In re: Cencom Cable Income Partners, L.P. Litigation, (Del. Ch., Nov. 26, 2008), read opinion here.

This Chancery Court  decision denied  in part and granted in part Defendants’ motions for summary judgment involving issues of fiduciary duty and candor. (see footnote 1 for citations to three prior opinions in this case.)

In discussing the summary judgment standard, the Court observed that the responding party must present an “affidavit or proof of similar weight” in order to rebut facts put in the record by the moving party which, if undenied, would entitle the moving party to summary judgment.

The General Partner in this case voluntarily assumed a fiduciary duty by deciding to obtain a legal opinion for the limited partners, and the Court determined that such a voluntary act by the General Partner: “imported common law fiduciary duties into its relationship” with the limited partners and thus, arguments that contractual limiting principles apply is just wrong. (see footnotes 23 to 26 and related text that discussed the difference between claims based on a breach of contract and those based on breach of common law fiduciary duties.)

In sum, the only one of the several summary judgment motions that were granted was in favor of Defendants regarding a claim relating to the techniques for appraisals, based on the undisputed testimony of the plaintiff’s expert and the “Uniform Standards of Appraisal Practice.”

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal’s online Law Page  highlighted this post here.