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
Rule 15
Chancery Allows Supplement to Complaint
By Francis Pileggi on
Posted in Court of Chancery Updates
In Gerber v. ECE Holdings, LLC, C.A. No. 3543-VCN (Del. Ch. Sept. 29, 2011), the Court of Chancery addressed a motion to both amend and supplement a complaint.
Issues Addressed
The differences between a motion to supplement and a motion to amend a complaint, as well as whether Rule 15 (aaa) bars a motion to…
Chancery Addresses Claims That Ex-Employees of Agilent Took Trade Secrets to Start New Company
By Francis Pileggi on
Posted in Court of Chancery Updates
Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Kirkland, (Del. Ch., Jan. 20, 2009), read opinion here.
The common fact pattern addressed in this Chancery Court decision: ex-employee’s former employer alleges that confidential data taken from former employer is being used against it by ex-employee in new business.
This case began with claims involving allegedly false statements about a party’s products to…
Court Allows Amended Complaint Despite Motion to Dismiss
By Francis Pileggi on
Posted in Court of Chancery Updates
Sutherland v. Sutherland, 2008 WL 3021024 (Aug. 5, 2008).
This is an example of the Chancery Court’s practical side which allows it to cut to the chase and avoid unnecessary procedural entanglements. In this case, despite a Motion to Dismiss that was pending, and in light of the multiple proceedings that ensued after the motion…