The Delaware Supreme Court recently issued a highly anticipated decision in Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi, No. 346-2019 (Del. Mar. 18, 2020). Many law professors and other commentators have written much learned commentary and published extensive scholarly analysis of the issues raised in the Court of Chancery’s decision, and have opined on what the Supreme Court
Chancery: AmTrust squeeze-out must face stiff review after failing MFW controlling shareholder test
This post was prepared by Frank Reynolds, who has been following Delaware corporate law, and writing about it for various legal publications, for over 30 years.
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently ruled that AmTrust, Inc.’s controlling shareholders’ go-private buyout of the insurer must be reviewed under the harsh light of the entire fairness standard
Blockchain Technology and Delaware Corporate Law
The Delaware General Corporation Law was amended last summer to allow companies to maintain their corporate records using blockchain technology. The purpose of this short post is to provide a high-level overview of this evolving intersection of technology and corporate law that will have an increasingly profound impact on corporate governance and related areas of
Chancery Discusses Revlon in Context of Granting Option to Sell Company
The Delaware Court of Chancery addressed a bevy of basic corporate litigation principles in the context of claims challenging the actions of directors, and determining which standards of review apply, and which procedural prerequisites need to be satisfied. In Carr v. New Enterprise Associates, Inc., C.A. No. 2017-0381-AGB (Del. Ch. Mar. 26, 2018), claims
Chancery Explains Safest Deal Structure to Defend M & A Challenges
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Volgenau, C.A. No. 6354-VCN (Del. Ch. Aug. 5, 2005)
Issue addressed: This Chancery opinion explains the procedures to follow in order to benefit from the business judgment rule’s deferential standard of review for a merger that involves a controlling shareholder and a third-party.
This decision provides a road map
Key Corporate and Commercial Delaware Decisions for First Five Months of 2013
Among the key corporate and commercial Delaware decisions that we have highlighted on these pages during the first five months of 2013, the following decisions either clarified existing Delaware law or announced new law on important substantive or procedural topics. This is a supplement to the annual review of cases we have provided on this
Delaware Fiduciary Duty of Disclosure Explained by Chancery
In re Wayport, Inc. Litigation, Cons., C.A. No. 4167-VCL (Del. Ch. May 1, 2013).
Issues Addressed: Among the several issues addressed in this case, the most noteworthy is a fulsome discussion and restatement of the fiduciary duty of disclosure that directors and majority shareholders owe to other existing shareholders from whom they are
Attorney/Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine Again Addressed by Chancery
AM General Holdings LLC v. The Renco Group, Inc., C.A. No. 7639-VCN (Del. Ch. April 18, 2013). A prior Chancery decision in this case was highlighted on these pages at this link.
Issue Addressed: Whether the attorney/client privilege and the work product doctrine are defenses to a motion to compel.
Short Answer:
Supreme Court Reverses Chancery on Collateral Estoppel/Demand Futility and Section 220 Issues
Pyott v. Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System, No. 380, 2012 (Del. Supr., April 4, 2013)
Issues Addressed: (1) Whether or not a prior ruling by a California court dismissing a derivative suit served as a bar to subsequent Delaware derivative suits; and (2) Whether the failure to use Section 220 before filing suit
Chancery Addresses Right to Direct Claim for Dilution of Minority Shareholders
Carsanaro v. Bloodhound Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 7301-VCP (Del. Ch. March 15, 2013).
This 76-page Chancery decision addresses issues that include the following: (1) when a claim for dilution of minority shares can be pursued directly instead of, or in addition to, derivately; (2) restrictions imposed by DGCL Section 160 on the right to redeem