Posts in CCLD

Superior Court CCLD Declines to Award Costs for Special Master and Mediator, and Awards only Simple Interest on Judgment in Accord with Superior Court Default Rule

LCT Capital, LLC v. NGL Energy Partners LP, C.A. No. N15C-08-109 JJC CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. June 20, 2023)
Under Superior Court Rule 54, costs are allowed as a matter of course to the prevailing party. In this post-trial opinion, the Court denied costs associated with a special master fee and declined to include mediator fees but allowed costs relating to courtroom technology. The Court reasoned that the technology costs should be awarded because they were incidental and necessary to the trial. The Court found, however, that the fees related to the special master should not be awarded because those fees were similar to attorneys' fees. The Court also reasoned that the mediator's fees should not be awarded without a showing of abuse because mediator fees are typically split by the parties. More ›

Share

Superior Court Orders Earn-Out Payment under Ambiguous Merger Agreement after Defendant Withheld Documents in Discovery

Fortis Advisors, LLC v. Dematic Corp., C.A. No. N18C-12-104 AML CCLD (Del. Super. Dec. 29, 2022)
Defendant acquired the plaintiff's hardware and software solutions business. The merger agreement required the defendant to make contingent payments if the company achieved performance targets. The targets were based on EBITDA calculations and sales of "Company Products," which the merger agreement referred to in a disclosure schedule that contained descriptions of products’ functionalities. Under the agreement, the defendant committed to incentivizing its sales force to sell Company Products and integrating the products into its own products and services. At the end of the earn-out period, the defendant reported low sales and EBITDA. From limited documentation, the plaintiff was able to determine that defendant based its calculations only on the acquired products, not an integrated portfolio. Plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract, alleging that the defendant either failed to incentivize its sales force and integrate the products, or had failed to properly account for "Company Products" when calculating contingent payments. More ›

Share

Superior Court Rejects Defendant’s COVID-related Force Majeure Arguments

Simon Property Group v. Regal Entertainment Group, C. A. No. N21C-01-204-MMJ (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 6, 2022) (CCLD)
Simon Property, the landlord, sued Regal Entertainment, the tenant, for breach of a commercial lease, including Regal Entertainment’s failure to pay rent during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021. Regal Entertainment asserted several affirmative pandemic-related defenses. Upon Simon Property’s motion, the Court rejected Regal Entertainment’s defenses as a matter of law because the parties’ lease contained a force majeure provision broad enough to cover the pandemic events and because those provisions allocated the risk of loss to Regal Entertainment.

Share

Superior Court Complex Commercial Litigation Division Addresses Standing Requirements For Foreign LLCs “Doing Business” In Delaware And Reaffirms That Some Preliminary Agreements Give Rise To Obligations To Negotiate A Final Agreement In Good Faith

Greentech Consultancy Co., WLL v. Hilco IP Services, LLC, C.A. No. N20C-07-052 AML CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. May 11, 2022)
This decision addresses two points of note relating to standing for foreign limited liability companies and to the binding nature of preliminary agreements. More ›

Share

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 ›

Share

CCLD Finds Claims for Pre-Litigation Breaches of Covenants Restricting Speech Exempt From the “Litigation Privilege”

Feenix Payment Sys. LLC v. Blum, C.A. No. 21-05-099 EMD CCLD (Del. Super. Jan. 25, 2021)
Under Delaware law, the litigation privilege prevents potential tort liability for statements that may be actionable (e.g., as defamation) where such statements were made in connection with a legal case. This case finds that the litigation privilege is not necessarily apt, however, to claims for breach of contract based on pre-litigation breaches of non-disparagement clauses or similar covenants. More ›

Share

CCLD Rejects Several Defenses to Insurance Coverage of a Settlement Paid By Investment Fund

Sycamore Partners Management, L.P. v. Endurance American Insurance Co., C.A. No. N18C-09-211 AML CCLD (Del. Super. Sept. 10, 2021)
Prior to the closing of a leveraged buyout of a company (the “Merger”) whereby the plaintiff investment fund sought to divest, liquidate, and resell some of the company’s high-value assets (the “Restructuring Transactions”), the company’s stockholders brought derivative claims against the company’s board relating to the voting process underlying the Merger. The company settled the Merger-related claims, the Merger closed, and the plaintiff executed the Restructuring Transactions. Shortly thereafter, company bondholders sought information from the company—which the company never provided—regarding whether the Merger and Restructuring Transactions violated an indenture between the bondholders and the company.  More ›

