There are two separate pending matters that relate to confidentiality in the Court of Chancery and what details of litigation pending in the court may be properly withheld from the public.
One is an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court of a case involving a contract dispute that the Al Jazeera network has with AT
Caspian Select Credit Master Fund Ltd. v. Key Plastics Corp., C.A. No. 8624-vcn (Del. Ch. Feb. 24, 2014).
Practical Insights on Decision: This Chancery opinion is one of many examples highlighted on these pages over the last 9 years or so, of the not infrequent inefficiency and unsatisfying nature of an action
Flaa v. Montano, C.A. No. 9146-VCG (Del. Ch. (Feb. 24, 2014). Takeaway: One point that can be taken from this pithy Chancery ruling is that it is not necessary for a director to be actually seated on the board in order to use DGCL Section 225 to ask the court to determine if that
In Re Activision Blizzard, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Cons. C.A. No. 8885-VCL (Del. Ch. Feb. 21, 2014).
Why this case matters: This Delaware Court of Chancery decision addresses the restrictions imposed by French law and the Hague Evidence Convention on efforts to take depositions and compel production of documents of French residents–in a pending
Professor Stephen M. Bainbridge is the William D. Warren Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA, a friend of this blog, and a nationally recognized corporate law expert who is often cited in opinions of the Delaware courts. He is a prolific scholar who has written countless books and articles. His latest article examines “reverse veil
Martinez v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Del. Supr., No. 669, 2012 (Feb. 20, 2014).
Why One Should Care About This Decision: This Delaware Supreme Court opinion clarifies the “overwhelming hardship” standard applicable to the law of forum non conveniens and the related Cryo-Maid factors, and affirms a trial court decision
In the Matter of the Rehabilitation of Indemnity Insurance Corp., C.A. No 8601-VCL (Del. Ch. Feb. 19, 2014).
Takeaway: This succinct letter ruling from the Court of Chancery provides one of many examples of why a motion to disqualify counsel based on alleged violations of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct, such
Vichi v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V., C. A. No. 2578-VCP (Del. Ch. Feb. 18, 2014). Why is this case noteworthy: Although the practical application of this decision to the average litigator is not likely to be widespread, this Court of Chancery opinion is notable for a few less conventional reasons. For example, it
Huff Fund Investment Partnership v. CKx, Inc., C.A. No. 6844-VCG (Del. Ch. Feb. 12, 2014).
Why this case is noteworthy: The Court of Chancery addresses the issue of potential “rent-seekers” who may seek to benefit from the application of statutory interest on the amount the Court determines to be the value of stock
Parker v. State, Del. Supr., No. 38, 2013 (Feb. 5, 2014).
Takeaway: The Delaware Supreme Court in this case of first impression applies Rules 104 and 901 of the Delaware Rules of Evidence to determine the standard in Delaware for introduction into evidence at trial of social media entries, such as Facebook. Even