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
- Chancery Determines Pharmaceutical Company Complied with Merger Agreement’s Requirement To Use Commercially Reasonable Efforts
- Chancery Determines LLC Agreement Required Payment to Remove Manager
- Chancery Declines to Exercise Equitable Jurisdiction in a Contract Action to Compel the Release of Funds Held in Escrow
Top News
- February 19, 2021
- October 30, 2020
- April 1, 2024
Archives
Morris James Blogs
Showing 66 posts by Barnaby Grzaslewicz.
Delaware Superior Court Holds That Claim For Gross Negligence Against Corporate Managers Is An Equitable Claim For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Over Which It Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Techview Investments Ltd., v. Amstar Poland Property Fund I, L.P., C.A. No. N20C-11-229 EMD CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 31, 2021)
The court's ability to hear actions is limited by their jurisdiction – both jurisdiction over parties and jurisdiction over claims. This recent decision from the Delaware Superior Court’s Complex Commercial Litigation Division provides guidance on (1) the scope of contractually granted personal jurisdiction; and (2) subject matter jurisdiction for claims of gross negligence against corporate managers in Delaware. More ›
Chancery Sustains Founders’ Implied Covenant Claim For “Bad Faith” Termination To Deprive Them Of Contingent Compensation, Reasoning That Contracts Cannot Be Combined And Must Be Read On Their Own Terms, But The Implied Covenant May Provide Missing Terms
Servaas v. Ford Smart Mobility LLC, C.A. No. 2020-0909-LWW (Del. Ch. Aug. 25, 2021)
Delaware common law requires that contracts be read on their own terms. Accordingly, contracts cannot be “combined” to supply missing terms. However, the implied covenant and good faith and fair dealing can, in certain circumstances, supply these missing terms. More ›
Chancery Applies Rule 15(aaa), Declines to Revive Dismissed Claims under the Law of the Case Doctrine
Sciabacucchi v. Malone, C.A. No. 11418-VCG (Del. Ch. Aug. 18, 2021).
Court of Chancery Rule 15(aaa) provides that, if a plaintiff files an answering brief opposing a Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 23.1 motion, a decision granting the motion is with prejudice unless the court “for good cause shown, shall find that dismissal with prejudice shall not be just under all the circumstances.” In this decision, the court applied that rule and the law of the case doctrine to deny a motion to amend to reassert dismissed claims. More ›
Chancery Finds Equitable Defenses Bar LLC Dilution and Redomestication Claims, and Holds it Lacks Jurisdiction to Dissolve a Foreign Entity
In re Coinmint, LLC, C.A. No. 2019-0983-MTZ (Del. Ch. Aug. 12, 2021)
This decision illustrates that, in specific circumstances, the equitable defenses of waiver, acquiescence, and estoppel may preclude a party from challenging otherwise voidable actions. In addition, deciding an issue of first impression, the Court held that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to equitably dissolve a non-Delaware business entity. More ›
Superior Court’s Complex Commercial Litigation Division Reaffirms Delaware’s Public Policy Against Intra-Contractual Fraud
Aveanna Healthcare, LLC v. Epic/Freedom LLC, N20C-08-055 AML CCLD (July 29, 2021).
Under Delaware law, parties may agree contractually to disclaim reliance – and potential liability for fraud – based on false extra-contractual statements. Delaware public policy, however, does not allow a party to disclaim liability for fraudulent statements within the parties’ contract. In addition, an owner who knowingly causes a company to make misrepresentations may be personally liable for fraud, even though an agreement provides such representations are made by “the company.” More ›
Chancery Shifts Fees, Finds That Defendant’s Litigation Tactics in Books and Records Case Crossed The Line Between Aggressive Litigation And Glaringly Egregious Conduct
Pettry, et al. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., C.A. Nos. 2020-0132-KSJM; 2020-0138-KSJM; 2020-0155-KSJM; 2020-0173-KSJM (Del. Ch. July 22, 2021).
