Posts in Superior Court

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

Superior Court Addresses Scope of Privilege Waiver in Dispute Involving The American Bottling Company, Coke, and Bodyarmor

The American Bottling Co. v. BA Sports Nutrition, LLC et. al, C.A. No: N19C-03-048-AML CCLD (Del. Super. Feb. 11, 2021)

Delaware courts generally uphold the attorney-client privilege, including by recognizing waivers that are limited in scope. But they also police selective disclosures to ensure fairness using doctrines like the “partial waiver doctrine,” under which a partial disclosure of a privileged communication may waive privilege as to the entire communication, and the “at issue” exception, under which privilege may be waived by injecting a particular privileged communication or broader issue into the litigation. Applying these doctrines in The American Bottling Company decision, the Delaware Superior Court’s Complex Commercial Litigation Division defined the scope of a party’s tactical waiver broader than that party contended was appropriate. More ›

Share

Superior Court Applies Affiliate Privilege Doctrine To Dismiss Tortious Interference Claim Against Controller, While Sustaining Fraud Claims Against LLC Managers

Surf’s Up Legacy Partners, LLC v. Virgin Fest, LLC, C.A. No. N19C-11-092 PRW CCLD (Del. Super. Jan. 13, 2021)

In adjudicating a dispute over a scuttled deal in the music festival industry, the Delaware Superior Court applied the so-called affiliate privilege doctrine, which can immunize a controller from tort liability for its affiliates’ contractual breaches, and addressed the viability of fraud claims against individual managers of certain LLCs. More ›

Share

Superior 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 ›

Share

Superior Court CCLD Awards Sanctions For Unprepared Rule 30(b)(6) Deponent

Fortis Advisors, LLC v. Dematic Corp., C.A. No. N18C-12-104 AML [CCLD] (Del. Super. Nov. 18, 2020)

As this decision illustrates, Delaware trial courts have a variety of sanction options available when it comes to violations of court orders or discovery rules, such as the failure to adequately prepare a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent. Any sanction must be “just and reasonable” and tailored to the breaching party’s culpability and the complaining party’s prejudice. More ›

Share

Superior Court CCLD Grants Anti-Suit Injunction

American International Industries v. The Neslemur Company, C.A. No. N19C-04-258 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Dec. 10, 2020)

Anti-suit injunctions are an extraordinary form of relief. This decision illustrates the narrow circumstances where one may be warranted. Here, plaintiff American International Industries (“AII”) entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) with The Neslemur Company (“Neslemur”), in which the assets AII acquired later gave rise to third-party product liability claims against AII involving asbestos-contaminated talcum powder across the United States. AII sued Neslemur in the Delaware Superior Court for contractual indemnification under the APA. AII then sought to join Neslemur as a defendant in several pending tort actions in other jurisdictions, including California and New Jersey, seeking statutory and common law indemnification, as well as contribution. In response, Neslemur sought an anti-suit injunction in Delaware against AII to prevent AII from pursuing its indemnification claims in jurisdictions other than Delaware. More ›

Share

Delaware Superior Court Applies Law-of-the-Case Doctrine and Collateral Estoppel to a Prior Chancery Proceeding

Preston Hollow Capital LLC v. Nuveen LLC, C.A. No. N19C-10-107-MMJ [CCLD] (Del. Super. Dec. 15, 2020)

Plaintiff and defendants competed as institutional investors in the high-yield municipal bond market. Seeking to impair plaintiff’s standing in the marketplace, defendants made statements to broker-dealers critical of plaintiff. In turn, plaintiff sent defendants a cease-and-desist letter. In response, defendants sent letters to broker-dealers that suggested defendants would not participate in investments with broker-dealers who continued to do business with plaintiff. Plaintiff then filed suit in the Court of Chancery, which held that defendants had committed tortious interference with prospective business relations, but dismissed plaintiff’s defamation claim, and transferred this claim to the Superior Court. More ›

Share

Delaware Superior Court Allows Statutory Tort Claims for Computer Crimes to Proceed Alongside Breach of Contract Claims

Work Capital, LLC v. AlphaOne Capital Partners, LLC, C.A. No. N19C-08-036 PRW CCLD (Del. Super. June 25, 2020)
Delaware law may provide statutory tort remedies in addition to contractual remedies for actions involving computer system misuse, as demonstrated by a recent Delaware Superior Court opinion. In Work Capital v. AlphaOne Capital Partners, plaintiff Work Capital brought an action in the Superior Court initially alleging only three counts for breach of contract. Plaintiff later amended the complaint, adding one count for violation of Delaware’s Computer Related Offenses Act, 11 Del. C. §§ 931-941 (the “Act”). More ›

Share

Delaware Superior Court CCLD Clarifies When a Plaintiff is on Inquiry Notice to Bring a Claim for Limitations Period Purposes

Ocimum Biosolutions (India) Ltd. v. AstraZeneca UK Ltd., C.A. No. N15C-08-168 AML CCLD (Del. Super. Dec. 10, 2019).

Even in circumstances where a statutory limitations period can be tolled, tolling typically will cease once a plaintiff may be charged with inquiry notice of its potential claims. In this dispute brought against the biopharmaceutical company AstraZeneca arising out of database subscription arrangement, the Complex Commercial Litigation Division of the Delaware Superior Court held that defendant AstraZeneca was entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff Ocimum Biosolutions had inquiry notice of its claims for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets more than three years before commencing suit.  More ›

Share

Superior Court Affirms Jury Verdict of Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Concerning a Patent Dispute Settlement Agreement

DRIT LP v. Glaxo Grp. Ltd., C.A. No. N16C-07-218 WCC CCLD (Del. Super. Oct. 17, 2019).

This decision demonstrates the rare case where a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing survived a legal challenge and resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The case arose from a patent license and settlement agreement resolving a patent ownership dispute over the use of antibodies to treat Lupus. The 2008 settlement agreement gave ownership of the inventions to the defendants and obligated them to pay royalties to the plaintiff DRIT and its predecessor in interest. After paying the royalties for several years, in 2015, the defendants filed a request for a statutory disclaimer of the patent in question and notified the plaintiff that the disclaimer had the effect of eliminating any ongoing claim for royalties.  This event was not addressed in the parties’ agreement, and the court in post-trial motions upheld the jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiff on its implied covenant claim because the evidence supported findings that the defendants’ exercise of the  disclaimer in these circumstances was an unusual event that the parties would not have reasonably anticipated, and the disclaimer was not a normal rational action and was taken solely for the purpose of discharging defendants’ royalty obligations. The Superior Court found that the defendants simply had not presented sufficient evidence to convince the jury that the defendants had a credible business justification for filing the disclaimer. The Superior Court also rejected a challenge to the testimony of plaintiff’s industry expert that the defendants’ rationale for use of the disclaimer fell outside normative, rational behavior in the circumstances. The court thus found that the jury reasonably could have found the defendants’ proffered justification to be pretextual and not credible. 

Finally, the court granted damages in the form of royalties to DRIT from the time of the defendants’ breach to the date of the jury’s verdict, with a declaration of ongoing royalty obligations through the expiration of the patent. Going forward, the future royalty would be determined by the sales of the licensed drug. The court held that its ruling would uphold the expectation of the parties at the time of contracting, which was that DRIT would continue to receive royalties until the patent expired.

Share