The recent Delaware Chancery Court opinion in Ephrat v. medCPU, Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0052-MTZ (Del. Ch. June 26, 2019), remains noteworthy for two reasons, notwithstanding the large number of advancement decisions interpreting DGCL Section 145 appearing on these pages over the last 14 years: (1) It provides an anthology of prior Delaware decisions granting advancement … Continue Reading
Adding to the multitude of Delaware decisions featured on these pages involving the right of corporate directors and officers to advancement of their fees incurred to defend claims against them, pursuant to DGCL Section 145, or by agreement, we offer highlights of Sider v. Hertz Global Holdings, C.A. No. 2019-0237-KSJM, Order (Del. Ch. June 17, 2019), a … 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
A recent Court of Chancery decision rejected an attempt to recoup advancement based on the terms of an indemnification clause. See Computer Sciences Corporation v. Pulier, C.A. No. 11011-CB (Del. Ch. May 21, 2019), for this recurring issue in Delaware corporate and commercial litigation. Issue Addressed: May a company recoup, via an indemnification claim, the amounts … Continue Reading
A recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision interpreted an indemnification clause and rejected the applicability of equitable defenses to a strictly legal claim. I highlighted the recent decision in NASDI Holdings v. North American Leasing, Inc., C.A. No. 2017-0399-KSJM (Del. Ch. Apr. 8, 2019), in an article published in the current issue of the Delaware … Continue Reading
A recent Delaware Court of Chancery opinion is notable to the extent that it provides another example of how difficult it is to prevail on a claim for reformation of a contract. See In re 11 West Partners, LLC, C.A. No. 2017-0568-SG (Cons.) (Del. Ch. Mar. 20, 2019). Brief Background: This case involves a three-member … Continue Reading
A recent Delaware Court of Chancery opinion provides a reminder of the limited jurisdiction of Delaware’s court of equity and why not all suits for declaratory judgment satisfy the narrow subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. See Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0384-MTZ (Del. Ch. Mar. 26, 2019). Background: … Continue Reading
A recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision is noteworthy for its finding that the adoption of a forum selection bylaw implied consent to jurisdiction to the extent that it required lawsuits by stockholders against the company to be filed in Delaware. See In re: Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 2018-0058-JTL (consol.) (Del. Ch. … Continue Reading
Delaware case law is well-established regarding the aspect of the fiduciary duty of loyalty that prohibits a corporate director from usurping a corporate opportunity. A recent decision from the Delaware Court of Chancery applies that well-settled prohibition in a flexible manner to a set of facts that have apparently not been squarely addressed in prior precedent. … Continue Reading
A recent decision by the Delaware Court of Chancery provides an example of those rare instances where the court refers a violation of legal ethics to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for investigation, as compared to the court itself determining the appropriate penalty. See Charter Communications Operating LLC v. Optymyze, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0865-JTL, … Continue Reading
