0554 at 15 (“Cost rationalization and synergies. JAB’s plans to achieve cost synergies and working capital improvements cou ld fail to materialize . . . . Mitigating factors: JAB has a long

- track record of successful acquisitions and integration, and have delivered expected cost savings on recent deals including Keurig Green Mountain and Krispy Kreme.”); JX0589 at 19 (“Working Capital

— Panera currently has ~ 4 days payable compared to Keurig at ~50, Caribou at >90, and Peet’s at ~ 85.”); accord Bell Tr. 1121:13

– 1122:10, 1123:3

– 23; Hubbard Tr. 1495:8

– 19.106

Panera by increasing the Company’s days payable outstand ing from about four to about fifty to ninety days. 588
As for c ost savings opportunities, JAB identified potential savings in SG&A , store level efficiency, and supply chain amounting to $70 to over $100 million. 589 To accomplish this, JAB hoped to cut p ublic company expenses, optimize franchise costs, introduc e procurement savings , and reduce waste

. 590 After performing due diligence, JAB concluded their diligence confirmed

“ s ignificant ” oppor tunities for cash and for cost savings. 591 JAB confirmed $300 to $ 500 mil lion by maximizing working capital, more than $30 million in procurement savings, $18 million in SG&A optimization, $15 million in supply chain optimization, and $2.5 to $5 million in public company costs. 592 JAB expanded working capital estimates as “[Panera] currently has the lowest [days payable outstanding] across nearly all public peers and much lower than other JAB Beech

588 JX0982 at 51; accord Hubbard Tr. 1666:5

– 13

. 589 JX0400 at 37.
590 Id. ; JX0589 at 23

. 591 See JX0593 at 49

– 50.
592 JX0593 at 49

– 50, 52

– 54, 78; JX0982 at 49

– 50; Bell Tr. 1131:12

– 22. Shaked agreed with the public company cost savings. See Shaked Tr. 368:4

– 16.107

assets

. ” 593 A t this point, JAB recognized that they would have to pay more than their early target price 594 and raised their internal target offer from $290.00 to $305.00. 595 In addition to the management playbook, JAB applied their bedrock negotiation playbook principle of not condition ing their deal on rec eiving financing approval, and secur ing financing during the diligence phase. 596 Respondent noted that because JAB financed $3 billion for the deal, Panera would carry greater debt
than it did as a standalone value. 597 JAB quantified their anticipated debt and
associated tax effects when they formulated their target deal price. 598
Hubbard found that “[i] nternal documents show that JAB anticipated significant synergies from the acquisition of Panera, and factored these synergies
into their valuation of Panera

. ” 599 Hubbard found that with increased debt, Panera would have higher interest tax deductions , generating a merger

- specific tax synergy

593 JX0593 at 49.
594 Bell Tr. 1133:9

– 18.
595 See JX0593 at 65.
596 Bell Tr. 1106:21

– 1107:23.
597 Hubbard Tr. 1493:24

– 1494:7.
598 See JX0593 at 69.
599 JX0982 at 41.108

of $9.18 per share

. 600 Hubbard agreed with the cost and cash synergies as well, finding synergies totaling $37.29 per sha re. Petitioners argue that the se cost savings and tax synergies are not merger

specific synergies because Panera management could have also made these changes. 601 In support, Petitioners cite Huff Fund Investment Partnership v. CKx,
Inc. , in which this Court found that the record contained insufficient evidence to support a finding that the respondent formed its bid on , or believed that there were,
merger - specific cost savings. 602
That is not true of this case. Panera’s management culture and prio rities did not support the changes JAB intended to make. Panera was in the “habit” of paying
its vendors within four to six days 603 and invested in extensive initiatives

. 604 JAB’s “Cash Opportunities” arose from Panera’s failure to “focus on working capital at all” while spending “ top dollar to get the best without ever re

- engineering costs out

600 Id. at 54; Hubbard Tr. 1493:24

– 1494:7.
601 Petitioners’ expert testified “the company e lected not to” increase its days payable outstanding. Shaked Tr. 451:2

– 8.
602 2014 WL 2042797, at *3. The Court explained it was not “reaching the theoretical question of under what circumstances cost

- savings may constitute synergies excludable from going

- concern value under Section 262(h).” Id.
603 Hurst Dep. 219:4

– 23 (“[T]he gen eral philosophy had been pay quickly, use that as leverage in some of the vendor relationships to actually get a lower price. But it ultimately became just the habi t of Panera.”); accord Shaked Tr. 451:21

