delaware corporate litigation

The title of this blog post is a paraphrase from a description in a recent article by Reuters about a case in the Delaware Court of Chancery against The Walt Disney Company, based on Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, that went to trial this past Wednesday. As of this writing, on Sunday

Regular readers of these pages over the last 18 years are familiar with one of the nation’s most prolific corporate law scholars: Professor Stephen Bainbridge, who is often cited in Delaware court decisions. His latest book weighs in on the latest craze in corporate law: ESG considerations in addition to the traditional focus on shareholder

This post was prepared by Frank Reynolds, who has been following Delaware law and writing about it in various publications for over 30 years.

The Chancery Court recently dismissed shareholder charges that AmerisourceBergen Corp. officers and directors breached their Caremark duties, finding insufficient proof that they caused the pharma company to prioritize opioid pill profits

Professor Stephen Bainbridge, a nationally-prominent corporate law professor whose voluminous scholarship is often cited in Delaware corporate law decisions, and who often provides scholarly insights on his eponymous blog, was kind enough to share our annual review of key Delaware corporate decisions via Twitter (now X) with the following high praise, while referring to a

By:  Francis G.X. Pileggi* and Sean M. Brennecke**

Courtesy of the Delaware Business Court Insider, which published this article in two parts (it’s 34-pages long), this is our annual review of key Delaware corporate and commercial decisions.

This year’s list focuses, with some exceptions, on the unsung heroes among the many decisions that have

The Delaware Supreme Court recently provided guidance to corporate litigators regarding the nuances of DGCL Section 220, which most readers recognize as the statute that allows stockholders to demand certain corporate records if the prerequisites in the statute–and those imposed by countless court decisions–have been satisfied. In NVIDIA Corp. v. City of Westmoreland Police and

A recent Delaware Court of Chancery opinion decided a contested mootness fee request in connection with benefits that resulted from stockholder litigation. Instead of the thorough analysis concerning the appropriate amount of the fee award, what one reader thinks is more interesting about the decision, from a historical perspective, is the introduction  which defines the

The current issue of the Delaware Business Court Insider includes an article on the titular topic by yours truly and my colleague Cheneise Wright. Courtesy of the good folks at the Delaware Business Court Insider, and with their permission, it appears below.

Chancery Declines to Follow First-Filed Rule in Advancement Case

By: Francis

The Delaware Supreme Court has announced a revised standard for an important aspect of corporate litigation: the analysis of pre-suit demand futility for purposes of pursuing a derivative stockholder claim, in United Food and Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Fund. v. Zuckerberg, No. 404, 2020 (Del. Sept. 23, 2021).

Before