A recent Delaware Court of Chancery ruling is a gem, notwithstanding—or maybe because of—its brevity, that addresses the minimum allegations required to seek dissolution of a business entity, and deserves a place in the pantheon of Delaware decisions.  It presents itself to the world in the form of a short and humble Order that simply

The Court of Chancery exercised its discretion to appoint a guardian ad litem to assist the court in determining the appropriate amount to reserve as security for unknown liabilities in connection with dissolving a corporation pursuant to the optional court-supervised procedure contemplated by DGCL Sections 280 and 281(a). In the matter styled In Re Riviera

The Delaware Court of Chancery recently explained the public policy involved, and the applicable criteria used by the court, to determine if “claims-splitting” should require the stay or dismissal of one lawsuit when the same parties are pursuing another lawsuit in another forum based on the same operative facts. In Goureau v. Lemonis, C.A.

16th Annual Review of Key Delaware Corporate and Commercial Decisions

By: Francis G.X. Pileggi and Chauna A. Abner

This is the 16th year that Francis Pileggi has published an annual list of key corporate and commercial decisions of the Delaware Supreme Court and the Delaware Court of Chancery. This list does not attempt to include

There remains a relative paucity of opinions addressing the nuances of the dissolution statute under DGCL Section 280, compared to the Delaware decisions addressing other sections of the DGCL, so we refer to a recent Court of Chancery decision that denies a Motion for Reargument under Rule 59(f) of a ruling that rejected a request

Due to the relative lack of abundant, comprehensive case law analyzing the criteria the court will use to determine the amount of security deemed sufficient for purposes of satisfying DGCL Section 280 in connection with seeking court approval of a dissolution, and related distributions, the recent Court of Chancery decision in the matter of In

Anderson v. Krafft-Murphy Company, Inc., Del. Supr., No. 85-2013 (Nov. 26, 2013).

Issue Presented: Delaware’s Supreme Court addresses issues of first impression in this opinion, including: does Delaware’s corporation dissolution scheme (8 Del. C. Sections 278 to 282) have a “general” statute of limitations for claims by third-parties against dissolved corporations? Short Answer: No.