– 452:13.
604 JX0984 at 42 (“Panera invested over $ 120 million in IT from mid

- 2014 through mid

2017.”).109

of the business

. ” 605 Panera forecasted cost savings, but limited its changes to sourcing and process improvements. 606 Any overlap between Panera’s forecast and JAB’s playbook demonstrates differences in scale. As an example, Panera evaluated “FDF” and G&A savings in its forecast, predicting new cost savings between $300,000 and $600,000 each year from 2018

– 2021; 607 JAB pro jected $18 million in its first year alone. 608 JAB believed that it could achieve much gr eater savings
because of its expertise in executing those savings across their portfolio companies

. 609 When Hurst saw JAB’s plan, he thought JAB had “lost their freakin’ minds based on SG&A savings.” 610 JAB contemplated “Day 1 [p]laybook implementation.” 611 As for the tax synergies, Petitioners argue that Panera could “re

- leverage its balance sheet as it saw fit” so the tax deductions associated with JAB’s $3 billion
finan cing were not an element of value arising from the merger. 612 Petitioners

605 JX0400 at 37.
606 See JX0607 at 181

– 85.
607 See id. at 185.
608 See JX0593 at 78.
609 Bell Tr. 1122:4

– 1123: 23; cf. JX0904 at 1.
610 Hurst Dep. at 203:8

– 24 (internal quotation marks omitted).
611 See JX0593 at 48.
612 PTO ¶ 76.110

concede that Panera’s debt increased “dramatically” after the transaction, from $480 million to $2.7 billion. 613 Here, unlike in Huff , the evidence shows JAB had similarly
financed other deals in the past and saw value in doing it again with Panera, while Panera intentionally maintained low debt

. 614 The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that JAB formed its bid in anticipation of applying its management playbook to Panera to generate merger

specific savings. Before JAB made an offer, it recognized that it could realize working capital and cost savings when it ran its plays on Panera. JAB formed its initial offer in view of that predicted value. JAB confirmed it could realize that value during due diligence, and that conclusion informed their offer price. JAB predicted additional value in tax savings from increasing the Company’s debt through JAB’s characteristic financing technique. Hubbard calculated the comb ined value of these synergies at $37.29 per share. 615 I find that b y running its plays on Panera, JAB predicted $37.29 in value arising out of the merger

. Hubbard estimated that JAB built in 31% of these synergies, or $11.56, into the merger price. 616 In sup port, Hubbard cites a 2013 Boston Consulting Group

613 D.I. 139 at 58.
614 JX0593 at 77 (“The company had $332.0 million of net debt in December 2016.”) ; JX0238 at 16.
615 JX0982 at 55.
616 Id. at 55

– 56.111

study of 365 deals that analyzes the “median portion of synergies shared with the seller.” 617 Petitioners object to the BCG study’s breadth and its lack of specificity across industry or comparable companie s. Respondent cites Solera for the proposition that this study is an appropriate estimation of synergies belonging to the buyer. 618 But the adoption of a methodology, expert opinion, or metric in one appraisal action does not mandate its adoption in a diff erent appraisal actio n. 619 This Court’s previous acceptance of Hubbard’s proffered study is not conclusive in this case. Instead, I find that Petitioners have not cast doubt on the reliability of this study, or put forward a more appropriate percentage. Respondent has proven deduction of cost and tax synergies of $11.56 per share by a preponderance of the
evidence. 620

617 Solera , 2018 WL 3625644, at *28 & n.364

. 618 Id. at *28 & n.364

. 619 Jarden , 2019 WL 3244085, at *1 (“The appraisal exercise is, at bottom, a fact

- finding exercise, and our courts must appreciate that, by functional imperative, the evidence, including expert evidence, in one appraisal case will be different from the evidence pres ented in any other appraisal case.”); accord Stillwater , 2019 WL 3943851, at *20 (“[T]he approach that an expert espouses may have met ‘the approval of this court on prior occasions,’ but may be rejected in a later case if not presented persuasively or if ‘the relevant professional community has mined additional data and pondered the reliability of past practice and come, by a healthy weight of reasoned opinion, to believe that a different practice should become the norm . . . .’” ( quoting Golden Telecom Tr ial , 993 A.2d at 517) )

. 620 Petitioners argue that the Court should not agree with Hubbard’s analysis because he “ignores the negative synergies, or costs, that resulted from the acquisition.” D.I. 140 at 81. Petitioners have not shown that JAB failed to consider these costs when JAB evaluated112

I turn now to JAB’s third playbook prong of growth, in which Respondent sees revenue synergies. Unlike the cost and cash playbook prongs, JAB did not quantify these growth opportunities in its models. JAB recognized that while it is

“ relatively simplistic to quantify potential cost savings[,] [i] t ’ s much more difficult to quantify for

