The Bank of New York Mellon v. Realogy Corp., (Del. Ch., Dec. 18, 2008), read opinion here. This Chancery Court decision in favor of The Bank of New York Mellon ("BNYM"), involved contract interpretation of various documents in connection with an attempt to refinance. Both BNYM as indenture trustee, and the corporate issuer sought declaratory judgment on cross-motions for summary judgment regarding whether the refinancing would be a breach of the relevant debt instruments and agreements. Summary judgment (on portions of the complaint) was granted in favor of BNYM.
Because the Delaware court applied New York contract law (which is normally beyond the scope of this blog on Delaware corporate and commercial law), I want to highlight merely the quintessentially Delawarean procedural aspects of this case. Namely, the lightning speed with which this case was presented and decided, is noteworthy as a common example of how quickly the Delaware Chancery Court can "tee-up for decision" and issue a comparatively lengthy opinion (compared to most other courts), on a complex case with a somewhat complicated set of facts.
Specifically, in this case, the complaint was filed on Nov. 28, 2008. Expedited treatment was granted on Dec. 1. The Answer was filed on Dec.8. Both Opening Briefs on cross-motions for summary judgment (on parts of the complaint) were filed on Dec. 9, and Answering Briefs on Dec. 14. Oral argument was heard on Dec. 15 and this comprehensive and detailed opinion was issued on Dec. 18. For a case involving complex factual issues and sophisticated overlapping documents and large amounts of money, that is amazingly quick work on the part of both the parties and the court.
UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal online highlighted this post today here. (See screenshot below)