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

The Delaware Court of Chancery recently dismissed the remaining defendants from a lawsuit that Wanu Water Inc.’s founder filed against directors and shareholders who allegedly conspired to seize control,

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

The Delaware Supreme Court has affirmed the dismissal of a shareholder’s suit against Uber Technologies Inc.’s directors who approved their CEO’s “flawed” purchase of a self-driving car developer run

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

The Court of Chancery has tossed out a shareholder class action that accused Essendant Inc.’s directors and CEO of disloyally jilting merger mate Genuine Parts Co. in favor of

A recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision addressed claims that the CEO of a closely-held company breached the duty of loyalty in connection with unauthorized personal expenses charged to the company, and other actions, while he managed the company–that were not consistent with financial management in the best interest of the company. That decision, in

The Delaware Court of Chancery addressed a bevy of basic corporate litigation principles in the context of claims challenging the actions of directors, and determining which standards of review apply, and which procedural prerequisites need to be satisfied. In Carr v. New Enterprise Associates, Inc., C.A. No. 2017-0381-AGB (Del. Ch. Mar. 26, 2018), claims

An Eckert Seamans associate prepared this overview.

In the Delaware Court of Chancery decision captioned, In re Merge Healthcare Inc. S’holders Litig., C.A. No. 11388-VCG (Del. Ch. Jan. 30, 2017), Vice Chancellor Glasscock applied the business judgment rule and dismissed an action for failure to state fiduciary-related claims.  This opinion is important because

Pfeiffer v. Leedle, C.A. No. 7831-VCP (Del. Ch. Nov. 8, 2013).

Issue Addressed:  Whether the approval of stock option grants that exceeded the maximum number of stock options allowed under the stock incentive plan was the basis for a breach of fiduciary duty claim against both the board that approved it and the