- sure growth areas, even though they may be extremely im portant. ” 621
L eading up to and throughout trial, Respondent and its expert presented a fair value
that did not quantify any revenue synergies attributable to JAB’s growth opportunities. This is consistent with the record evidence and both parties’ experts’ opinions.
In their pre - diligence model , JAB identified growth opportunities for coffee, technology, international expansion, and CPG

. 622 At a March 31 meeting, Panera also identified opportunities in international franchising, CPG (including coffee), and technology. 623 After this meeting, on April 2, JAB created its post

- diligence model, expressly clarifying that CPG, coffee, and internati onal expansion were

their implementation of their playbook, calculated Panera’s resulting value, or formed their offer price. I do not find that this undermines Hubbard’s synergy analysis.
621 Bell Tr. 1127:13

– 21.
622 See JX0400 at 38

– 41

. Possible plans included leveraging Panera’s technology platform across JAB’s portfolio, enhancing Panera’s in

- store coffee program, focusing on CPG, increasing K

- cup sales, and expanding internationally. Id. at 32

. 623 See JX0564 at 131, 141

– 152, 154

– 158.113

“ Growth Areas Not in [the] Investment Model[.]” 624 In this same model, as explained, JAB increased its internal target price to $305.00 based on quantified anticipated cost savings. 625 At an April 3 meeting, the parties again discussed o pportunities for CPG, coffee, international expansion, technology, as well as marketing, real estate, food sourcing, and franchising. 626 Bell testified that these strategic growth opportunities played a role in JAB’s decision to increase their offer from $3 05.00 to $315.00 627
because JAB
did some back

- of

- the

- envelope math and got excited about it. But since we had no discussion with anyone about it, and it was a short period of time, we didn’t, quote/unquote, put it in the model, financially. But I will tell you

— you even heard it earlier

— coffee was core to our strategy of doing this. It’s just something that was difficult for us to quantify at the time we were doing diligence. 628

624 See JX0593 at 57

– 62. Although JAB had developed a “cof fee procurement savings program,” they did not include these synergies in the post

- diligence model. Id. at 60

– 61 ; accord Bell Tr. 1123:3

– 1126:19, 1129:2

– 24.
625 See JX0593 at 65.
626 See JX0607 at 145, 155

– 169, 171

– 175, 229.
627 See Bell Tr. 1135:1

– 10 (“Q. And when you went higher, to 315, did those strategic opportunities or synergies play a role in the decision to raise your offer from 305 to 315? A. I would say they did, because, you know, again, as a long

- term holder, we ended up for this one going to a price that was below

. . . a return. That we priced into a return that was below what we initially thought we would have to do. But we took a big leap of faith on these strategic opp ortunities, which we didn’t quantify in the model.”).
628 Id. 1129:5

– 24.114

Bell testified that JAB took a “leap of faith” on these “strategic opportunities,” and justified the $10 .00 increase with their “back

- of

- the

- envelope” calculations. 629 Later, Bell testified that coffee procurement was not a “back

- of

- the

- envelope” calculation because JAB “hadn’t done the analysis.” 630 After trial, Respondent latched onto a new synergy theory that deducted $10 .00 per share for these growth or revenue synergies. Respondent’s post

- trial position finds no support from its expert. Hubbard did not include any revenue synergies in his analysis. 631 When pressed, Hubb ard affirmatively declined to adopt Bell’s testimony , as he saw no support for it in the trial exhibits or in his work for Respondent

. 632 “ Thus, in its zeal to reach a desired litigation outcome, Respondent finds itself in the awkward position of advancing a position at odds with its own expert . . . .” 633 At post

- trial argument, Respondent’s counsel explained that they “never asked [Hubbard] to adjust his opinion” because the trial strategy required

629 Id. 1132:5

– 21; 1134:19

– 1135:10.
630 Id. 1168:8

– 21 (“ Q. Coffee procurement, was that one of the ones that was on the back of the envelope? A. I don’t even think it was that, because we hadn’t done the analysis .”)

. 631 See JX0982 at 55

– 56; accord Hubbard Tr. 1593:17

– 1594:3, 1694:22

– 1695:8.
632 Hubbard Tr. 1482:18

– 24, 1663:6

– 14, 1664:20

– 24, 1665:24

– 1666:4

. 633 Manichaean Capital, LLC v. SourceHOV , C.A. No. 2017

- 0673

- JRS, at 54 (D el. Ch. Jan. 30, 2020).115

Hubbard to stick with his synergy analysis, leaving counsel to argue the additional $10 .00 in synergies in post

- trial briefing. 634 This series of events casts doubt over Respondent’s post

- trial position on revenue synergies

. At bottom, Respondent puts forward conclusory fact testimony
contradicted by JAB’s contem poraneous financial modeling and rejected by its expert. There is no evidence that JAB quantified revenue synergies. JAB’s financial modeling assumes the opposite: “no uplift

. . . from any strategic synergy opportunities.” 635 JAB ’s contemplat ion of pote ntial growth opportunities is insufficient to prove ten dollars’ worth of revenue synergies in JAB’s best and final offer price. Further, JAB provided no evidence to support the conclusion that all ten dollars inured to JAB’s benefit and should be excised from the amount paid to

s tockholders. Hubbard did not find any revenue synergies, and therefore did not apportion any. Respondent has failed to prove revenue synergies that would support an excise of $10.00 from the deal price. In all, Respondent has proven $11.56 from
its cost savings and tax synergies. The deal price minus synergies valuation method yields a price per share of $303.44.

