Showing 116 posts in Business Torts.
Delaware Choice of Law Provision in Stock Purchase Agreement Does Not Eliminate Claim for Fraud under California Securities Act
Swipe Acquisition Corp. v. Krauss, C.A. No. 2019-0509-PAF (Del. Ch. Jan. 28, 2021)
This decision concerned a motion to dismiss a claim for fraud under the California Securities Act, which the defendants argued was waived by a choice of law provision in the parties’ stock purchase agreement (“SPA”) indicating that “all claims or causes of action (whether in contract, tort or statute) that may be based upon, arise out of or relate to this Agreement or the negotiation, execution or performance of this Agreement … shall be governed by, and enforced in accordance with, the internal laws of the State of Delaware, including its statutes of limitations.” More ›
ShareSuperior Court Dismisses Tortious Interference with Contract Claim against Corporate Officer
American Bottling Co. v. Repole, C.A. No. N19C-03-048 AML CCLD (Del. Super. Dec. 30, 2020)
This case illustrates that a Delaware court will dismiss a claim against an officer for tortious interference with a contract to which his or her company is a party unless a plaintiff can assert non-conclusory allegations that the officer acted outside the scope of his or her agency. In this case, the plaintiff and defendant-company were parties to a distribution agreement. The plaintiff brought a claim for tortious interference with contract against the CEO and chairman of the defendant-company claiming that the CEO terminated the agreement to enrich himself and his management team to the detriment of the plaintiff. More ›
ShareCCLD Bars Tort Claims Overlapping with Contract Claims under Economic Loss Doctrine
This case illustrates the extent to which the economic loss doctrine bars tort claims arising out of the same transaction as claims for breach of contract. In this case, plaintiff GEA Systems North America LLC (“GEA”) sold defendant Golden State Food Corp. (“Golden State”) three industrial freezers for use in Golden State’s hamburger patty facility. Golden State argued, among other things, that the freezers did not meet the production figures that GEA promised and GEA failed properly to install or repair the freezers. For this alleged misconduct, Golden State brought claims for negligence, fraudulent inducement, and intentional misrepresentation as well as for breach of contract. On a motion to dismiss, the Delaware Superior Court held that the economic loss doctrine barred the fraudulent inducement and intentional misrepresentations claims, but not the claims for negligence and gross negligence. More ›
ShareCCLD Addresses Ripeness Doctrine and the “Stranger Rule” in Tortious Interference Claims, Partially Dismisses Claims for Breach of Corporate-Owned Group Variable Life Insurance Policies
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 ›
ShareChancery 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 ›
ShareCourt 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.
ShareCourt 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.
ShareSuperior 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.
ShareCourt 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.
ShareSuperior 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.
ShareCourt 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 ›
ShareCourt Of Chancery Permits Appeal Of Its In Pari Delicto Decision
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.
ShareCourt 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.
ShareSuperior 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