About This Blog
Summaries and analysis of recent Delaware court decisions concerning business-related litigation.
Subscribe to Blog
JDSupra RSS
Join us on LinkedIn
Follow us on TwitterTopics
Top Posts
Top News
- February 19, 2021
- October 30, 2020
- April 1, 2024
Archives
Morris James Blogs
Showing 141 posts by Albert H. Manwaring, IV.
Chancery Dismisses Claims in Favor of Arbitration in Dispute over Sale of Pittsburgh Penguins
Wildfire Productions, L.P. v. Team Lemieux LLC, C.A. No. 2021-1072-PAF (Del. Ch. June 29, 2022)
The Federal Arbitration Act and the public policy of Delaware favor the resolution of disputes through arbitration. When parties contractually agree to arbitrate their disputes, Delaware courts will enforce the terms of arbitration provisions. More ›
Chancery Dismisses Claims Seeking to Unwind Secondary Transactions that Allegedly Jeopardized Recovery for Primary Fraudulent Transfers
Burkhart v. Genworth Fin., Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0691-JRS (Del. Ch. May 10, 2022)
The plaintiffs were a putative class of policyholders and insurance agents with an interest in long-term care insurance policies written by the defendant's insurance company. Plaintiffs alleged that the company’s parent and related entities fraudulently removed assets and support from the company and impaired the company’s ability to make payments to the policyholders and agents. The plaintiffs sought to unwind the purported fraudulent transactions under Delaware’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. After failing to obtain the dismissal of the DUFTA claims, the defendants allegedly diverted assets away from the initial transferees. Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to include additional DUFTA claims seeking to unwind these secondary diversions. Defendants moved to dismiss the new claims on the grounds that plaintiffs were not creditors of the transferees, and thus lacked standing, and that plaintiffs had sought improperly to unwind transactions, rather than plead a right to payment. More ›
Superior Court Classifies Cryptocurrency as a Security and Calculates Contract Damages Based on Cryptocurrency Valuation
Diamond Fortress Techs., Inc. v. Everid, Inc., C.A. No. N21C-05-048 PRW CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 14, 2022)
Plaintiff Diamond Fortress contracted with the defendant company to provide its software to develop a trading platform for the defendant’s cryptocurrency. In exchange, the defendant agreed to pay plaintiffs in cryptocurrency at the time that defendant made its initial coin offering and at subsequent token distribution events. After the offering and events, the defendant failed, however, to make any payments to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed claims against the defendant for breach of contract, and a default judgment was entered after the defendant failed to appear or respond. After finding that defendant had repudiated and breached the contract, the Court then determined how to calculate damages resulting from breach of a contract to be paid in cryptocurrency, which involved the novel issue under Delaware law of how to classify and value cryptocurrency. More ›
Delaware Supreme Court Interprets Deadline for Bringing Indemnification Claims
North American Leasing, Inc. v. NASDI Holdings, LLC, No. 192, 2020 (Del. Apr. 11, 2022)
Defendants acquired construction entities from plaintiffs and agreed to indemnify plaintiffs for any losses arising from performance and payment bonds on existing projects. Losses occurred in connection with one of the projects in 2017, and plaintiffs gave the defendants notice of indemnification claims for nearly $21 million. Defendants rejected the claims as untimely under the acquisition agreement, which they argued had a strict notice deadline of 2016. More ›
Chancery Dismisses Contract, Dissolution, and Direct Claims, But Upholds Derivative Claim for Alleged Transfer of Funds Between Medicinal Marijuana Entities
BET FRX LLC v. Myers, C.A. No. 2019-0894-KSJM (Del. Ch. Apr. 27, 2022)
A minority member of a limited liability company had invested $8 million in the LLC. The LLC owned a majority interest in an entity that held a Pennsylvania medical marijuana grower and processor license. In addition to obtaining its membership interest, the plaintiff’s investment also secured appointment rights for one of the three manager positions, rights to participate in board decisions, and a veto right over sixteen types of actions. Ultimately, the plaintiff brought a series of claims in the Court of Chancery, alleging that the other members and their principals had funneled the plaintiff’s investment into a company that they owned—an Ohio-based medical marijuana company—via intercompany loans that were not being repaid and coverage of other corporate expenses. Defendants sought to dismiss all claims. More ›