634 D.I. 154 at 117:21

– 120:13 (“We never asked him to adjust his opinion

. . . . And, you know, frankly, Your Honor, that’s a trial strategy decision that I made, right? These are the sort of things that we do. And I still think tha t we have a strong record evidence for this $10.”).
635 JX0593 at 64.116

E. The Supplied Alternative Valuation Methodologies Are Unreliable. While Respondent asserts that deal price minus synergies deserves disposi tive weight, Petitioners press three alternative valuation methodologies: discounted cash flow (“DCF”), comparable companies, and precedent transactions. 636 In the context of a persuasive deal price, I disregard those methodologies for the reasons that
fol low.
1. Petitioners have not proven the ir DCF model’s reliability . “While the particular assumptions underlying its application may always be challenged in any particular case, the validity of [the DCF] technique qua valuation methodology is no longer o pen to question.” 637 Nevertheless, the Supreme Court “cautioned against using the DCF methodology when market

- based indicators are

636 Neither party argues in favor of the unaffected stock price.
637 Pinson , 1989 WL 17438, at *8 n.11. “The DCF model entails three basic components: an estimation of net cash flows that the firm will generate and when, over some period; a terminal or residual value equal to the future value, as of the end of the projection period, of the firm ’ s cash flows beyond the projection period; and finally a cost of capital with which to disco unt to a present value both the projected net cash flows and the estimated terminal or residual value.” Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc. , 1990 WL 161084, at *7 (Del. Ch. Oct. 19, 1990).117

available.” 638 Compared to a persuasive, market

- based deal price metric, “the DCF technique ‘is necessarily a second

- best method to derive value.’” 639 Petitioners and Respondent each introduced a DCF valuation prepared by their expert. Hubbard introduced a DCF that generated a value of $291.71 per share

. 640 He gave his DCF no independent weight, but viewed it solely as
corrob orative of his deal

- price

- minus

- synergies value of $303.44. 641 In a “very subjective” weighting exercise, Shaked gave sixty percent weight

to his DCF model, which generated a value of $354.00 per share, exceeding the deal price by $39.00. 642 By this model, Shaked assert ed over a billion dollars was left on
the table. 643 The experts are approximately $63.00 per share apart. Because Petitioners are urging the Court to give significant weight to Shaked’s DCF model, they bear the burden of convincing the Court t hat the model is sufficiently reliable to merit weight in the face of Panera’s reliable deal process.

638 Stillwater , 2019 WL 3943851, at *60 (citing Dell , 177 A.3d at 37

– 38 , and DFC , 172 A.3d at 369

– 370, 369 n.118).
639 Id. at *61 (quoting Union Ill. , 847 A.2d at 359).
640 JX0982 at 84.
641 As explained, Hubbard did not accept Respondent’s post

- trial market value of $293.44.
642 Shaked Tr. 179:12

– 181:12, 239:24

– 241:17.
643 Hubbard Tr. 1483:15

– 1584:11

.118

Petitioners have fallen short: Shaked’s model as presented at trial is of questionable reliability. The primary flaw is Shaked’s concession regarding th e investment rate for the terminal period. In his report, he put forward an investment rate of 3.1% that he “conservative[ly]” cushion ed with a $116 million buffer, as “kind of an extra slack for the maintenance.” 644
Hubbard put forward a 35.6% investment rate. 645 This rate was based on the principle that “growth isn’t free,” 646 particularly in the extraordinarily competitive restaurant industry. 647 He anchored his investment rate in Panera’s historical investment rate, 648 and utilized the formula IR=g/RONIC, wh ere the investment rate equals the terminal growth rate over the return on new invested capital. 649 Hubbard set RONIC equal to the weighted ave rage cost of capital (“WACC”) on the premise
that “[i]n a competitive industry, abnormal profits tend to vanish ov er time.” 650 In

644 Shaked Tr. 203:9

– 19 (explaining the reason for the buffer as a hypothetical: “let’s assume that in my terminal year, the maintenance will be 259, not 143. This is 81 percent increase compared to what it used to be. Last year is 143, and I assume that it will be 259. So I build in $116 million, kind of an extra slack for the maintenance”).
645 JX0982 at 95

