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.

In the Matter of Krafft-Murphy Company, Inc., C.A. No. 6049-VCP (Del. Ch. Feb. 4, 2013).

Issue Addressed

This case addresses a question of first impression in Delaware: Whether a receiver should be appointed more than 10-years after the dissolution of a Delaware corporation when the dissolved corporation’s only assets are liability insurance policies.  The

In the recent decision styled as: In The Matter of Krafft-Murphy Co., Inc., CA No. 6049-VCP (Del. Ch. Nov. 9, 2011), read opinion here, the Court addressed the unusual and novel issue of whether a receiver can be appointed under 8 Del. C. § 279 for a dissolved insulation company for claimants who suffered