Auriga Capital Corp. v. Gatz Properties LLC, C.A. No. 4390-CS (Del. Ch., Jan. 27, 2012), read opinion here.
What this Case is Abo
ut and Why it is Important
This case establishes a high-water mark in terms of providing the most comprehensive explanation, based on legislative history and a review of Delaware cases,
Brenner v. Albrecht, C.A. No. 6514-VCP (Del. Ch. Jan. 27, 2012), read opinion here.
Issue Addressed
The issue addressed in this case was whether a derivative action in Delaware should be stayed or allowed to proceed despite a related, pending federal securities class action.
Background
The plaintiff claimed in this derivative action that
Cambium Ltd. v. Trilantic Capital Partners, No. 363, 2011 (Del. Supr, Jan. 20, 2012), read Order here.
This Order of the Delaware Supreme Court applied the recent decision of Delaware’s High Court in the Central Mortgage case in which it clarified that Delaware has not adopted the federal standard for motions to dismiss under
In a post-trial decision, the Court of Chancery in Dweck v. Nasser, C. A. No. 1353-VCL (Jan. 18, 2012), found that Dweck, the former CEO, a director and 30% stockholder in Kids International Corporation (“Kids”), and Kevin Taxin, Kids’ President, breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty to Kids by establishing competing companies that usurped
Trilogy Portfolio Company, LLC v. Brookfield Real Estate Financial Partners, LLC, C.A. No. 7161-VCP (Del. Ch., Jan. 13, 2012), read opinion here.
Issue Addressed
Whether the restructuring of a $2.7 billion mortgage loan secured by the Atlantis Resort and Casino in the Bahamas created the necessary type of irreparable harm to the lenders
On January 13, 2012, the Court of Chancery issued non-binding guidelines or “best practices” to help lawyers and their parties handle common and sometimes complex procedural issues that arise in litigation before the Delaware Court of Chancery.
Kevin F. Brady, who is a member of the Court of Chancery Rules Committee, prepared this summary.
The
Professor Steven Davidoff provides scholarly and statistical analysis of M & A litigation in a recently published article, in which he also addresses the issue of whether Delaware is “losing” that type of litigation to other states, and related aspects of this topic. His article entitled: “A Great Game: The Dynamics of State Competition and
Shiftan v. Morgan Joseph Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 6424-CS (Del. Ch. Jan. 13, 2012), read opinion here.
Issues Addressed:
(i) Whether the Court may consider in an appraisal action a contractually required redemption event in the certificate of incorporation, scheduled to occur six months after the merger, in determining the fair value
Steinhardt v. Howard-Anderson, C.A. No. 5878-VCL (Del. Ch. Jan. 6, 2012), read opinion here.
Issue Addressed
This opinion addressed the issue of whether representative plaintiffs in a putative class action should be in sanctioned for trading on the basis of confidential information obtained in the litigation. The motion was granted.
Background
On November
In Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC (download here), the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday recognized a defense that churches may assert against claims by some employees based on anti-discrimination laws, such as a minister that claims she was discriminated against on an issue that comes within the scope of the church’s religious beliefs. Professor Bainbridge comments on