– 96.
646 D.I. 141 at 67 (citing Hubbard Tr. 1536:22

– 1537:7).
647 Id. (citing JX0982 at 14

– 20; Goldin Tr. 1409:22

– 1411:24).
648 See i d. at 68 (citing Hubbard Tr. 1546:17

– 1547:6; 1687:7

– 19).
649 JX0982 at 96.
650 Id.119

Respondent’s view, Shaked’s original investment rate assumed “startlingly high
returns on ROIC [([return on invested capital)] forever.” 651
When Shaked took the stand at trial , he addressed this criticism by presenting
for the first time a “ corrected” ROIC chart with an investment rate that diverged from, and was significantly higher than, the investment rate in his report

. 652 Shaked
did not base his “corrected” chart on the analysis found in his report or mentioned in his deposition

. Notwithstanding this correction, Shaked did not adjust his DCF
with the “corrected” investment rate

. When Hubbard applied Shaked’s corrected investment rate to his other DCF inputs, he found “the valuation attached to this [investment rate] is $100 off t he one he is tendering.” 653 Hubbard testified that if Shaked were to plug his corrected 33% investment rate into his DCF, this would erase much of the difference between the experts’ DCF calculations. 654 After Hubbard’s testimony, Shaked took the stand as a rebuttal witness, but did not address his failure to adjust his DCF in light of his corrected investment

651 See D.I. 141 at 63.
652 Shaked Direct Demonstrative Deck at 148 (“Assumed Panera will be using 2/3 of its n et income to pay out dividends and/or repurchase shares, and will have 1/3 of it flow to retained earnings (grow book value of equity).”); see Hubbard Tr. 1571:21

– 1572:18

. 653 Hubbard Tr. 1571:21

– 1572:18.
654 See i d. 1570:9

– 1571:15.120

rate. 655 Shaked’s trial concession on his investment rate weakens his credibility: he abandoned the rate in his report after learning of Hubbard’s c riticisms , but stood by his DCF reliant on that rate, even after Hubbard pointed out the inconsistency

. Shaked’s original, unadjusted investment rate is a significant driver of his DCF model. Hubbard pointed to this aspect of Shaked’s model to explain the wild swings in value when substituting different perpetuity growth rate (“PGR”) inputs

. Under Shaked’s initial model, inputting the different growth rates from banker

supplied DCFs creates outputs that are $1.3 billion apart

. 656 This sensitivity to PGR arises because Shaked initially assumed such a low investment rate while predicting outsized growth. 657 Because “ the perpetuity growth rate and the investment rate are
linked ,” changing the PGR in Shaked’s original model would cause “ a ver y large swing in his DCF value.” 658 Shaked described his model’s sensitivity to PGR based on his low investment rate as a “built

- in problem.” 659 Given the significant impact of Shaked’s initial investment rate on his DCF, his concession on that input and failure to adjust th e model introduces fatal unreliability.

655 See Shaked Tr. 1699:14

– 1742:7.
656 See i d. 486:5

– 18.
657 See Hubbard Tr. 1536:3

– 21.
658 Id. 1572:19

– 1574:6.
659 Shaked Tr. 311:11

– 312:8.121

Above, I determined that the market guides my analysis of this transaction.
T he Supreme Court has “cautioned against using the DCF methodology when
market

- based indicators are available.” 660 Shaked’s shift in his investment rate, the fact that he did not adjust his DCF to accommodate that shift, and the significance
of his original investment rate to the output of his DCF render his model unreliable. Petitioners have failed to carry their b urden to establish that Shaked’s DCF model is a sufficiently reliable indicator, particularly in the shadow of a reliable market

- based deal price. I do not attribute any weight to this metric. 661

2. There is not a suitable peer group for a reliable com parative companies analysis. “[B]efore a comparable companies multiples analysis can be undertaken with any measure of reliability, it is necessary to establish a suitable peer group through appropriate empirical analysis.” 662 “If, and only if, a proper pe er set can be selected, the next step in the comparable companies analysis is to select an appropriate multiple and then determine where on the distribution of peers the target company falls.” 663 Where the experts’ identified companies are “too divergent fr om [the

660 See Dell , 177 A.3d at 37

– 38; DFC , 172 A.3d at 369

– 370 , 369 n.118.
661 See Solera , 2018 WL 3625644, at *29 (citing Union Ill. , 847 A.2d at 359 ) ; id. at *32.
662 Jarden , 2019 WL 3244085, at *32.
663 Id. at *33.122

company] in terms of size, public status, and products, to form meaningful analogs for valuation purposes,” 664 this Court will disregard this valuation metric. 665 The parties dispute the relevant peer group and argue that neither expert test ed
the re asonableness of the comparable companies selected. Hubbard selected comparable companies by reviewing equity analysts’ reports in the year before the merger date and selecting the firms mentioned by three or more analysts at least

once. 666 As a result, Hub bard included companies that operate outside the fast casual segment, including full