Superior Court Sustains Certain Contract Claims in Dispute over Post-Acquisition Operation of Resort and Timeshare Business
CRE Niagara Holdings, LLC v. Resorts Group, Inc., C.A. No. N20C-05-157 PRW CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. May 31, 2022)
After acquiring a resort and timeshare business in 2017, plaintiffs brought claims of fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and declaratory judgment against the seller. The seller filed claims in federal courts and in New York state court, and then separately filed parallel claims as counterclaims and a third-party complaint in Delaware. The seller alleged that plaintiffs did not adhere to past practices in operating the business post-acquisition, that they made the acquisition to loot the business, and that, as a consequence, the seller suffered from a diminution in value of the payment streams from certain contracts. The plaintiffs moved to dismiss the seller’s counterclaims and third-party complaint. More ›
Superior Court CCLD Determines D&O Insurance Policy Does not Cover Defense Costs in Statutory Appraisal Proceeding
MPM Holdings, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., C.A. No. N20C-07-014 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 17, 2022)
In recent years, the Delaware Supreme Court has pointed out that directors and officers liability insurance might not cover defense costs in statutory appraisal proceedings. In In re Solera Insurance Coverage Appeals, 240 A.3d 1121 (Del. 2020), the Supreme Court held that an appraisal action is not a securities claim because it does not involve a violation of the law. Subsequently, the Supreme Court affirmed a Superior Court decision that an appraisal action is not based on a wrongful act, but rather is a creature of statute and neutral in nature. Jarden, LLC v. ACE American Ins. Co., 2021 WL 3280495 (Del. Super. Ct.), aff'd sub nom. Jarden LLC v. ACE American Ins. Co., 2022 WL 618962 (Del.). More ›
Chancery Finds AT&T Failed to Satisfy Entire Fairness Review in a Freeze-Out of Minority Partners in Local Spectrum Partnership
In re Cellular Telephone P’ship Litig., Coordinated C.A. No. 6885-VCL (Del. Ch. Mar. 9, 2022)
A controller that stands on both sides of a freeze-out transaction has the burden to prove that its acquisition was entirely fair to minority partners in terms of the acquisition’s process and price. The freeze-out of minority partners at an opportune time for the controller may not satisfy entire fairness review. More ›
Chancery Adjusts Deal Price to Account for Synergies and Post-Signing Change in Value in Statutory Appraisal of Investment Bank
BCIM Strategic Value Master Fund, LP v. HFF, Inc., C.A. No. 2019-0558-JTL (Del. Ch. Feb. 2, 2022)
In a statutory appraisal proceeding, Delaware courts may rely upon the deal price adjusted for net synergies as the most persuasive evidence of fair value provided the transaction process contains sufficient indicia of reliability. More ›
Delaware Uniform Arbitration Act Did Not Permit the Court of Chancery to Confirm or Vacate an Interim Partial Arbitration Award Because It Was Not Final
Astrum Fund I GP, LP v. Maracci, C.A. No. 2020-0919-PAF (Del. Ch. Jan. 27, 2022) Maracci v. Astrum Fund I GP, LP, C.A. No. 2021-0073-PAF (Del. Ch. Jan. 27, 2022)
A limited partnership agreement’s dispute resolution framework mandated arbitration for certain disputes but contained a Delaware forum selection provision for the resolution of damages. Limited partners initiated arbitration proceedings against the partnership and its general partner after a real estate transaction resulted in the loss of their entire investment. The arbitrator issued an interim partial award (“IPA”) after finding that the general partner had breached the agreement and breached the general partner’s duty of care. The arbitrator did not issue a final award because of the agreement’s requirement that a Delaware court determines damages. More ›
Chancery Dismisses Action for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction on Grounds that the Proposed Declaratory Judgments Would Provide an Adequate Remedy at Law
Qlarant, Inc. v. IP Commercialization Labs, LLC, C.A. No. 2021-0574-MTZ (Del. Ch. Jan. 25, 2022)
Pursuant to an asset purchase agreement, the plaintiff buyer purchased assets from a seller and several of its affiliates. Despite another company asserting that it owned twenty percent of the seller, the agreement represented that the seller had only two individual shareholders. The company that claimed it was a shareholder filed an action in Maryland challenging the asset purchase transaction. In turn, the plaintiff buyer filed an action in the Court of Chancery seeking declaratory judgments that the company was not a shareholder of the seller at the time of the agreement and that the asset-purchase transaction had been validly consummated. The plaintiff also asked the Court to permanently enjoin the company from asserting it was a shareholder of the seller. More ›
