About This Blog
Summaries and analysis of recent Delaware court decisions concerning business-related litigation.
Subscribe to Blog
JDSupra RSS
Join us on LinkedIn
Follow us on TwitterTopics
Top Posts
Top News
- February 19, 2021
- October 30, 2020
- April 1, 2024
Archives
Morris James Blogs
Showing 2 posts from July 2024.
Chancery Determines Pharmaceutical Company Complied with Merger Agreement’s Requirement To Use Commercially Reasonable Efforts
Himawan v. Cephalon, Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0075-SG (Del. Ch. Apr. 30, 2024)
Stockholder representatives of an acquired corporation brought claims alleging that defendants had failed to use contractually-required commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize an acquired drug asset for a particular use. Under the terms of the merger agreement, the acquirer had paid $250 million in immediate consideration, agreed to a framework for milestone payments following regulatory approval for two separate uses, and retained discretion for operating the post-merger business, subject to a requirement that it use defined “commercially reasonable efforts” to develop and commercialize the drug for each use. Ultimately, after engaging regulatory authorities and deeming there to be dim prospects for success for one use, the acquirer did not persist in securing regulatory approval and bringing the drug to market for that purpose, and therefore did not reach the milestones associated with that use. More ›
Chancery Determines LLC Agreement Required Payment to Remove Manager
Soleimani v. Hakkak, C.A. No. 2023-0948-LWW (Del. Ch. Apr. 12, 2024)
The defendants attempted to remove a manager-employee of several limited liability companies. The manager filed suit, and the parties moved for summary judgment regarding the removal’s effectiveness. The Court of Chancery determined that the relevant contracts’ unambiguous language required the defendants to first have made certain payments to the manager to remove him. The Court explained that the defendants had a right to remove the manager, but that right to terminate did not necessarily mean the termination is unconditional or immediate. The contracts’ unambiguous language established a condition precedent: the defendants could remove the manager once they removed him as an employee, provided that they first paid him the fair market value of his interest. Under ambiguous contractual language, completing that payment was a condition precedent to effective removal, not a post-removal requirement. The defendants’ failure to make the payments rendered their attempt to remove the manager ineffective.
