equitable jurisdiction

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 decided Zhongpin Inc. shareholders’ battle to force the food processor’s director and officer insurer to pay the $41.3 million Chancery Court judgment they

Darby Emerging Market Fund, L.P. v. Ryan,  Consol. C.A. No. 8381-VCP (Del. Ch. Nov. 27, 2013).

This Chancery decision addressed whether the Court had equitable jurisdiction over a dispute among shareholders of a foreign entity. Delaware’s court of equity relied on the well-worn “clean up doctrine”, which allows it to exercise equitable jurisdiction over an

National Industries Group (Holding) v. Carlyle  Investment Management LLC, Del. Supr., No. 596, 2012 (May 29, 2013).

Issues Addressed: Enforceability of a forum selection clause, and the prerequisites to vacate a judgment under Court of Chancery Rule 60(b)(6).

Brief Background

This case involved a dispute between two sophisticated entities. One was based in Kuwait

In Testa v. Nixon Uniform Co., (Del. Ch., Nov. 18, 2008), the Chancery Court rejected an argument that it had equitable or other jurisdiction over a claim that in essence, was for a form of compensation but  importantly that compensation claim did not give the departing employee any right to stock, despite an effort to use DGCL Section

Hillsboro Energy, LLC v. Secure Energy, Inc., (Del. Ch., Oct. 3, 2008), read opinion here. The introductory paragraph of the opinion provides the best overview of the case:

This case exemplifies the old adage: If it walks like a duck, and quacks like duck, it’s probably a duck. Despite plaintiff’s ingenious arguments to the