Albert H. Manwaring, IV

Chancery Dismisses Claims Relating to Proposed Financing of Italian Soccer Club

Feldman v. AS Roma SPV GP, LLC, C.A. No. 2020-0314-PAF (Del. Ch. July 22, 2021)
In Feldman, plaintiffs were minority members of a Delaware limited liability company that held a controlling interest in a premier Italian soccer club. The LLC’s managing member and its controllers and associated entities sought to exit their control investment in the club. A sales process stalled during the coronavirus pandemic. The controllers called for additional capital from existing members on a pro rata basis, either through new financing or conversion of debt, in exchange for units with priority status and liquidation preferences. The controllers approved a related amendment to the LLC agreement. Due to insufficient interest from members, the controllers instead proposed a financing transaction that included member loans with certain preferences, such as premium payments in the event of the company’s sale. Eighty percent of membership interests participated in the loans. Soon after, a sale of the club was announced. More ›

Share

Chancery Confirms Operation of Savings Statute and Tortious Interference Framework in Dispute Involving Fiduciaries with Competing Creditor Interests

Skye Mineral Invs., LLC v. DXS Capital (U.S.) Ltd., C.A. No. 2018-0059-JRS (Del. Ch. July 28, 2021)
Delaware’s savings statute—10 Del. C. § 8118(a)—protects claims from being time-barred where they were timely brought in an incorrect forum. Here, the Court of Chancery applied the savings statute in the context of claims alleging that, in a course of conduct dating back to 2013, majority LLC members managed the company to protect their affiliate’s status as a senior secured creditor and drive the company into bankruptcy, all to eliminate the minority members’ interests. More ›

Share

Court of Chancery Denies Lead Plaintiff’s Application for Incentive Fee from Overall Fee Award

Morrison v. Berry, C.A. No. 12808-VCG (Del. Ch. July 12, 2021)
Delaware courts generally do not award special compensation to lead plaintiffs in class action litigation. Delaware courts typically limit awards to out-of-pocket costs and expenses, unless lead plaintiffs take on extra—essentially, exceptional—burdens in the litigation. Submitting a modest award request does not necessarily portend success that an applicant will receive an award. More ›

Share

Superior Court Enforces $48 Million Liquidated Damages Provision

Smart Sand Inc. v. US Well Servs. LLC, C.A. No. N19C-01-144 PRW CCLD (Del. Super. June 11, 2021)
A liquidated damages provision is enforceable under Delaware law if: (1) damages are uncertain at the time of contracting; and (2) the liquidated damages are reasonable. Courts will examine the parties’ intent at the time of contracting in determining whether a liquidated damages provision is enforceable. More ›

Share

Superior Court Upholds Claims that Entities Transferred Funds in Violation of Agreements with Creditor

CIBC Bank USA v. JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC, C.A. No. N18C-07-130 EMD CCLD (Del. Super. June 2, 2021)
Plaintiff CIBC Bank USA (“CIBC”) entered into a credit agreement with a group of borrowers to provide them with a revolving line of credit that was secured via a security agreement, which granted CIBC a priority interest in certain collateral. Under the security agreement, the borrowers agreed not to take any actions that would materially impair the collateral, or to permit any of their subsidiaries to amend their organizational documents to adversely affect the interests of CIBC. CIBC also entered into acknowledgment agreements with the borrowers’ joint venture partners, under which those partners agreed not to amend their own agreements with the borrowers without CIBC’s consent. More ›

Share

Chancery Finds that Deal-Price-Less-Synergies was Best Indicator of Fair Value in Statutory Appraisal of Public Company

In re Appraisal of Regal Entertainment Grp., C.A. No. 2018-0266-JTL (Del. Ch. May 13, 2021)
Recent Delaware appraisal cases have found that reliable market indicators present the best evidence of a corporation’s “fair value.” Where the deal price itself provides the best evidence, the Court will deduct from the deal price any synergies paid to the sellers. Changes in value between signing and the closing date of the merger may also be taken into account. This decision applies these principles in determining the “fair value” payable to certain stockholders of Regal Entertainment Group, a public company, following its 2018 sale to Cineworld Group, a strategic acquirer, for $23 per share. More ›

Share

Clean-Up Doctrine to Adjudicate Legal Claims in Chancery May Take Precedence Over Request for Jury Trial

Firststring Research, Inc. v. JSS Medical Research Inc., C.A. No. 2020-0332-KSJM (Del. Ch. May 28, 2021)
Delaware has not merged its courts of law and equity, which may have implications for a litigant seeking a jury trial. When a counterclaim-plaintiff seeks a jury trial for a claim otherwise within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, application of the clean-up doctrine might justify retaining the counterclaims in Chancery and forgoing jury-trial rights. More ›

Share

Board Approval of Stock Sale for Purpose of Interfering with Stockholder Voting Rights Must Have a Compelling Justification

