In another Delaware “first in the nation,” Vice Chancellor Laster of the Court of Chancery on October 15, 2012, in EORHB, Inc. v. HOA Holdings LLC (C.A. No. 7409-VCL) ordered the parties to “show cause” why computer assisted review should not be used for discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”) in that matter.  After a

Aequitas Solutions, Inc. v. Anderson, et al., C.A. No. 7249-ML (September 28, 2012).

Issue Presented:

Whether a Section 225 action fails to state a claim where plaintiff was not seeking relief against the defendant in his individual capacity and the defendant did not purport to be a director, officer or shareholder of the

Czarninski Baier de Adler v. Upper New York Investment Company, LLC, C.A. No. 6896-VCN (Sept. 28, 2012). 

Why is this case important?  This decision addresses some of the practical problems parties face when dealing with multi-national related litigation and protective orders limiting who can review discovery.  In this case, the individuals in question

In the August edition of the ABA’s Business Law Today, the Business Section’s Committee on Director and Officer Liability (under the very capable direction of James Wing of Holland & Knight) has just issued a brief commentary and a checklist for use by corporate counsel who must manage the creation or renewal of an executive

Hospitalists Of Delaware, LLC v. Lutz, C.A. No. 6221-VCP (Aug. 28, 2012)

In this derivative and direct action, the plaintiffs, two judgment creditors of defendant Cubit Medical Practice Solutions, Inc., a dissolved Delaware corporation, accused Cubit’s three directors, its controlling stockholder, and three other entities within the same corporate family of participating in an

Delaware Coalition for Open Government v. Hon. Leo E. Strine, Jr., et al., D. Del. C.A. No. 1:11-1015 (Aug. 30, 2012).

Issue Presented:

Do the Court of Chancery’s confidential arbitration proceedings violate the First Amendment’s qualified right of access?

Answer:  Yes.  As a general rule, proceedings cannot be closed to the public except in

Huff Fund Inv. P’ship v. CKx Inc., C. A. No. 6844-VCG (Del. Ch.) (August 15, 2012).

Issue Presented:

In this appraisal action, is the relevance of the financial information of Fox Broadcasting, a non¬party to the litigation and the merger, regarding American Idol outweighed by the potential harm the disclosure of that information would