- service restaurants like Brinker International, Darden Restaurants, Texas Roadhouse, and The Cheesecake Factory. 667 H ubbard found this analysis produced fair values ranging from $218.58 to $310.99 668 ; he did not afford any weight to his comparable companies analysis, but viewed it as corroborative of deal price

. 669 Petitioners question Hubbard’s peer group as it includes much smaller

664 Hoyd v. Trussway H

l dgs

. , LLC , 2019 WL 994048, at *5 (Del. Ch. Feb. 28, 2019).
665 See Merion Capital, L.P. v. 3M Cogent, Inc ., 2013 WL 3793896, at * 5 (Del. Ch. July 8, 2013) (“[W]hen the ‘comparables’ involve companies that offer different products or services, are at a different stage in their growth cycle, or have vastly different multiples, a comparable companies or comparable transactions analysis is inappropriate.”).
666 JX0982 at 115.
667 Hubbard Dep. 360:5

– 361:23.
668 JX0982 at 12

– 13 , 120

– 21

. 669 Id. at 123.123

companies, including sectors other than fast casual , and does not widely overlap with the comparable companies the bankers identified. Meanwhile, Respondent highlights that weakness in Shaked’s metric. Shaked used a peer group identified by at least 75% of bankers involved. 670 These results
exclu de all of the fast casual companies the bankers contemporaneously identified, except for Chipotle. 671 It also included and excluded similarly situated companies. For example, Shaked include d McDonald’s and Burger King, but excluded Wendy’s; he included Dom ino’s, but excluded Papa John ’ s. 672 Shaked found this approach resulted in fair values falling between $377.00 and $382.00 per share; he weighed this valuation at 30%. 673
W here an expert defers to a peer set without conducting a “meaningful, independent ass essment of comparability ” between the seller’s business and the business of its peer companies it “ is not useful and, frankly, not credible.” 674 Neither expert presents a reliable empirical analysis to show a suitable peer group; both sets
have material wea knesses. For that reason, I do not find comparable companies as
a fair measure of value . Instead, I view both parties’ comparable companies analys es

670 Shaked Tr. 439:23

– 440:18.
671 Compare JX0983 at 150

– 51, with JX0554 at 44, and JX0589 at 39, and JX0826 at 37.
672 See Shaked Tr. 441:9

– 14, 439:16

– 22.
673 JX0983 at 59

– 61

. 674 Jarden , 2019 WL 3244085, at *34.124

as an attempt to corroborate their preferred valuation. I decline to afford them any weight.
3. There are insufficient comparable precedent transactions

to generate a reliable valuation metric . Both parties’ experts performed a precedent transaction analysis. 675 Hubbard selected precedent transactions by reviewing eleven transactions that Morgan Stanley inclu ded in its April 4, 2017 presentation to the board. 676 He “calculated valuations that are corroborative using multiples of EV/EBITDA based on . . . precedent transactions” that led to a price per share range of $143.58 to $236.22. 677 Hubbard used this data p oint as corroborative and gave it no weight 678 because a precedent transaction analysis is “model

- based” while “the market evidence is the real world.” 679 Shaked conducted a precedent transaction analysis by using data from the FactSet database filtered by acquisitions of restaurant companies in the United States or Canada with an enterprise value over $1 billion. 680 He then compared Panera’s

675 See JX0982 at 121

– 22 ; JX1023; JX0983 at 59

– 60.
676 JX0982 at 121.
677 See i d. at 123.
678 See i d.
679 Hubbard Tr. 1481:13

– 23.
680 JX0983 at 59.125

forecasted revenue growth to the upper quartile EBITDA multiples of three comparative transactions and conducted an a nalysis that led to a price per share range of $338 .00 to $361 .00 with a midpoint of $350 .00 per share. 681 Even though Shaked explained at trial that he “was not really very thrilled with getting only three transactions[,]” 682 he still afforded it 10% weight. The accuracy of these analyses depend s , as with a comparable companies analysis, on the closeness of the comparable transaction. A s Morgan Stanley recognized, there was not a “particular transaction that should serve as a dir ect comparable .” 683 I fin d that neither sample size is reliable enough to afford it weight.

