Sutherland v. Sutherland, C.A. No. 2399-VCN (Del. Ch. May 30, 2013).

Issue Addressed:  Whether certain directors violated their fiduciary duties by benefiting from a system of charging for administrative expenses for personal matters that was more favorable to certain directors.

Short Answer:  No.

BackgroundMany prior Delaware decisions in this long-running

Carsanaro v. Bloodhound Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 7301-VCP (Del. Ch. March 15, 2013).

This 76-page Chancery decision addresses issues that include the following: (1) when a claim for dilution of minority shares can be pursued directly instead of, or in addition to, derivately; (2) restrictions imposed by DGCL Section 160 on the right to redeem

Rhodes v. SilkRoad Equity, LLC,  Del. Ch., No. 2133-VCN (April 15, 2009), read letter opinion here. Prior opinions in this case from the Delaware Chancery Court were reviewed on this blog here.

Kevin Brady, a highly respected Delaware litigator, provides us with the benefit of his following review of this Delaware Chancery Court decision.

On April 15