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
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
Court Rejects Effort to Disqualify Appraiser Ex Ante
A new Delaware Chancery ruling is useful for its analysis of when a prospective member of an arbitration panel, or in this case an appraiser, should be disqualified based on a prior relationship with one of the law firms or the parties involved in the case–or a failure to disclose such prior affiliation. In rejecting
New Rules for Delaware Rapid Arbitration Act
Delaware’s newly adopted Rapid Arbitration Act, as previously explained on these pages, is intended to provide a procedure for expedited resolution of major commercial disputes, as an alternative to conventional corporate and commercial litigation, with assistance from the Court of Chancery to implement the parties’ agreement to follow the new procedure, subject to limited
Defenses to Advancement Based on Conditions in Agreement Rejected
Blankenship v. Alpha Appalachia Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 10610-CB (Del. Ch., May 28, 2015). This is the latest Chancery decision in a long series of recent Delaware decisions (and one of two opinions handed down today), rejecting defenses to advancement claims by former directors and officers. At least one member of the Court of Chancery
Chancery Addresses Advancement Claim for Offensive v. Defensive Litigation
Mooney v. Echo Therapeutics, Inc., C. A. No. 10054-VCP (Del. Ch. May 28, 2015). This is one of two Chancery decisions in separate matters handed down today on the issue of advancement of fees for directors. Noteworthy is the Order the Court issued on the same date as the opinion, requiring what are now
Chancery Awards $72 Million in Fees for Settlement of Class and Derivative Suit
In Re Activision Blizzard, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Cons. C.A. No. 8885-VCL (Del. Ch. May 20, 2015). This Delaware Court of Chancery opinion refers to the settlement of $275 million in this case as the largest derivative settlement, and awards fees and expenses of $72.5 million to lead counsel. The fee award was based both
Chancery Explains Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel and Acquiescence
Brevan Howard Credit Catalyst Master Fund Limited v. Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc., C.A. No. 9209-VCG (Del. Ch. May 19, 2015). This letter decision explains the nuances and elements of the following principles on which it granted a motion to dismiss: res judicata, collateral estoppel and acquiescence. The first two deal with issue preclusion. Res
Court of Chancery Subjects Director Compensation Claims to Entire Fairness Test
Calma v. Templeton, C.A. No. 9579-CB (Del. Ch. April 30, 2015). This Delaware Court of Chancery opinion is must reading for anyone advising a board on the procedure to follow for board determinations of compensation for fellow board members to the extent that one hopes to secure the benefits of the deferential business judgment