Share

Delaware Superior Court Holds That Claim For Gross Negligence Against Corporate Managers Is An Equitable Claim For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Over Which It Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Techview Investments Ltd., v. Amstar Poland Property Fund I, L.P., C.A. No. N20C-11-229 EMD CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 31, 2021)
The court's ability to hear actions is limited by their jurisdiction – both jurisdiction over parties and jurisdiction over claims.  This recent decision from the Delaware Superior Court’s Complex Commercial Litigation Division provides guidance on (1) the scope of contractually granted personal jurisdiction; and (2) subject matter jurisdiction for claims of gross negligence against corporate managers in Delaware. More ›

Share

Superior Court CCLD Dismisses Complaint Seeking Insurance Coverage for Appraisal Proceeding

Jarden, LLC v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., C.A. No. N20C-03-112 AML CCLD (Del. Super. July 30, 2021)
Director and corporate liability insurance coverage is determined by the specific language of the insurance policies. Last year, the Delaware Supreme Court held that an appraisal claim under 8 Del. C. § 262 was not a “securities claim” because it was not a claim for a “violation of law[,]” as required under that policy’s definition. See In re Solera Ins. Coverage Appeals, 240 A.3d 1121 (Del. 2020). This case addressed similar issues under somewhat different policy language.  More ›

Share

Superior Court’s Complex Commercial Litigation Division Reaffirms Delaware’s Public Policy Against Intra-Contractual Fraud

Aveanna Healthcare, LLC v. Epic/Freedom LLC, N20C-08-055 AML CCLD (July 29, 2021).
Under Delaware law, parties may agree contractually to disclaim reliance – and potential liability for fraud – based on false extra-contractual statements. Delaware public policy, however, does not allow a party to disclaim liability for fraudulent statements within the parties’ contract. In addition, an owner who knowingly causes a company to make misrepresentations may be personally liable for fraud, even though an agreement provides such representations are made by “the company.” More ›

Share

Superior Court Enforces $48 Million Liquidated Damages Provision

Smart Sand Inc. v. US Well Servs. LLC, C.A. No. N19C-01-144 PRW CCLD (Del. Super. June 11, 2021)
A liquidated damages provision is enforceable under Delaware law if: (1) damages are uncertain at the time of contracting; and (2) the liquidated damages are reasonable. Courts will examine the parties’ intent at the time of contracting in determining whether a liquidated damages provision is enforceable. More ›

Share

Superior Court Upholds Claims that Entities Transferred Funds in Violation of Agreements with Creditor

CIBC Bank USA v. JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC, C.A. No. N18C-07-130 EMD CCLD (Del. Super. June 2, 2021)
Plaintiff CIBC Bank USA (“CIBC”) entered into a credit agreement with a group of borrowers to provide them with a revolving line of credit that was secured via a security agreement, which granted CIBC a priority interest in certain collateral. Under the security agreement, the borrowers agreed not to take any actions that would materially impair the collateral, or to permit any of their subsidiaries to amend their organizational documents to adversely affect the interests of CIBC. CIBC also entered into acknowledgment agreements with the borrowers’ joint venture partners, under which those partners agreed not to amend their own agreements with the borrowers without CIBC’s consent. More ›

Share

Superior Court Examines Choice of Law Principles For Mixed Contractual and Non-Contractual Claims

Arkray America, Inc. v. Navigator Business Solutions, Inc., C.A. No. N20C-12-012 MMJ [CCLD] (Del. Super. June 9, 2021)
Arkray, a Delaware corporation based in Minnesota, manufactures diabetes testing and management supplies. Arkray brought claims against Navigator, a provider of Enterprise Resource Planning software solutions based in Utah, and N’Ware, a provider of custom “add-on” software for warehouse management based in New Hampshire. Arkray had contracted with Navigator under a software and consulting services agreement (the “Agreement”), which provided that it “shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of Utah without reference to its conflicts of law principles.” Arkray contracted with N’Ware under a similar “License Agreement,” which provided that it “shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, United States of America, without reference to its conflicts of laws principles.”  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

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