Showing 49 posts in Injunctions.
Cox Communications v. T-Mobile, No. 340, 2021 (Del. Mar. 3, 2022)
Delaware courts have a “general aversion” to enforcing agreements to agree. But Delaware law also recognizes enforceable preliminary agreements that create an obligation to try to negotiate a final agreement on all material terms in good faith. Here, two companies, Cox Communications and T-Mobile, disputed whether a particular provision of a settlement agreement was enforceable and to what extent. The provision related to Cox partnering with a mobile network provider and generally obligated Cox to negotiate with T-Mobile. Those negotiations failed, Cox partnered with Verizon, and this suit resulted. The Court of Chancery entered an injunction that enforced the provision by prohibiting Cox from partnering with another provider besides T-Mobile. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court vacated the injunction and reversed, finding the provision left open several material terms of a future definitive agreement, was not itself an enforceable agreement, and instead was a “Type II” preliminary agreement that obligated the parties to negotiate open items in good faith. The Supreme Court remanded the case for a determination of whether the parties fulfilled that obligation.
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 ›
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 ›
The Court of Chancery in several recent decisions has addressed the limited circumstances in which it may have jurisdiction to enjoin future speech. See, e.g., Perlman v. Vox Media, Inc., 2019 WL 2647520 (Del. Ch. Jun. 27, 2019); Organovo Hldgs., Inc. v. Dimitrov, 162 A. 3d 102 (Del. Ch. 2017). Here, Vice Chancellor Glasscock explains the maxim “[e]quity will not enjoin a libel” and the limited potential exceptions. In particular, and subject to constitutional free speech limitations, Chancery may enjoin future speech in the nature of “trade libel” as a remedy for a separate “non-speech” business tort over which it has jurisdiction. More ›Share
Delaware law broadly enforces noncompete agreements. However, it will not do so when the public policy of a state with greater contacts to the parties prohibits that enforcement. As this decision explains, how to decide what exactly that competing public policy is may not be easy to do given the exceptions to that policy that frequently exist. Here the Court carefully examines the public policy of Nebraska and finds it permits enforcement of noncompete agreements when to do so will prevent unfair competition. More ›Share
This decision provides an excellent summary on Delaware law concerning when the Court will enjoin litigation in another jurisdiction to enforce a contract’s forum selection clause, as the Court did in this case. It also notes a potential trap for the unwary in situations where the clause selects only a court lacking jurisdiction to hear the dispute, rendering the forum selection invalid. That may occur for Delaware forum selection clauses when the Court of Chancery is the sole selected forum but cannot hear the dispute because of its limited subject matter jurisdiction. To avoid that problem, it would be best to identify an alternative within the jurisdiction, or accept any court within the jurisdiction.Share
Stratcap Investments Inc. v. Mears, C.A. 12548-CB (July 11, 2016)
This transcript ruling shows that the Court is not sympathetic to parties who make up excuses for violating the forum selection provisions of their contract.Share
It is common in a Section 225 action seeking the determination of the composition of a company's board of directors for the court to issue a status quo order. Those orders stop the company from taking any actions out-of-the-ordinary course of business until the Court decides who is really in control. Here the Court issued a similar order pending a decision on whether the plaintiff was entitled to have stock issued to it to take control. This extends the use of status quo orders to a new realm.Share
This decision holds that a clickwrap agreement is sufficient to bind an employee to a non-compete agreement. This is an important innovation as it will permit employers to implement non-compete agreements quickly and without much fuss.Share
Anti-suit injunctions to enforce a choice of forum clause are not always easy to get. Delaware courts do not like to interfere with other courts jurisdiction. Instead, they prefer that a party aggrieved by the violation of a contract that selects Delaware as the forum to resolve disputes ask the non-Delaware court to stay its hand. However, as this decision illustrates, when pressed, a Delaware court will enjoin litigation elsewhere in the right circumstances. One such circumstance is when the party to be enjoined has tried to manipulate the system by taking inconsistent positions on what forum the contract requires. Trickery with the Courts is never a good idea.Share
The Court of Chancery has again denied a request for an anti-suit injunction. This time the Court noted that the litigation sought to be enjoined would actually continue by a party not before the Court. Hence, the injunction was not going to accomplish an end to duplicative litigation.Share
The Court of Chancery often enters standstill orders or status quo orders when the control of a Delaware entity is in dispute. The orders are designed to prevent actions that may not be what the actual management would do in circumstances when the identity of that management is not in doubt. Disputes over the form of these orders are common and this decision seems to settle how one provision should be worded. At least in the absence of special circumstances, the provision of the order that prevents extraordinary actions should be worded so as to permit action after 7 days notice to the other side, who is then free to seek court action if it objects.Share
This is an important decision because it upholds the power of the Delaware Court of Chancery to enforce by an injunction the forum selection clause in a contract. Previously, there was some doubt under the existing case law whether such an injunction would issue, but, at least among sophisticated litigants, there is no doubt any more. Note that the clause in question provided that a "court in Delaware" would hear any dispute. A clause that attempted to vest jurisdiction only in the Court of Chancery is questionable because a contract alone cannot confer jurisdiction on that court with its limited equity jurisdiction.Share
This is an important decision dealing with a so-called "Proxy Put." Briefly, a Proxy Put permits creditors to call corporate debt when a new board of directors is elected without the consent of the current board. This decision applies the reasonableness standard of Unocal rather than the stricter standard of review of Blasius to decide if the Board has properly refused to approve a competing slate of directors for purposes of preventing a Proxy Put.
The Court carefully distinguished other circumstances where such a Put might be upheld, such as when a competing slate's election might cause immediate harm to the corporation.Share