The following article is reprinted with permission from the Jan. 15, 2020 edition of “The Delaware Business Court Insider”, (c) 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. By: Francis G.X. Pileggi and Chauna A. Abner This is the 15th year that Francis Pileggi and various co-authors have created an annual list of important corporate … Continue Reading
A recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision provides an important lesson about the downside of imprecise drafting, and the need to express with precision how specific risks are to be allocated between the purchaser and seller of a business. In Julius v. Accurus Aerospace Corporation, C.A. No. 2017-0632-MTZ (Del. Ch. Oct. 31, 2019), the court … Continue Reading
A recent Delaware Court of Chancery bench ruling granted advancement in connection with defensive counterclaims against a former officer and director. In Dodelson v. AC Hold Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2019-0029-SG (transcript) (Del. Ch. May 21, 2019), the court interpreted the provisions of a charter with advancement provisions, and reasoned that advancement was warranted. An … Continue Reading
An Eckert Seamans associate prepared this overview. In a recent letter opinion in the case styled Vento v. Curry, C.A. No. 2017-0157-AGB, Chancellor Bouchard granted the plaintiff’s motion to preliminarily enjoin a stockholder vote until information regarding the company’s financial advisor’s interests had been fully disclosed. Background: Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc.’s (the “Company”) sought to … Continue Reading
Top Ten 2013 Delaware Corporate and Commercial Decisions By: Francis G.X. Pileggi and Kevin F. Brady This is our ninth annual review of key Delaware corporate and commercial decisions. During 2013, we reviewed and summarized over 200 decisions from Delaware’s Supreme Court and Court of Chancery on corporate and commercial issues. Among the decisions with … Continue Reading
Grace v. Ashbridge LLC, C.A. No. 8348-VCN (Del. Ch. Dec. 31, 2013). Issue Addressed: Whether a successor entity was liable for advancement and indemnification claims based on the operating agreement of a successor entity LLC even though the sole allegations involve a predecessor entity and a related entity. Short Answer: No. Brief Overview: An understanding … Continue Reading
Darby Emerging Market Fund, L.P. v. Ryan, Consol. C.A. No. 8381-VCP (Del. Ch. Nov. 27, 2013). This Chancery decision addressed whether the Court had equitable jurisdiction over a dispute among shareholders of a foreign entity. Delaware’s court of equity relied on the well-worn “clean up doctrine”, which allows it to exercise equitable jurisdiction over an … Continue Reading
Costantini v. Swiss Farm Stores Acquisition LLC, C.A. No. 8613-VCG (Del. Ch. Sept. 5, 2013). A subsequent decision in this case was highlighted on these pages here. Issue Presented: Whether a non-manager of an LLC was entitled to indemnification based on the terms of the LLC agreement. Short Answer: Not based on the applicable terms. … Continue Reading
Winshall v. Viacom International, Inc., Del. Supr., No. 39, 2013 (Oct. 8, 2013). Issue Addressed: The Supreme Court affirmed a Chancery ruling that Viacom was not entitled to contractual indemnification, and thus was required to release escrow funds. A prior Supreme Court decision in this case from July 2013, regarding arbitrability, was highlighted on these pages … Continue Reading
Grove v. Brown, C.A. No. 6793-VCG (Del. Ch. Aug. 8, 2013) Issues Addressed: This post-trial opinion addresses issues involved in a 4-person LLC whose members disputed: (1) what specific ownership interest each had in the LLC; (2) the impact of a member not contributing the required amount of start-up capital; (3) whether there was an … Continue Reading
The Sequoia Presidential Yacht Group LLC v. FE Partners LLC, C.A. No. 8270-VCG (Del. Ch. July 15, 2013). This ruling amplifies the relative paucity of judicial interpretation of the rather new Court of Chancery Rule 5.1 that defines the standard that must be met before filings with the court will be kept confidential or redacted … Continue Reading