F. Respondent Is Not Entitled To A Refund Of Its Prepayment. I turn now to the relief sought. T he Company prepaid Dissenting Stockholders the full deal price, or $315.00 per share. Petiti oners have obtained more than fair value, which I have found to be $303.44. The Company seeks a
refund in the amount of the deducted synergies , or the difference between fair value and prepayment , plus interest on that amount

. Petitioners and Respondent did not agree to a clawback provision in the event Respondent overpaid. Respondent cites no support for its request

. L ike others who have thought about this issue, including

681 Id. at 59

– 60.
682 Shaked Tr. 255:4

– 17; see also id. 180:24

– 181:12.
683 Kwak Tr. 1210:8

– 1211:6.126

counsel’s firm, I find the request for a refund has no present basis in Delaware ’s appraisal statute. 684
Under Section 262(h), a surviving corporation seeking to lessen the significant amount of interest that can otherwise accrue in an appraisal action can prepay petitioning stockholders “an amount in cash

. ” 685 As the General Assembly explained, “[t] here is no requirement or inference that the amount so paid by the surviving corporation is equal to, greater than, or less than the fair value of the shares to be appraised.” 686 Upon prepayment, interest accrues onl y upon the sum of the difference between the amount prepaid and the judicially determined fair value, and any interest accrued to date unless paid at that time. 687 Section 262 does not

684 See generally Charles K. Korsmo & Minor Myers, Interest in Appraisal , 42 J. Corp. L. 109 (2016); R. Garrett Rice, Give Me Back My Money: A Proposed Amendment to Delaware’s Prepayment System in Statutory Appraisal Cases , 73 Bus. Law 1051 (2018); Abigail Pickering Bomba et al., Proposed Appraisal Statute Amendments Would Permit Companies To Reduce Their Interest Cost

— Likely To Discourage “Weaker” Appraisal Claims And Make Settlement Of “Stronger Claims” Harder , Fried Frank M&A Briefing (Mar. 23, 2015 ), https://www.friedfrank.com/siteFiles/Publications/FINAL%20

- %203

- 23

- 2015%20

- %20Proposed%20Appraisal%20Statute%20Amendme nts.pdf ; Arthur R. Bookout et al

. , Delaware Appraisal Actions: When Does It Make Sense to Prepay? , Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (May 29, 2018), https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2018/05/insights

- the

- delaware

edition/delaware

- apprais al

- actions

. 685 8 Del. C. § 262(h).
686 Del. H.B. 371, 148th Gen. Assem., 80 Del. Laws, ch. 265, §§ 8

– 11 (2016).
687 8 Del. C. § 262(h).127

explicitly contemplate any refund. Accordingly, appraisal litigants som etimes stipulate to a clawback provision in their prepayment agreement. 688 “Under Delaware law, the appraisal remedy is entirely a creature of statute.” 689 “The goal of statutory construction is to determine and give effect to legislative intent.” 690 “The co urts may not engraft upon a statute language which has been clearly excluded therefrom by the Legislature.” 691 “[S]uch action would place the court in a position of making law.” 692 Nor may this Court “assume that the omission was the result of an oversight o n the part of the General Assembly.” 693 Where, as with Section 262, “a statute is silent on a particular matter, the otherwise detailed nature of the statute in other respects can be significant.” 694 “[I]n drafting Section

688 E.g. , Artic Inv s. LLC v. Medivation, Inc. , C.A. No. 2017

- 0009

- JRS, D.I. 20 at 5 (Del. Ch. Mar. 6, 2016) (stipulating for clawback rights if the prepayment amount were to exceed the Court’s fair value determination of the appraisal shares along with any accrued interest) ; see Rice, supra note 684 , at 1082 (recognizing that petitioners sometimes stipulate to clawbacks).
689 Ala

. By

- Prods. Corp. v. Cede & Co. ex rel. Shearson Lehman Bros. , 657 A.2d 254, 258 (Del. 1995) (citation and internal quotations omitted).
690 One

- Pie Invs., LLC v. Jackson , 43 A.3d 911, 914 (Del. 2012) (quoting LeVan v. Indep. Mall, Inc. , 940 A.2d 929, 932 (De l. 2007) )

. 691 Giuricich v. Emtrol Corp. , 449 A.2d 232, 238 (Del. 1982).
692 Goldstein v. Mun. Court for City of Wilm. , 1991 WL 53830, at *5 (Del. Super. Jan. 7, 1991) (citing State v. Rose, 132 A. 864, 867 (Del. Super. 1926)).
693 Giuricich , 449 A.2d at 238.
694 Terex Corp. v. S. Track & Pump, Inc. , 117 A.3d 537, 544 (Del. 2015), as revised (June 16, 2015).128

262(h), the General Assembly made a determination as to the proper balance of the competing interests of appraisal petitioners, who have been cashed out of their preferred investment and denied the ability to invest the merger consideration in the market pending outcome of the case, and res pondents, against whom too large an interest award may operate as a penalty.” 695 Here, the only permissible conclusion is fortunately a logical one: the General Assembly intended to omit a refund mechanism

