In a dispute over which of 2 cases pending in different states would proceed, the court declined to award any preference to the case that was “first-filed”, and deemed cases filed within about one day of each other to be contemporaneously filed. Thus, instead of the McWane analysis, the court applied a forum non conveniens analysis, and determined that it would not stay the case pending in another state. Nor did it stay the Delaware case. The court noted that no collision course with the other proceeding appeared imminent, but that it would entertain a renewed motion in the future if that problem developed. As part of its analysis, the court distinguished a case called United Phosphorous on the facts. Rapoport v. The Litigation Trust of MDIP, Inc., download file. I summarized here another recent decision on this topic that was a rare instance of a Delaware court finding that Delaware was not the appropriate forum under a forum non conveniens analysis.