A recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision is noteworthy for allowing an unusual procedural vehicle as a reply to counterclaims, as well as featuring an unusual initial retort to the counter-counterclaims, in the context of an intricate series of claims between and among parties involved in a dispute about the ouster an initial investor of

In the context of explaining why certain challenges to a stockholders’ agreement were not barred by laches and were otherwise timely, the Delaware Court of Chancery recently recited several enduring fundamental principles of Delaware corporate law and corporate governance in the gem of a decision styled: West Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. Moelis &

In Re Nine Systems Corporation Shareholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 3940-VCN (Del. Ch. July 31, 2013).

Issues addressed: (1) inquiry notice; (2) laches; (3) tolling of the statute of limitations (and whether it is a suspension or renewal) while a class action complaint is pending–and prior to denial of class certification.

Useful Takeaways

In Re: Mobilactive Media, LLC, Consol. C.A. No. 5725-VCP (Del. Ch., Jan. 25, 2013).  What this Case is About:  This decision addresses claims between two members of a joint venture based on both breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.  Both claims were allowed to proceed and both claims prevailed as non-duplicative. 

Miller v. Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adv. No. 12-50713 (PJW) (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 2, 2012).

Tara Lattomus of Eckert Seamans prepared this case summary.

Issue Addressed

Whether the two year statute of limitations or the equitable doctrine of laches applied to claims against attorneys who allegedly conspired with corporate fiduciaries to defraud their