Posts from 2005

Court of Chancery Holds that Unitholders in Private Equity Fund Can Inspect Books and Records After Fund Loses 75% of Value

Forsythe v. CIBC Employee Private Equity Fund, C.A. No. 657-N, 2005 WL 1653963 (Del. Ch. July 7, 2005). Plaintiffs Forsythe and Tesche, who were unitholders in a Delaware limited partnership, brought an action to inspect the books and records. At the close of trial, two issues remained for post-trial briefing: (1) whether the plaintiffs stated a proper purpose; and (2) whether plaintiffs had a right to demand inspection of documents held or under the control of an entity other than the general partner. More › Share

Court of Chancery Denies Request for Permanent Injunction Against Shareholder Seeking to Challenge Merger-After Merger is Consummated

Examen, Inc. v. VantagePoint Venture Partners 1996, C.A. No. 1142-N, 2005 WL 1653959 (Del. Ch. July 7, 2005). Johnson v. VantagePoint Venture Partners 1996, C.A. No. 1260-N, 2005 WL 1653959 (Del. Ch. July 7, 2005). This case arose out of an earlier dispute in which VantagePoint Venture Partners ("VantagePoint"), an investor holding the majority of a series of preferred stock in Examen, Inc. ("Examen"), a Delaware corporation, sought to veto a merger between Examen and a Delaware subsidiary of Reed Elsevier Inc. VantagePoint argued for a determination that under California law the holders of the series of preferred stock issued by Examen had a right to a class vote in the merger. But the Court of Chancery held that California law did not apply and that all of the stockholders were permitted to vote on the proposed merger. More › Share

Court of Chancery Denies Preliminary Injunction to Business Partner Who Alleges Breach of Confidentiality and Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

Nutzz.com v. Vertrue Inc., C.A. No. 1231-N, 2005 WL 1653974 (Del. Ch. July 6, 2005). Plaintiff Nutzz.com ("Nutzz") sought a preliminary injunction against defendant Vertrue Inc. ("Vertrue"), a company with which Nutzz contracted to develop an online membership program for NASCAR fans. After Vertrue terminated the agreement (claiming that Nutzz missed deadlines and promotion requirements), it sent an email to 1,200 Nutzz members advertising Vertrue's own membership program as an upgrade. Nutzz claimed that Vertrue's actions constituted a breach of their confidentiality agreement and a misappropriation of trade secrets. More › Share

Court of Chancery Refuses to Pierce Corporate Veil or Impose Successor Liability to Enable a Former Employee to Recover Judgment

Mason v. Network of Wilmington, Inc., C.A. No. 19434-NC, 2005 WL 1653954 (Del. Ch. July 1, 2005). Plaintiff won an employment discrimination suit against Network Personnel, Inc. ("Personnel"), a Delaware corporation solely owned by defendant Barry Schlecker ("Schlecker"). But plaintiff was unable to collect on the judgment, so she sought to recover from Schlecker personally by piercing the corporate veil and recovering from his new company, Network of Wilmington ("Network"), under a theory of successor liability. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. More › Share

Court of Chancery Finds Genuine Issue of Material Fact Regarding Disinterestedness of Board of Acquisition Target

IN RE FREEPORT-MCMORAN SULPHUR, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION., C.A. No. 16729, 2005 WL 1653923 (Del.Ch. June 30, 2005) In a shareholder class action, the plaintiffs sought relief alleging an unfair exchange ratio in a stock-for-stock merger of two public companies. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court of Chancery denied Defendant's Motion. More › Share

Federal Court Denies Motions To Dismiss Finding Plaintiff Sufficiently Alleged Insider Trading And Group Liability

Segen v. Comvest Venture Partners, LP., C.A. No. 04-822 JJF, 2005 WL 1320875 (D.Del. June 2, 2005). This opinion decided two motions to dismiss the Complaint. The motions were filed by two sub-groups of defendants, referred to as the "ComVest Defendants" and the "Priddy Defendants" for convenience. The Court denied both motions because they relied upon the same grounds and arguments. More › Share

Court of Chancery Denies Motion for Temporary Injunction Where Breakup Fee Is Alleged To Be Too High

In re Toys "R" Us Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 1212-N, 877 A.2d 975 (Del. Ch. June 24, 2005) The Court of Chancery considered a motion to enjoin a vote of the stockholders of Toys "R" Us, Inc. to consider approving a merger with an acquisition vehicle formed by a group led by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, the Toys "R" Us stockholders would receive $26.75 per share for their shares. The $26.75 per share merger consideration constituted a 123% premium over the price of TRU stock when merger negotiations began in January 2004. Plaintiffs charged the board did not act reasonably in pursuit of the highest attainable value. The Court of Chancery denied the motion to enjoin a stockholder vote on the proposed merger, saying stockholders could stop the merger by voting if they thought it was unfair More › Share

