Posts in Business Torts

CCLD Addresses Ripeness Doctrine and the “Stranger Rule” in Tortious Interference Claims, Partially Dismisses Claims for Breach of Corporate-Owned Group Variable Life Insurance Policies

Athene Life and Annuity Co., et al. v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co., et al., C.A. No. N 19C-10-055 PRW CCLD (Del. Super. May 18, 2020)

Policy holders (the “Plaintiffs”) brought a suit against American General Life Insurance, Co. (“American General”) for breach of corporate-owned group variable life insurance policies (the “Policies”) and against certain related entities managing the Policies, ZC Resource Investment Trust (“ZCRIT”) and ZC Resource LLC (“ZC Resource”) (together with ZCRIT, “ZC Defendants”) (together with ZCRIT and American General, “Defendants”) for tortious interference with contract. When the Defendants moved to dismiss, the Delaware Superior Court’s Complex Commercial Litigation Division (“CCLD”) granted the motion in part on ripeness grounds and denied it in part. More ›

Share

Chancery Finds Tortious Interference By Financial Industry Competitor and Addresses the Requirements for Obtaining Permanent Injunctive Relief

Preston Hollow Capital LLC v. Nuveen LLC, C.A. No. 2019-0169-SG (Del. Ch. April 9, 2020). 

This case illustrates the type of competitive conduct that will qualify as tortious interference with business relationships while demonstrating that permanent injunctive relief is unavailable absent a likelihood of future irreparable harm.  More ›

Share

Court Of Chancery Summarizes Law On Reliance Disclaimers

IAC Search LLC v. Conversant LLC, C.A. No. 11774-CB (November 30, 2016)

Large commercial contracts frequently try to limit a buyer’s remedies for any extra-contractual misrepresentations by the seller.  Many Delaware decisions deal with disclaimers of extra-contractual representations and this decision does a nice job of summarizing some of that existing law. For example, it notes that a statement from the seller that it has not made any extra-contractual representations may not suffice, while a statement of non-reliance from the buyer should do the trick.

Share

Court Of Chancery Explains Anti-Reliance Clause

Prairie Capital III L.P. v. Double E Holding Corp., C.A. 10127–VCL (November 24, 2015)

This is an important decision because it explains so well the effect of an anti-reliance clause in the agreement for the sale of a business. The clause will bar fraud claims based on misrepresentations outside the terms of the agreement even if the clause just states what was relied on and does not need to say there are no other facts relied on and even if the allegations claim omissions.

The opinion also states well when corporate officers may be liable for fraud claims.

Share

Superior Court Explains Interference With Prospective Business Relationship And Good Faith Claim

World Energy Ventures LLC v. Northwind Gulf Coast LLC, C.A. N15C-03-241 WCC (November 2, 2015)

This decision does an excellent job of setting out the elements of a claim for interference with prospective business relationships. Even better, it is a comprehensive summary of the elements of a claim for breach of the duty to act fairly and in good faith.

Share

Court Of Chancery Spells Out Aiding And Abetting Claim Requirements

Matthew v. Laudamiel, C.A. 5957-VCN (September 28, 2015)

Aiding and abetting claims are often filed against those who have worked with a fiduciary that is breaching his fiduciary duty. This decision explains the requirements for such a claim, particularly the need to show the defendant is aware of the fiduciary’s breach of duty. The opinion is also a good primer on tortious interference law.

Share

Superior Court Explains When Officer Is Liable For Tort

Yavar Rzayev LLC v. Roffman, Del. Super. C.A. S14L-12-035 MJB (August 31, 2015)

This decision explains well when a corporate officer may be personally liable for a business tort under the “personal  participation doctrine.”  Mere knowledge of wrongdoing is not enough, but active participation is also not required before an officer who encourages or  directs wrongful conduct may be held personally responsible.

Share

Court Of Chancery Enforces Delaware Law On Restrictive Covenants

KAN-DI-KI, LLC v. Suer,  C.A. No. 7937-VCP (July 22, 2015)

This is an interesting case just for the cast of characters involved. However, it also has 2 important legal points. More ›

Share

Court Of Chancery Permits Appeal Of Its In Pari Delicto Decision

The Honorable Karen Weldin Stewart, Insurance Commissioner v. Wilmington Trust SP Services Inc., C.A. 9306-VCP (April 27, 2015)

It is often difficult to decide if an interlocutory opinion is appealable.  This decision well explains the governing law on when the Court will permit such an appeal.

Share

Court Of Chancery Issues Mother Of All In Pari Delicto Decisions

The Honorable Karen Weldin Stewart v. Wilmington Trust SP Services, Inc., C.A. 9306-VCP (March 26, 2015) This and the AIG decisions are the leading decisions on when the in pari delicto defense works. The Court carefully summarizes the 3 exceptions to when in pari delecto bars a recovery: (1) the adverse interest exception, (2) the fiduciary duty exception, and (3) the public policy exception such as in the case of the federal securities laws.  Of these, the "greatest of all" is the fiduciary duty exception that even permits aiding and abetting clams to proceed.

Share

Superior Court Upholds Multimillion Dollar Verdict

Professional Investigating & Consulting Agency, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company Del Super. No. 12C-06-196 MMJ CCLD (March 23, 2015) This decision upholds a rare multimillion dollar jury verdict for interference with the plaintiff's business, including a $5,500,000 damage award for "humiliation" damages.  The Court also awards attorney fees to the successful plaintiff. The opinion is an excellent review of when a jury verdict may be set aside by the Court.

Share

District Court Interprets Limitations Savings Statute

Hartsel v. The Vanguard Group Inc., C.A. 13-1128-SLR (D. Del. January 26, 2015) This is an interesting decision because it interprets the seldom-used Delaware Savings Statute [10 Del. C. Section 8118].  The court held that a derivative suit dismissed for failure to make a demand on the board is not saved from the expiration of the statute of limitations under the Savings Statute. Hence, a new suit that followed a demand of the board may be time barred. Share

Court Of Chancery Explains Remedies Under An Agreement Of Sale

Great Hill Equity Partners IV, LP v. SIG Growth Equity Fund I LLLP, C.A. 7906-VCG (November 26, 2014) This is an interesting decision because it explains the pleading rules for a fraud claim and how such a claim relates to other possible causes of action such as unjust enrichment. Share

District Court Explains Securities Law Pleading Rules

Stanley Black & Decker Inc. v. Gulian, C.A. 12-1342-LPS (D.Del. September 30, 2014) Stating a securities law claim is difficult under the standards set by the Dura and McCabe decisions and the PSLRA. This decision explains how to do it in a clear and concise way. Share

Court Of Chancery Explains How To Form An Oral Partnership

Grunstein v. Silva, C.A. 3932-VCN (September 5, 2014) When parties enter into a business relationship but fail to document their agreement, a mess is sure to follow. This detailed opinion explains what evidence is needed to prove an oral partnership agreement or to prevail on the related liability theories of unjust enrichment, equitable estoppel and fraudulent inducement. Share