An insider’s view of the recent Delaware legislation banning fee-shifting bylaws is provided by Professor Lawrence Hamermesh and Norman Monhait as published in this post from the Institute of Delaware Corporate and Business Law. This is must reading for anyone who seeks to understand the nuances of this new legislation. In sum, the good
New Law Signed to Limit Fee-Shifting and Enforce Delaware Forum Selection
The Delaware Governor today signed legislation discussed on these pages previously, that: (i) limits the ability to provide, in bylaws or a corporate charter, for the imposition of fee-shifting on plaintiffs who sue corporations or their directors/officers; and (ii) validates the selection of Delaware as a forum for litigation involving internal affairs, and prevents the
Chancery Addresses Conflicting Representation of Director by Counsel for Adverse Party
Partners Healthcare Solutions Holdings, L.P. v. Universal American Corp., C.A. No. 9593-VCG (Del. Ch. June 17, 2015). This Delaware Chancery decision provides useful guidance on a situation involving a director who was designated by a major stockholder pursuant to an agreement giving that stockholder the right, but not the obligation, to appoint an independent
Supreme Court Rejects Malicious Prosecution/Fee-Shifting Claim
Blue Hen Mechanical, Inc. v. Christian Brothers Risk Pooling Trust, Del. Supr., No. 589, 2014 (Del. June 15, 2015). This Delaware Supreme Court opinion has practical application for corporate litigators and civil litigators generally, due to the manner in which it addresses: (i) how to deal with suits filed allegedly in bad faith; and (ii)
Dissolution of Profitable LLC Granted Despite Agreement Barring Voluntary Dissolution
Meyer Natural Foods LLC v. Duff, C.A. No. 9703-VCN (Del. Ch., June 4, 2015). This Court of Chancery letter ruling is noteworthy to the extent that the Court granted dissolution of an LLC despite: (i) no deadlock (one member owned 51%); (ii) an ongoing profitable company; (iii) language in the LLC agreement barring voluntary
Supreme Court Rules on Appeal of Liquor License Dispute
This is a guest article from Ciro Poppiti, III, Esquire, the Register of Wills for New Castle County, Delaware, and a frequent commentator on food-and-beverage law.
Office of the Commissioner, Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Appeals Commissioner, Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Control, and Lex-Pac, Inc. d/b/a Hak’s Sport’s Bar & Restaurant (Del. June 2, 2015).
Takeaway
Chancery Awards Fees Based on “Gross Value of Settlement”
In re Jefferies Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Cons. C.A. No. 8059-CB (Del. Ch. June 5, 2015). This Delaware Court of Chancery letter ruling describes the standards that apply to a request for attorneys’ fees in connection with the settlement of a class action. This action arose out of a stock-for-stock merger of Jefferies Group
Second Amendment Appellate Advocacy Award
A few months ago, I was honored to receive the Chief Justice William Killen Award for Second Amendment Appellate Advocacy in connection with winning a unanimous en banc decision by the Delaware Supreme Court in Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority. That decision, based on the Delaware Constitution’s analog to the Second Amendment, recognized a
Claim Based on Disclosure of Confidential Data Allowed to Proceed
Akzo Nobel Codings Inc. v. The Dow Chemical Company, C.A. No. 8666-VCP (Del. Ch. June 5, 2015).
This Delaware Court of Chancery opinion is useful for its analysis of a claim for breach of a contractual duty to maintain the confidence of certain information. Applying unremarkable standard contract interpretation principles, the court determined that
Chancery Interprets Rule 54(b)
Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, Illinois v. DV Realty Advisors LLC, C.A. No. 7204-VCN (Del. Ch. May 28, 2015). This letter ruling is useful for purposes of discussing the criteria that the court will apply to determine whether the court’s decision on one of multiple claims can be treated as final for