In Kaufman v. Kumar, et al., (Del. Ch., June 8, 2007), read opinion here, the Chancery Court dismissed a complaint, at the request of a Special Litigation Committee, in favor of a first-filed proceeding in federal court in the Eastern District of New York, despite the fact that issues of Delaware law would be decided by that New York court. The court relied on the familiar McWane standard [283 A.2d 281 (Del. 1970)], and also emphasized the procedures in place that allow federal courts to certify questions of Delaware law to the Delaware Supreme Court if they determine they need guidance on Delaware law. See, e.g., Del. Const. art. IV, Section 11(8).
Compare this result with the recent Chancery Court decision summarized here that refused to defer to a proceeding in another state–relying on the internal affairs doctrine– because of the felt need in that case, based on different facts, that it was important for Delaware courts to decide the different issues in that case that dealt with highly nuanced and important concepts of Delaware corporate law. In re Topps Co. S’hldrs Litig, 2007 WL 1491451 (Del. Ch., May 9, 2007)("Topps I")(see link above for short summary of the differences in that case and copy of Topps decision–not to be confused with the more recent Topps II decision summarized here).