Superior Court Excludes Plaintiff's Experts Pursuant to Defendant's Daubert Motion

Bowen v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc., C.A. No. 97C-06-194 CH, 2005 WL 1952859 (Del. Super. Ct. June 23, 2005), aff'd, 906 A.2d 787 (Del. 2006). In this case, the plaintiffs, eight minor children and their parents, alleged that the children suffered from birth defects because of an agricultural product called Benlate. Alleging that certain of the experts for one of the plaintiffs were unqualified and that their opinions were unreliable, the defendant brought a Daubert motion pursuant to Delaware Rule of Evidence 702 to exclude their testimony regarding one of the minor children. The Court found for the defendants, and excluded the experts' testimony More › Share

Superior Court finds that Defendant Breached Contract By Failing to Pay Invoices and Waived Any Right to Claim Fraudulent Misrepresentation as a Defense

Immedient Corp. v. HealthTrio, Inc., C.A. No. 01C-08-216 RRC, 2005 WL 1953027 (Del. Super. Ct. June 22, 2005). The plaintiff brought an action for breach of contract, and the defendant counterclaimed for fraudulent misrepresentation. Following a non-jury trial, the Court found that the defendant breached the contract, and had waived its right to claim fraudulent misrepresentation on part of the plaintiff. More › Share

Court of Chancery Dismissed Claim for Indemnification Where Plaintiff Was Not Employed by Defendant

Paul A. Flynn v. CIBC World Markets Corp., C.A. No. 976-N, 2005 WL 1538337 (Del. Ch. June 21, 2005) In an action for summary adjudication pursuant to 8 Del. C. Sec. 145(k), Plaintiff's claim of right to advancement and reimbursement of legal fees was dismissed because the Plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant. More › Share

Court of Chancery Protects Certain Materials Obtained Through Section 220 Action as Confidential

Roy E. Disney v. The Walt Disney Company, C.A. No. 234-N, 2005 WL 1538336 (Del. Ch. June 20, 2005). The Court of Chancery considered the confidentiality of certain documents on remand from the Supreme Court. Plaintiff moved to lift a confidentiality designation placed on ten documents. More › Share

Federal Court Excludes Expert Testimony As Irrelevant Under The Daubert Standard.

iGames Entertainment, Inc. v. Chex Services, Inc., C.A. No. 04-180-KAJ, 2005 WL 3657156 (D.Del. June 9, 2005). This matter springs from a commercial dispute. The present opinion pertains to plaintiff's Daubert Motion seeking to exclude a part of the proposed expert testimony of defendants' expert. The expert intended to testify on accounting matters. The Court granted plaintiff's motion holding that the challenged parts of the proposed testimony failed the test of relevancy. More › Share

Superior Court Dismisses the Action Because Statue of Limitations for Fraud had Expired

Reading Int'l, Inc. v. St. Francis, C.A. No. 02C-10-223 SCD, 2005 WL 1654343 (Del. Super. Ct. June 17, 2005). The plaintiffs brought an action for fraud, alleging that the value of certain equipment the plaintiffs purchased in 1996 was not as the defendants represented. One of the defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired. Treating the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment, the court dismissed the action against the defendant because the statute had expired. More › Share

Federal Court Declines To Exercise Jurisdiction Involving Predominantly State Law Claims

In Re Litigation Trust of MDIP, Inc., No. Civ.A. No. 03-779GMS, 2005 WL 1242157 (D.Del. May 25, 2005). The Court considered six motions in this action: (1) motion to dismiss Count I, seeking to recover damages from directors for breach of fiduciary duties of care, duty and loyalty and to dismiss Count II, asserting a claim for damages against director Rapoport; (2) a motion for partial summary judgment on both counts above; (3) a motion to strike the plaintiff's summary judgment affidavits; (4) a motion to strike the plaintiff's jury demand; (5) a motion in limine for exclusion of evidence and testimony not disclosed in plaintiff's responses and contention interrogatories; and (6) a motion in limine to preclude evidence relating to events that took place prior to August 6, 1998. The Court granted the motions to dismiss Counts I and II but denied the other motions as moot to the extent they related to Counts I and II. More › Share

Court of Chancery Denies Motion to Dismiss Complaint Where Board Materially Misled Shareholders About Search For New CEO

Shamrock Holdings, et al. v. The Walt Disney Co., et al., C.A. No. 1330-N, 2005 WL 1377490 (Del. Ch. June 6, 2005) Plaintiff dissident shareholders seek to void the result of a corporate election of directors, to compel the company to make full and fair disclosure of the CEO selection process, and (following such disclosure) compel another election of directors. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint. The Court of Chancery denied the Motion. More › Share