A recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision is noteworthy for allowing an unusual procedural vehicle as a reply to counterclaims, as well as featuring an unusual initial retort to the counter-counterclaims, in the context of an intricate series of claims between and among parties involved in a dispute about the ouster an initial investor of a company. Namdar v. Immutable Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 2024-0535-CDW (Del. Ch., July 17, 2026) (Wright, M.)

Highlights

• After the original defendant filed counterclaims, the original plaintiff filed “counter-counter claims”, and in response to that move, a motion for more definite statement was filed and granted. After amended counter-counterclaims were filed, another motion to dismiss those amended counter-counterclaims was denied in this decision. Slip op. at 7.

• The court concluded, with citations to supporting authority, that the Court of Chancery Rules allow counter-counterclaims, and referred to two other names by which they are also known: “counterclaims in reply” or “reply counterclaims.” Slip op. at 10 and footnote 52.

• The court conducts an extensive analysis with copious citations to federal cases and other sources to buttress its reasoning why counter-counterclaims are allowed in Chancery, and why the defenses presented in this case were unsuccessful. Slip op. at 12-29.