Coster v. UIP Companies, Inc., No. 49, 2020, --- A.3d ---- (Del. June 28, 2021) (Seitz, C.J.)
The Delaware Supreme Court has recognized that the stockholder franchise is the “ideological underpinning upon which the legitimacy of the directors managerial power rests.” A proper balance between the stockholders’ right to elect directors and the board’s right to manage the company is dependent on the stockholders’ unimpeded right to vote in an election of directors. Accordingly, Delaware courts carefully scrutinize board actions that are designed for the primary purpose of interfering with or impeding the effective exercise of a stockholder vote, especially board actions designed to dilute an insurgent stockholder’s vote in an election of directors.  More ›

Share

Chancery Discharges Custodian in TransPerfect Litigation, Denies Contempt Motion, and Rules on Fee Dispute

In re: TransPerfect Global, Inc., C.A. No. 9700-CB (Del. Ch. Apr. 14, 2021) Elting v. Shawe, C.A. No. 10449-CB (Del. Ch. Apr. 14, 2021)

In re: TransPerfect Global, Inc., C.A. No. 9700-CB (Del. Ch. Apr. 14, 2021) Elting v. Shawe, C.A. No. 10449-CB (Del. Ch. Apr. 14, 2021)

In re: TransPerfect Global, Inc., C.A. No. 9700-CB (Del. Ch. Apr. 30, 2021) Elting v. Shawe, C.A. No. 10449-CB (Del. Ch. Apr. 30, 2021)
After seven years of multi-jurisdictional litigation stemming from an irreconcilable deadlock among the three stockholders of a profitable company, TransPerfect Global, Inc. (“TransPerfect”), the Court of Chancery discharged the court-appointed custodian of TransPerfect and denied a motion for contempt and sanctions against TransPerfect and its owner Philip Shawe. The Court subsequently granted the custodian’s fee petitions in the amount of approximately $3.2 million. More ›

Share

Court of Chancery Stays Action for Violation of Rule against Claim Splitting Pending Resolution of a Duplicative Federal Action

Goureau v. Lemonis, C.A. No. 2020-0486-MTZ (Del. Ch. Mar. 30, 2021)
Delaware follows the modern “transactional” view of claim splitting, which bars a plaintiff from bringing duplicative proceedings in different courts simultaneously based on different causes of action arising from the same transaction or from a common nucleus of operative facts. The rule against claim splitting is intended to avoid burdening defendants with the defense of duplicative suits in different courts, and to prevent a plaintiff from obtaining “two bites at the apple” or a potential double recovery. A plaintiff who violates this rule may face dismissal or a stay pending resolution of the duplicative action. More ›

Share

Superior Court Holds that a Partial Motion to Dismiss Tolls the Answering Deadline for Both Challenged and Unchallenged Claims

Unbound Partners Ltd. P’ship v. Invoy Holdings Inc., C.A. No. N20C-09-302 PRW CCLD (Del. Super. Mar. 17, 2021)
In the Delaware Superior Court, a defendant does not concede or default on, and is not required to answer, unchallenged claims in a complaint subject to a partial motion to dismiss during the pendency of the motion to dismiss. More ›

Share

Court of Chancery Harmonizes Operating Agreement Governance Provisions To Resolve LLC Control Dispute

Pearl City Elevator, Inc. v. Gieseke, C.A. No. 2020-0419-JRS (Del. Ch. Mar. 23, 2021)

Under Delaware law, limited liability company agreements are interpreted like other contracts; they are read as a whole in light of the commercial context, in a manner that gives effect to and harmonizes all of their terms. In this expedited control dispute, the Court of Chancery applied those canons to consider whether certain of the plaintiff’s purchases of units from other members complied with transfer restrictions. More ›

Share

Chancery Finds After Trial That $10 Billion Unit-for-Unit Merger Was “Fair and Reasonable” Under Partnership Agreement

Dieckman v. Regency GP LP, C.A. No. 11130-CB (Del. Ch. Feb. 15, 2021)

This matter concerned limited partners’ challenge under the governing limited partnership agreement to an acquisition of the partnership by another entity controlled by the partnership’s ultimate owner. A member of a conflicts committee, which had approved the $10 billion unit-for-unit controlling unitholder merger, also served the board of another company ultimately controlled by the same owner, contrary to the terms of the partnership agreement. After considering this issue, the Court of Chancery nevertheless held after a five-day trial that the merger was “fair and reasonable to the Partnership” under a contractual safe harbor, and that the plaintiffs failed to prove damages. More ›

Share

Chancery Construes Notice Provisions Associated With Escrowed Funds Under an Asset Purchase Agreement

Schillinger Genetics, Inc. v. Benson Hill Seeds, Inc., C.A. No. 2020-0260-MTZ (Del. Ch. Feb. 1, 2021)

Delaware courts will apply the plain terms of an unambiguous asset purchase agreement (“APA”), including its provisions governing notices and the release of escrowed funds. More ›

Share

Delaware Corporate and Commercial Case Law Year in Review: 2020

This top ten list summarizes significant decisions of the Delaware Supreme Court and the Delaware Court of Chancery over the past calendar year. Our criteria for selection are that the decision either meaningfully changed Delaware law or provided clarity or guidance on issues relevant to corporate and commercial litigation in Delaware. We present the decisions in no particular order. The list does not include every significant decision, but provides practitioners with an array of decisions on varied issues likely to affect business transactions or business litigation. More ›

Share