Main Menu

Showing 64 posts from 2021.

Chancery Rules Corporation Cannot Offset Wife’s Recoupment Against Husband’s Advancement Simply Because the Pair Signed a Single Undertaking


Perryman v. Stimwave Tech. Inc., C.A. 2020-0079-SG (Del. Ch. Apr. 15, 2021)
Section 145 of DGCL permits corporations to grant advancement rights to persons who may be entitled to indemnification so that they may fund covered litigation costs pending indemnification. As part of this right, the DGCL also requires these individuals to undertake to repay the corporation if the advanced expenses ultimately prove not to be indemnifiable. In this case, the Court clarifies that two individuals who are married and execute the same undertaking nonetheless retain their individual rights to advancement and separate obligations for repaying any non-indemnifiable expenses. More ›

Share

Court of Chancery Stays Action for Violation of Rule against Claim Splitting Pending Resolution of a Duplicative Federal Action


Goureau v. Lemonis, C.A. No. 2020-0486-MTZ (Del. Ch. Mar. 30, 2021)
Delaware follows the modern “transactional” view of claim splitting, which bars a plaintiff from bringing duplicative proceedings in different courts simultaneously based on different causes of action arising from the same transaction or from a common nucleus of operative facts. The rule against claim splitting is intended to avoid burdening defendants with the defense of duplicative suits in different courts, and to prevent a plaintiff from obtaining “two bites at the apple” or a potential double recovery. A plaintiff who violates this rule may face dismissal or a stay pending resolution of the duplicative action. More ›

Share

Chancery Confirms the Challenges in Pleading Caremark and Non-Shareholder Action Disclosure Claims


Fisher v. Sanborn, C.A. No. 2019-0631-AGB (Del. Ch. Mar. 30, 2021)

Under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1, a plaintiff attempting to bring a derivative action on behalf of a corporation faces a heightened “particularized” pleading standard. This pleading challenge is compounded when a plaintiff attempts to bring a Caremark failure of oversight claim – “possibly the most difficult theory in corporate law.” Similarly, a plaintiff alleging false or misleading disclosures not made in connection with soliciting shareholder action faces the additional pleading challenge of demonstrating that those disclosures were knowing or deliberate. More ›

Share

Chancery Dismisses Unripe Contribution Claim but Finds That Corporate Director and Officer Adequately Pled Right to Indemnification Following Merger


Wunderlich v. B. Riley Fin., Inc. et al., C.A. No: 2020-0453-PAF (Del. Ch. Mar. 24, 2021)

Delaware corporations may provide indemnification rights to their directors and officers either through the corporation’s organizational documents or by separate agreements. This case concerned the survival and scope of these rights following a merger. More ›

Share

Chancery Lacks Jurisdiction to Grant Injunction While Superior Court Appeal Is Pending


Vama F.Z. Co. v. WS02, Inc., C.A. No. 2020-0141-JRS (Del. Ch. Mar. 29, 2021)
This case illustrates that the Court of Chancery lacks subject matter jurisdiction to issue an injunction pending appeal of another court’s rulings, and where the plaintiff has adequate remedies at law.  More ›

Share

Superior Court Holds that a Partial Motion to Dismiss Tolls the Answering Deadline for Both Challenged and Unchallenged Claims


Unbound Partners Ltd. P’ship v. Invoy Holdings Inc., C.A. No. N20C-09-302 PRW CCLD (Del. Super. Mar. 17, 2021)
In the Delaware Superior Court, a defendant does not concede or default on, and is not required to answer, unchallenged claims in a complaint subject to a partial motion to dismiss during the pendency of the motion to dismiss. More ›

Share

Chancery Denies Claim Arising Out of Controller’s Announced Intention to Oppose a Transaction Unfavorable to His Interests


RCS Creditor Trust v. Schorsch et al., C.A. No: 2017-0178-SG (Del. Ch. Mar. 18, 2021)
Controlling shareholders of a Delaware corporation owe fiduciaries duties, but those duties do not require controllers to sacrifice contract rights or to vote altruistically. In the Court of Chancery’s recent decision in RCS Creditor Trust v. Schorsch et al., the Court affirmed this proposition, holding that where a special committee and its review process were otherwise independent, a controlling shareholder did not breach his fiduciary duties or improperly influence the committee by sharing how he planned to vote in connection with two proposed, competing transactions. More ›

Share

Chancery Enjoins Prosecution of Fraudulent Inducement and Declaratory Judgment Claims Based on Exclusive Delaware Forum Provision


SPay, Inc. v. Stack Media Inc. k/n/a JLC2011, Inc., et al., CA No. 2020-0540-JRS (Del. Ch. Mar. 23, 2021)
To obtain a preliminary anti-suit injunction, a movant must show (1) a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm absent an injunction, and (3) the balance of hardships tips in its favor. Although the Court of Chancery does not grant anti-suit injunctions lightly, it will do so when a party to a valid and absolutely clear forum selection clause attempts to litigate covered claims outside of the parties’ chosen forum. More ›

Share

Court of Chancery Harmonizes Operating Agreement Governance Provisions To Resolve LLC Control Dispute

