About This Blog
Summaries and analysis of recent Delaware court decisions concerning business-related litigation.
Morris James Blogs
Showing 119 posts from 2009.
This decision holds a partner in an accounting firm liable for trading on the nonpublic information that he received in connection with his work at his firm. The Court upheld several theories of liability in what appears to be a case of first impression in Delaware. Thus, this decision paves the way for enforcing the duty to not misuse insider information apart from the Federal Securities laws.
After the entry of an order compelling arbitration, the defendant delayed the arbitration and even sought to re-litigate the underlying suit compelling arbitration. The Court was not impressed and found the defendant in contempt, imposing severe sanctions.
When it is "reasonably likely" that a corporation has some assets, the Court will appoint a receiver even if the corporation has been dissolved for 15 years.
This decision explains that in litigating a disclosure claim it is important to relate the disclosures at issue to past decisions determining when a particular type of disclosure was actionable. Here the Court dealt with when projection must be disclosed and noted that not everything considered by management or a board must be put into the proxy statement.
In this unusual decision, the Court of Chancery awarded attorney fees after having previously declined to do so in a November 26, 2008 decision in the same case. The prior decision had been decided because of pending litigation that the Court did not want to affect by a premature approval of a settlement in this case. When that other litigation was settled, it was time to address the settlement here. This illustrates the flexibility of the Court of Chancery in dealing with competing litigation.
The settlement was approved and fees awarded based on the plaintiff’s success in opening up a limited offer to purchase stock to all of the entity's stockholders.
In this case, the Court of Chancery declined to upset an arbitrator's decision and explained the limits on the Court's review of arbitration awards. Here, that limit applied even when the arbitrator had declined to rule based on his decision that he lacked jurisdiction.
This is the most important recent decision on the Court's handling of discovery of emails and other e-documents. For spoliation, the Court imposed four forms of sanction: (1) it increased the burden of proof to a clear and convincing standard for the offending party to prove his case, (2) it held his testimony must be corroborated by other evidence to meet that burden, (3) it denied any claim of attorney-client privilege to certain documents, and (4) it imposed attorney fees for the sanction motion work.
This is also a good read for its explanation of how e-documents are stored in computers and servers and may be retrieved long after they were thought to be destroyed.
In this decision the Court examines when a corporate officer is entitled to have his fees advanced in defending a counterclaim against him. The opinion does so in the context of a full explanation of the Cochran. line of cases that determine when an employee is entitled to indemnification (when sued for acting in an official capacity) and when he is not (when sued for breaching his employment contract). That is not as easy a distinction as it may seem, and this case helps us understand it
While it is well known that appraisal rights are limited to stockholders of record, sometimes stockholders do not really understand what it means to be "of record." They think if their name is on a brokerage statement, they are a "stockholder of record." Wrong! They must be listed on the records of the company to be "of record," and most stock in public entities is held by nominees, such as Cede & Co., to facilitate trading.
Here, the Court examines when the corporation is estopped by its conduct from denying appraisal rights and finds that the elements of waiver or estoppel are hard to establish and not present in this case.
This is a short, but excellent summary of the law of attorney/client privilege. It also is an example of how the Court conducts an in camera review of documents to decide privilege questions.
In this case of first impression, the Court held that a party seeking to depose an opponent’s expert must pay for the expert's preparation time. However, to prevent abuse, the Court limited the fees to a time period equal to the length of the actual deposition. Talk fast to save money.
This decision provides a full review of the basis for jurisdiction over foreign entities by the Court of Chancery. This includes a discussion of the limits of the conspiracy theory of jurisdiction.
Most interestingly, the Court holds that a parent company may be subject to Delaware jurisdiction because of the acts of agents of its subsidiaries, at least when those agents had the apparent authority to act for the parent. That may occur when, as here, the parent entity touts the business interrelationship of it and all its subsidiaries. This is another example of getting not wanting what you wished for and a caution against ignoring the separateness of corporate entities in how they do business.
This decision illustrates another loop hole in a stockholder agreement designed to restrict voting rights. Briefly, the agreement provided that an otherwise controlling stockholder would place his stock in a voting trust that would then vote his stock as did the other stockholders. However, there was a provision that permitted the otherwise majority stockholder to transfer his stock to a family member and another provision that terminated the trust if the majority stockholder's stock in trust fell below 45% of the stock outstanding.
Of course, what the majority stockholder did was transfer enough stock to his sister to make him own less than 45% and thereby terminated the trust. His sister then voted with him, and they took control of the corporation.
The Court held that the stockholder did not have a beneficial ownership in the sister's stock as she had no obligation to vote with him or give him any benefit from her ownership of the stock. To be a beneficial owner you have to have some interest in the stock.
This decision answers the question of whether it is possible to have a receiver appointed for a dissolved Delaware corporation more than 3 years after it is dissolved. Section 278 of the Delaware General Corporation Law provides for a 3 year statute of limitations for litigation against a dissolved Delaware corporation. However, when the petition to appoint a receiver seeks to get at assets still held by the dissolved corporation (in this case an insurance policy), the Court ruled that the petition may proceed. The theory is that the persons protected by Section 278, such as its stockholders, will not be affected by the appointment of a receiver who is only seeking assets still held by the entity and that they would not receive anyway.
The Delaware Arbitration Act has a unique provision that permits the Court of Chancery to enjoin an arbitration when the claim asserted is barred by a statute of limitations. However, to get into Court, the arbitration agreement must be governed by Delaware's Arbitration Act. If it is not, then this unique remedy is not available, and it is up to the arbitrator to decide if the claim is barred on limitations grounds.
This decision also contains an excellent discussion of when the Delaware Arbitration Act applies and, when it does, to what extent its provisions control.