In Matthew v. Flakt Woods Group SA, Del. Supr., No. 150, 2012 (Nov. 20, 2012), the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that Delaware courts could impose jurisdiction on a foreign party involved in this case, based on the “conspiracy theory of jurisdiction”.Photo of the Supreme Court Courthouse in Dover

Quick Background: This well-recognized basis for subjecting non-Delaware parties to the jurisdiction of

Many readers of this blog know that officers and directors of Delaware corporations as well as managers of LLCs, and those who play similar roles in other alternative entities, are subject to personal jurisdiction in Delaware courts based on what are referred to as “implied consent statutes”. In sum, these statutes provide that when one

In Reid v. Siniscalchi, C.A. No. 2874-VCN (May 25, 2012), the Court addressed a request for additional deposition discovery requested by the plaintiff to prove that the Court had jurisdiction over the defendants.

Issue Addressed:

Whether the court had personal jurisdiction over certain corporate defendants (the “Entity Defendants”), and whether the Court should

Professor Eric Chiappinelli challenges the director-consent statute that imposes personal jurisdiction in Delaware over those who serve as directors of Delaware corporations. The good professor has published a provocative article that challenges the validity of this often invoked Delaware statute. The theory behind the so-called “consent statute” is that by virtue of agreeing to be

Matthew v. Laudamiel, C.A. No. 5957-VCN (Del. Ch. March 20, 2012).  The prior decision by the Delaware Court of Chancery in this matter was highlighted on these pages here

Issues Addressed

Whether a final judgment should be entered pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 54(b) against one co-defendant whose motion to dismiss for