Pearl City Elevator, Inc. v. Gieseke, C.A. No. 2020-0419-JRS (Del. Ch. Mar. 23, 2021)

Under Delaware law, limited liability company agreements are interpreted like other contracts; they are read as a whole in light of the commercial context, in a manner that gives effect to and harmonizes all of their terms. In this expedited control dispute, the Court of Chancery applied those canons to consider whether certain of the plaintiff’s purchases of units from other members complied with transfer restrictions. More ›

Share

Chancery Finds SEC’s Filing of an Enforcement Action Did Not Trigger Redemption Right

Tetragon Fin. Grp. Ltd. v. Ripple Labs Inc., C.A. No. 2021-0007-MTZ (Del. Ch. Mar. 19, 2021)

Plaintiff Tetragon Financial Group Limited is a shareholder of Ripple Labs, Inc., a blockchain company that uses a cryptocurrency called XRP. Tetragon had a right under a Stockholders’ Agreement to require Ripple to redeem its shares if the SEC or another government agency “determine[s] on an official basis” that XRP is a security “on a current and going forward basis.” Here, Tetragon sought a declaration that the SEC’s decisions to file an enforcement action in federal District Court, and issue a Wells Notice, each triggered the redemption right. More ›

Share

Chancery Appoints Amicus Curaie to Provide Independent Guidance Regarding Unopposed Petition to Revive Defunct Corporation for Use as a Blank Check Entity

Posted In Chancery, Custodians

In re Forum Mobile, Inc., C.A. 2020-0346-JTL (Del. Ch. Mar. 18, 2021)

The Court of Chancery has the inherent authority to appoint an amicus curaie if the Court believes it would benefit from a more fulsome presentation of the issues. This case presents that situation: an unopposed petition seeking relief that, on its face, appears contrary to the Court’s prior decisions and to Delaware’s public policy. More ›

Share

Chancery Confirms that the Implied Covenant Imposes a “Good Faith” Component to an Agreement to Negotiate

DG BF, LLC v. Ray, C.A. No. 2020-0459-MTZ (Del. Ch. Mar. 1, 2021)

The Operating Agreement for an LLC involved in the cannabis industry provided for a five-member board of managers, with one Independent Manager appointed by a process of negotiation between two other managers (the plaintiff in the action and one of the defendants). Under the process set forth in the Operating Agreement, either side could present various candidates until there was agreement, which was supposed to happen within a 180-day period. The parties could also mutually agree to extend the deadline. More ›

Share

Chancery Finds Implied-in-Fact LLC Agreement

Posted In Chancery, LLCs

Robinson v. Darbeau, C.A. No: 2019-0853-KSJM (Del. Ch. Mar. 1, 2021)

As Robinson v. Darbeau demonstrates, Delaware law recognizes implied limited liability company agreements. Plaintiff operated a daycare as a sole proprietor and without any formally organized business entity. After Plaintiff began a personal relationship with Defendant, Defendant became involved in day-to-day activities at the daycare, invested in the business (including through the co-purchase of the property where the daycare was operated) and was held out publicly as the daycare’s co-director. Through the use of an online incorporator, and with Defendant’s assistance, Plaintiff filed a certificate of formation for a Delaware limited liability company. The certificate listed both parties as members (allegedly without Plaintiff’s knowledge) and further provided that management of the company was vested in the members. No written LLC agreement was ever executed. More ›

Share

Chancery Holds Prior Rulings in Appraisal and Securities Litigation Do Not Bar New Columbia Pipeline Fiduciary Duty Action


In re Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc. Merger Litigation, C.A. No. 2018-0484-JTL (Del. Ch. Mar. 1, 2021)
Certain judicial doctrines, including collateral estoppel and stare decisis, promote efficiency and finality by barring the re-litigation of factual and legal issues. For these doctrines to apply, however, there must be overlap between the parties, the claims or the legal posture. This case demonstrates that, without such overlap, courts will permit subsequent claims even when the underlying transaction has already been the subject of significant prior litigation. More ›

Share

Superior Court Finds Securities Lawsuits Do Not Fall within Relatedness Exclusion of Insurance Policy

Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Company, C.A. No. N18C-09-210 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 2, 2021)

This case arises from an insurance coverage dispute between an insured and multiple insurance providers in a policy tower for defense fees and settlement costs from two securities class action lawsuits. In the Complex Commercial Litigation Division of the Superior Court, the insurers argued that they were not obligated to reimburse losses arising from the two securities lawsuits because of, inter alia, an exclusion regarding the “relatedness” of Wrongful Acts. Under Delaware law, the exception to coverage because of the “relatedness” of Wrongful Acts only applies “where the two underlying claims are fundamentally identical.” The Court held that the exception did not apply in this case simply because the securities lawsuits involved the same wrongdoers and the same transaction, among other things. Instead, the fact that there were variations in the mens rea, motive, burdens of proof, the timing and other factors, suggested that the securities lawsuits did not involve the exact same subject. Accordingly, the Court found that the two claims were not “related” and the relatedness exclusion did not apply.

Share

awards

  • US News Best Law Firms
  • JD Supra Readers Choice Award
  • Delaware Today Top Lawyers
  • Super Lawyers
Back to Page