After Entry of Default Judgment, Chancery Grants Leave to Amend Complaint to Add a New Claim for Reverse Veil-Piercing Against Two New Defendants
P.C. Connection, Inc. v. Synygy Ltd., C.A. No. 2020-0869-JTL (Del. Ch. Jan. 10, 2022)
After entry of a default judgment for liability, but before entry of a judgment awarding relief, the Court of Chancery granted the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to add a new claim for reverse veil-piercing against two new entity defendants under Court of Chancery Rule 15(a). The Court found that the liberal Rule 15(a) standard regarding amendments to complaints applied – rather than the relatively stringent requirements for setting aside a judgment under Rules 59 and 60 – because the Court had only entered judgment on liability and had not yet determined the appropriate relief, and thus, the judgment was not final. More ›
Chancery Dismisses Complaint Against LLC Directors Based on Specific Terms of the Operating Agreement and Laches
Erisman v. Zaitsev, C.A. No. 2020-0903-JRS (Del. Ch. Dec. 29, 2021)
Under Delaware law, parties to limited liability company agreements have the freedom to alter or eliminate fiduciary duties, and to eliminate liability for breaches of contractual and fiduciary duties. Here, the Court of Chancery dismissed LLC members’ complaint because, among other reasons, the Operating Agreement (i) replaced default common law fiduciary duties with a contractual standard that limited director liability to claims in which directors did not rely on the terms of the Operating Agreement in good faith; and (ii) it further provided that the directors were not liable for money damages unless they failed to act in good faith, engaged in intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of the law, derived an improper personal benefit, or breached their duty of loyalty to the company. More ›
Chancery Dismisses Derivative Action Arising from $1.2 Billion Stock Sale Based on Plaintiffs’ Failure to Plead Demand Futility
In re Kraft Heinz Co. Deriv. Litig., Cons. C.A. No. 2019-0587-LWW (Del. Ch. Dec. 15, 2021)
The Court of Chancery dismissed an insider-trading action on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to plead that a majority of a company’s board was not disinterested or independent. By way of background, an investment firm held 24 percent of a publicly-traded Delaware company and rights to three seats on an eleven-member board. At an August 2018 meeting, the board received information that the company likely would miss annual financial targets. Four days later, the investment firm sold nearly a third of its stake, for more than $1.2 billion. The stock sale occurred after the investment firm provided the company with a statement that the firm was not in possession of any material, nonpublic information, and after the company’s board approved lifting insider restrictions that permitted the firm to sell the shares. Three months later, the company disclosed disappointing financial results, and the stock price dropped significantly. More ›
Chancery Issues Preliminary Injunction To Bar Arbitration on the Grounds that no Agreement was Formed
Hologram, Inc. v. Caplan, C.A. No. 2021-0736-KSJM (Del. Ch. Dec. 14, 2021)
The Court of Chancery issued a preliminary injunction barring arbitration because the parties had never reached an agreement that included arbitration. By way of background, two former high-school classmates agreed in principle to begin a company. One would own ninety percent of the shares and serve as president and CEO, and the other would own ten percent of the shares in exchange for providing ideas and business opportunities. The president sent paperwork to his former classmate via email, including a restricted stock purchase agreement that proposed a vesting period for shares, required specific terms for acceptance, and included an arbitration provision. The former classmate responded with a request to change the shares to non-vesting. Over the ensuing months, the two could not agree on final terms, and the specific terms of acceptance (including in-person execution and payment) were never met. Nearly eight years later, as the company raised a $65 million Series B investment, the former classmate suddenly reached out to inquire about his ownership status. He subsequently filed a private arbitration demand against the company in Illinois. The company responded by filing a Delaware action seeking a declaration that the arbitration was improper because no agreement had been reached between the parties in connection with the claims made by the former classmate. The company moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the continuation of the Illinois arbitration. More ›