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 29 posts in Superior Court.
Delaware Superior Court Holds That Attorney-Client Privilege Was Retained By Seller Post-Merger
Biomerieux, Inc. v. Rhodes, C.A. No. N23C-10-067 (Del. Super. May 9, 2024).
The default rule in Delaware is that the attorney-client privilege transfers from the target corporation to the surviving corporation in a merger. This rule was established by the Court of Chancery’s leading decision in Great Hill Equity Partners IV, LP v. SIG Growth Fund I, LLLP, where the Court found that, under Section 259 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, the attorney client privilege was a “privilege” whose ownership transferred to the surviving corporation, by Section 259’s express terms. This decision from the Delaware Superior Court’s Complex Commercial Litigation Division demonstrates that parties can contract around the default rule by agreement. Here, the parties’ merger agreement provided that the attorney-client privilege “regarding” the merger agreement would remain with the sellers. Accordingly, the Court granted the seller-defendants’ motion to strike the buyer-plaintiffs’ use of an email containing the seller-defendants’ counsel’s legal advice “regarding” the merger agreement. The Court reasoned that, under the terms of the parties’ agreement, the attorney-client privilege remained with the seller-defendants and, thus, the buyer-plaintiffs were not entitled to use the privileged email.
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 ›
Superior Court Declines to Dismiss Counterclaims Based on “Interrelated Wrongful Act” Clause in D&O Coverage Dispute Arising Out of Viacom-CBS Merger
National Amusements Inc. v. Endurance American Specialty Insurance Co. (Del. Super. April 28, 2023)
In this D&O insurance coverage dispute, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the defendant insurers' counterclaims, which contended that the "Interrelated Wrongful Acts" clause barred coverage under the present D&O policies for certain merger-related litigation initiated in 2019. That clause deemed interrelated acts a single claim and deemed them to be made in the earliest policy period in which the earliest interrelated claim was made. Defendants' theory was that the merger litigation initiated in 2019 arose from interrelated prior wrongful acts starting in 2016 when the plaintiffs were involved in a battle for corporate control, which were the subject. More ›
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 ›
Superior Court Finds that Non-Recourse Provision Does Not Bar Fraud Claims Against Non-Seller Defendants
Amerimark Interactive LLC v. Amerimark Holdings, C.A. No. N21C-12-175 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Nov. 3, 2022)
This decision discusses and applies numerous rules governing fraud claims under Delaware law. For instance, an anti-reliance provision eliminates extra-contractual fraud claims while preserving intra-contractual fraud claims, and a non-recourse provision limits the entities and people against whom a claim can be brought. And, in Online HealthNow, Inv. v. CIP OCL Investments, LLC, 2021 WL 3557857 (Del. Ch. 2021), the Court of Chancery determined that a non-recourse provision did not bar claims against a non-signatory party. Here, the Superior Court applied Online HealthNow and held that fraud claims against non-seller defendants who allegedly were knowingly complicit in contractual fraud were not barred by the non-recourse and anti-reliance provisions of the agreement at issue.
Superior Court Upholds Highly Confidential Designations in Discovery
Surf’s Up Legacy Partners, LLC v. Virgin Fest, LLC, C.A. No. 19C-11-92 (Del. Super. June 6, 2022)
Delaware courts generally do not permit the redaction of non-responsive material that is otherwise not privileged. Two-tiered confidentiality stipulations, allowing for highly confidential attorneys’ eyes-only designations, are available to prevent sensitive information from being widely disseminated amongst an opposing party if such disclosure is substantially likely to cause injury to the producing party and a standard confidential designation would be insufficient to prevent that injury. More ›
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.
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 ›
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 ›
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 ›
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 ›
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 ›
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 ›
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 ›