Cartanza v. Cartanza, C.A. No. 7618-VCP (Del. Ch. July 8, 2013). Bottom line: This short letter ruling amplified the reasoning in the court’s prior decision in this case, highlighted here, in which the court awarded fees in connection with a motion to compel a deposition. The point of this short post is to serve as … Continue Reading
Gerber v. Enterprise Products Holdings, LLC, Del. Supr., No. 46, 2012 (June 10, 2013). Issue Presented: This seminal Delaware Supreme Court decision addresses the important, nuanced issue of whether a contract provision that presumes good faith can preclude a claim for a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Short Answer: … Continue Reading
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 … Continue Reading
Brinckerhoff v. Enbridge Energy Company, Inc., Del. Supr., No. 574, 2011 (May 28, 2013). This is the third Delaware Supreme Court decision in two consecutive business days that addressed the issue of good faith in the context of an agreement. This is the second decision on the same day that addressed the provision in an LP … Continue Reading
Norton v. K-Sea Transportation Partners, L.P., Del. Supr., No. 238, 2012 (May 28, 2013). This Delaware Supreme Court decision is the second in consecutive business days that addresses the concept of good faith in the contractual context. See SIGA Technologies, Inc. v. PharmAthene, Inc., highlighted on these pages. (Photo: Supreme Court Building in Dover.) Issue … Continue Reading
The current issue of the Delaware Journal of Corporate Law that recently came in the mail, Volume 37, No. 3 (2013), includes a reprinting of the new Practice Guidelines recently promulgated by the Court of Chancery, and also features an introduction to those new court “de facto rules” by Kevin F. Brady and Francis G.X. … Continue Reading
SIGA Technologies, Inc. v. PharmAthene, Inc., Del. Supr., No. 314, 2012 (May 24, 2013). This Delaware Supreme Court decision was the subject of a BloombergBusinessweek article on Sunday, May 26. The Court of Chancery’s opinion was highlighted on these pages at this link. Also, several other prior Chancery decisions in this case were also outlined on … Continue Reading
United Health Alliance, LLC v. United Medical, LLC, C.A. No. 7710-VCP (Del. Ch. May 6, 2013). Issue Addressed: Whether a post-mediation e-mail by a mediator is admissible for purposes of enforcing the terms of a settlement reportedly reached during mediation. Short Answer: No. Brief Overview This short but useful decision describes a situation involving a mediation during … Continue Reading
Whittington v. Dragon Group LLC, C.A. No. 2291-VCP (Del. Ch. May 1, 2013). Multiple prior decisions in this case have been highlighted on these pages and they provide more background details for the interested reader. Issue Addressed: Whether a settlement agreement needs to be fully executed by all parties in order to be enforceable. Short Answer: No. … Continue Reading
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: They can be. … Continue Reading
Edgewater Growth Capital Partners L.P. v. H.I.G. Capital, Inc., C.A. No. 3601-CS (Del. Ch. April 18, 2013). This ruling explains both an issue about attorneys’ fees and the revision of a previous Chancery opinion in this case highlighted on these pages here. Issue Addressed: The standard that applies to award fees pursuant to the terms of a … Continue Reading
Simplexity, LLC v. Zeinfeld, C.A. No. 8171-VCG (Del. Ch. April 5, 2013) (Redacted Version) Issue Addressed: This case involves a dispute between two companies over the hiring of the former CEO of Simplexity, Andrew Zeinfeld. (The publication of this opinion was delayed while confidential data was redacted.) Short Overview Simplexity contends that Zeinfeld’s employment with … Continue Reading
Baden-Wurttenberg v. Walton Seattle Mezz Holdings VI-B, LLC, C.A. No. 7933-VCG (Del. Ch. April 1, 2013). This decision applies the familiar first-filed rule, and on that basis stayed this action in favor of a prior-filed lawsuit in the state of Washington Very Short Overview This case involves the growing phenomenon in corporate litigation of multiple … Continue Reading
