An associate in the Delaware office of Eckert Seamans prepared this overview.

The Court of Chancery opinion in Horne v. OptimisCorp, C.A. No. 12268-VCS (Del. Ch. Mar. 3, 2017) explores Delaware’s indemnification provisions.

Background:  Plaintiff William Horne (“Horne”) brought an action for indemnification for fees and expenses against OptimisCorp (the “Company”).  Horne’s fees

The Delaware Association of Second Amendment Lawyers will present its Third Annual Delaware Firearms Law Seminar on October 6, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. in Wilmington, Delaware, at the Doubletree Hotel. The foregoing hyperlink has more details, but in addition to nationally-recognized constitutional law scholars, two members of the Delaware judiciary will be making a presentation

Generally, a successful claim for advancement of legal fees for a former director or officer entitles the prevailing party to “fees on fees” incurred for obtaining the favorable ruling. A recent ruling from the newest member of the Delaware Court of Chancery explains the limitations or the contours of that general rule. In Wong v.

The Court of Chancery recently reiterated its expectations of Delaware discovery conduct at a hearing in Medicalgorithmics S.A. v. AMI Monitoring, Inc., C.A. No. 10948-CB (Transcript).  Notable among the Court’s comments at the hearing were:

  • The Court stressed the importance of attorney review of documents before production, saying that, absent a “quick-peek” agreement, attorney involvement

Bloomberg BNA is sponsoring a panel discussion on proposed amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL), such as a ban on fee-shifting bylaws in corporate litigation, that are expected to be passed by the legislature this month. The discussion will be on Twitter at 2:00 p.m. ET on June 3, 2015.

The panel includes

2009 Caiola Family Trust v. PWA, LLC, C.A. No. 8028-VCP (Del. Ch. Dec. 18, 2014).

This Delaware Court of Chancery opinion involves litigation over the management of a Delaware limited liability company formed to operate a residential apartment complex.  The plaintiffs are non-managing members of the company that owns 90% of membership interests and