. In 2016, the General Assembly enacted an optional and scalable prepayment scheme without mention of a refund. It did so in the shadow of the Model Business Corporation Act (the “Model Act”), adopted by the majority of other states, which is a mandatory and fixed prepayment
scheme: it mandates prepayment of what the corporation believes is fair value to stockholders who purchased their stock before the merger was announced, and permits it for stock acquired after the merger announcement. 696 Other amendments
to Section 262 have tracked the Model A ct, evidencing a legislative awareness of its

content. 697 The Model Act is silent on the effects of overpayment , like Section 262,

695 Huff Fund Inv. P’ship v. CKx, Inc. , 2014 WL 545958, at *3 (Del. Ch. Feb. 12, 2014).
696 Model Bus. Corp. Act § 13.24(a) (2016).
697 Compare Del. H.B. 160, 144th Gen. Assem., 76 Del. Laws, ch. 145 §§ 13, 16 (2007), and 8 Del. C. § 262(h), with Model Bus. Corp. Act § 13.01 (adopting the legal rate as the applicable interest rate for dissenting stockholders).129

and has been interpreted to allow petitioning stockholders to keep any overpayment. 698
C ommentators have also interpret ed Sect ion 262’s silence as an indication that overpayment is not recoverable

. 699 This Court has not yet resolved the issue

. 700
I conclude Section 262 does not explicitly provide for a refund, and that therefore I
cannot order one. I am not the first to conclude th at the Court must stay within the bounds of Section 262’s plain language. In 1948, the Delaware Supreme Court concluded that because the operative version of Section 262 did not provide for interest, the judiciary could not award it. 701 More recently, befo re the prepayment provision was enacted, Vice Chancellor Glasscock found he was unable to order

698 See Model Bus. Corp. Act § 13.30(e); see also Rice, supra note 684 , at 184

– 86; Mary Siegel, An Appraisal of the Model Business Corporation Act’s Appraisal Rights Provisions , 74 Law & Contemp. Probs. 231, 236 (2011) (“[I]f the corporation’s estimate of fair value is greater than the amount ul timately determined by the court, the corporation will have paid this greater amount to the shareholder without any statutory right to require the shareholder to return the difference between the court’s determination of fair value and the corporation’s es timate of fair value.” (footnote omitted)).
699 See Korsmo & Meyers, supra note 864 , at 125; Bookout et al

. , supra note 864.
700 In Artic Investments LLC v. Medication, Inc. , the company argued under an unjust enrichment theory that the Court should find th e corporation entitled to a refund for overpayment after trial. See C.A. No. 2017

- 0009

- JRS, D.I. 15 at 24 (Del. Ch. Mar. 28, 2017) . The Court did not resolve this issue, or grant the party’s proposed stipulation for a clawback provision, before t he parties stipulated to dismissal

. See id. D.I. 23 (Del. Ch. Mar. 6, 2018).
701 Meade v. Pac. Gamble Robinson Co. , 58 A.2d 415, 417

– 18 (Del. 1948).130

prepayment. 702 After those exercises in judicial restraint, amendments in the statute
soon followed. 703 I will not encroach on the General Assembly’s prerogative. 704
III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, I find the fair value of the Company’s common stock at time of the merger was $303.44 , calculated as deal price minus synergies . Respondent chose to prepay the $315.00 deal price to the Dissenting
Stockholders . Because Respondent is not entitled to a refund of the difference between $315 .00 and $ 303.44, Petitioners have received more than fair value. The parties shall submit a stipulated implementing order.

702 See Huff

, 2014 WL 545958 at *3

. 703 See 47 Del. Laws ch. 136, § 7 (1949) (affording the Court the power to award interest) ; Del. H.B. 371, 148th Gen. Assem., 80 Del. Laws, ch. 265, §§ 8

– 11 (2016) (creating the possibility of prepayment).
704 “[T]he expression of dictum is ordinarily to be avoided.” State ex rel. Smith v. Carey , 112 A.2d 26, 28 (Del. 1955). Accordingly, I note only that refraining from awarding a refund here does not offend my sensibilities. A refund is not available under the Model Act, which tethers the mandatory prepayment amount to the corporation’s position on fair value, and therefore gives the prepayment amount significance in the litigation context. Under the DGCL, prepayment is optional, and a corporation can pay any amount it chooses without making a commitment to fair value . Prepayment under the DGCL is a business decision, made with knowledge of the company’s sale process that is superior to the stockholder’s, and with counsel’s prediction of how long the litigation may take and how much interest may accrue. In my view, expressed in dictum, the case for a refund under the DGCL i s less compelling than under the Model Act, which does not provide for one.