Main Menu

Showing 4 posts in Delaware Court of Chancery.

Court of Chancery Decision Illustrates Flexibility In Rules Governing Trial

In Re Oxbow Carbon LLC Unitholder Litigation, C.A. No. 12447-VCL (Del. Ch. July 28, 2017)

This decision permits a rebuttal witness to testify in an unusual situation that illustrates the flexibility the Court of Chancery often employs when conducting a trial.  Among the issues addressed is the order of proof, belated identification of a witness, sequestration orders, the witness-as-advocate rule, and the tactical considerations in calling an adverse witness in support of your case.

Share

The Dilemma of the Unintended Fiduciary

Authored By Edward M. McNally This article was originally published in the Delaware Business Court Insider October 8, 2014 A recent Delaware decision highlights a trap for the unwary adviser to a business entity. The decision holds that helping a business get started may create fiduciary duties owed by the adviser, even if he or she is not acting in one of the roles that are normally thought of as creating such duties, such as serving as a lawyer or trustee. Because those fiduciary duties limit what the adviser may do for those other than his or her immediate client, it is important to recognize when those duties exist. More › Share

Court of Chancery Rejects Limits on Advancement Rights

Authored By Lewis Lazarus This article was originally published in the Delaware Business Court Insider October 1, 2014 {Note the decision discussed in this article was certified to the Delaware Supreme Court on October 6, 2014.} By statute and case law, Delaware has long protected the rights of officers and directors to advancement of fees and expenses incurred defending claims arising out of the officers and directors' service. The public-policy rationale is that in the absence of such protection, qualified individuals would be reluctant to serve in management positions. Corporations whose documents are expansive in providing advancement, however, often are less generous when the time comes to advance company funds to someone the company believes has misused his or her position to the detriment of the company and its stakeholders. While a substantial body of case law has clarified many of the circumstances where directors and officers are entitled to advancement over the company's objections, issues continue to arise that enable the court to provide fresh guidance. The recent case of Pontone v. Milso IndustriesC. A. No. 8842-VCP (Del. Ch. August 22, 2014), sheds light on the nature of claims entitled to advancement, whether a right to third-party advancement vitiates a director or officer's entitlement to advancement from the corporation itself, and the type of counterclaims that are subject to advancement. More › Share

The 21st Tulane Corporate Law Institute Begins Tomorrow

Posted In News

Here is the brochure for the program, which takes place April 2-3.  The panelists are among the most respected and knowledgeable legal minds and financial experts involved in corporate law and M&A, including Chief Justice Myron T. Steele and Justice Jack B. Jacobs of the Delaware Supreme Court and Vice Chancellors Leo E. Strine, Jr., Stephen P. Lamb, and Donald F. Parsons, Jr., of the Delaware Court of Chancery.      

Share

awards

  • US News Best Law Firms
  • JD Supra Readers Choice Award
  • Delaware Today Top Lawyers
  • Super Lawyers
Back to Page