Frank Reynolds, who has been covering Delaware corporate decisions for various national publications for over 40 years, prepared this article.

The Court of Chancery recently recommended that the Delaware Supreme Court deny a quick interlocutory appeal of its decision that a Sears Hometown & Outlet Stores investor is entitled to the full share of the

Rich v. Fuqi Int’l, Inc., C.A. No. 5653-VCG (Del. Ch. Nov. 5, 2012). 

Why this opinion is noteworthy: The Delaware Court of Chancery reaffirms in this pithy opinion that the Delaware General Corporation Law’s requirement in Section 211 that a shareholders’ meeting must be held annually, will not be suspended due to arguably conflicting

Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement Systems v. Pyott, C.A. 5795-VCL (Del. Ch. June 11, 2012).

Issues Addressed

Whether collateral estoppel, Rule 23.1 or Rule 12(b)(6) apply to require the dismissal of a Delaware derivative suit based on the dismissal in California of a related derivative suit in which a federal court granted a Rule 23.1

Klig v. Deloitte LLP, C.A. No. 4993-VCL (Del. Ch. Sept. 7, 2010), read opinion here.

Introduction

This 22-page opinion is must reading for any attorney who: (i) seeks to maintain an attorney-client privilege in Delaware litigation; (ii) needs to prepare a privilege log under Delaware law; (iii) practices in the Delaware Court of Chancery