Delaware follows the American Rule: all litigants pay their own attorneys’ fees, no matter the outcome of the litigation. In rare cases where a litigant’s conduct is “glaringly egregious,” Delaware courts will make an exception and shift fees. This is known as the “bad faith” exception. More ›
Chancery Awards Attorneys’ Fees for Monetary and Therapeutic Benefits from Goldman Sachs Director Compensation Settlement and Considers Objector’s Fee Request
Stein v. Blankfein, C.A. No. 2017-0354-SG (Del. Ch. Jul. 12, 2021)
This decision concerns fee applications under the “corporate benefit” doctrine for benefits achieved in derivative litigation. More ›
Chancery Dismisses Conclusory Allegations of Gross Negligence and Disloyalty Against Oracle Officers and Directors Related to Alleged Controlled, Self-Dealing NetSuite Acquisition
In re Oracle Corp. Derv. Litig., C.A. No. 2017-0337-SG (Del. Ch. June 21, 2021)
While Delaware maintains a notice pleading standard, this decision reflects that conclusory allegations of breach of fiduciary duty leveled against officers and directors of a Delaware corporation may be found insufficient to state a claim. More ›
Chancery Holds That Claim Based on Purposeful Tanking of Merger Agreement Earnout Is Breach of Contract Claim
Shareholder Representative Services LLC v. Albertson’s Companies, C.A. No. 2020-0710-JRS (Del. Ch. June 7, 2021)
Many merger agreements include earnout provisions under which the stockholders in the acquired company are entitled to additional consideration upon the occurrence of certain financial milestones. In this case, the Court of Chancery analyzed and considered the appropriate way to plead claims that the acquirer purposefully operated the company to miss earnout milestones. More ›
Chancery Reasons That Board’s Decision To Address Alleged “Red Flags” Related To Pending Litigation, After Litigation Is Resolved, Is Not Bad Faith For Caremark Purposes
Pettry v. Smith et al., C.A. No. 2019-0796-JRS (Del. Ch. June 28, 2021)
As discussed in Caremark and its progeny, fiduciary duties require directors to monitor the business and affairs of a corporation. Here, the Court of Chancery addressed the issue of oversight liability in the context of a Board’s decision, despite “red flags,” to delay certain additional remedial actions pending resolution of directly related litigation. More ›
Delaware Supreme Court Explains Delaware’s Intermediate Forum Non Conveniens Standard Under Gramercy
GXP Capital, LLC v. Argonaut Manufacturing Services, Inc. et al., Nos. 247, 2020 and 248, 2020 (Del. May, 20, 2021)
Delaware has three standards for forum non conveniens motions. The two more commonly addressed are Cryo-Maid, which favors first-filed Delaware actions, and McWane, which favors first-filed litigation pending elsewhere. The third standard, Gramercy, consists of neutrally balancing the well-established forum non conveniens factors as between a later-filed Delaware action and another available forum. This decision clarifies Gramercy in the context of a Delaware action stayed in favor of an available alternate jurisdiction where no action was yet pending. More ›
Stockholders Lack Derivative Standing to Challenge Transactions Whose Terms Were Set Before They Became Stockholders
In re SmileDirectClub, Inc., 2021 WL 2182827 (Del. Ch. May 28, 2021)
Under the “contemporaneous ownership rule,” to have standing to bring derivative claims, stockholders in a Delaware corporation must own stock at the time of a challenged transaction. The general rule is that the time of the transaction is when the terms were established, but there are narrow exceptions, such as where the terms were modified and not disclosed, in which case a court may look to when the transaction was consummated. In In re SmileDirectClub, Inc., 2021 WL 2182827 (Del. Ch. May 28, 2021), the Delaware Court of Chancery found that the general rule applied where plaintiffs challenged the terms of a transaction related to an IPO through which they became stockholders. More ›
Chancery Orders Specific Performance of Deal, Despite Lack of Debt Financing, Finding that COVID-Related Business Decline Was Not an MAE and Seller’s Cost-Cutting Efforts Were Not Breaches of the “Ordinary Course” Covenant
Snow Phipps Grp., LLC v. KCake Acquisition, Inc., 2020-0282-KSJM (Del. Ch. Apr. 30, 2021)
In Snow Phipps, the Court of Chancery refused to allow a private equity buyer with pandemic-related cold feet to back out of its bargained for agreement to purchase DecoPac, a cake decorating company. In ordering specific performance, the Court found: (1) the durationally insignificant COVID-related business decline did not constitute a material adverse effect (“MAE”); (2) the seller had not violated any of its covenants to operate in the ordinary course by attempting to mitigate business losses; and (3) the condition to closing that the buyer secure debt financing was excused under the prevention doctrine, because the buyer’s actions caused the condition not to be satisfied. More ›
Chancery Refuses to Enforce Alleged Contractual Rights Not Obtained at the “Negotiating Table”
Obsidian Fin. Grp., LLC v. Identity Theft Guard Solutions, Inc., C.A. No: 2020-0485-JRS (Del. Ch. Apr. 22, 2021)
Delaware is “more contractarian” than many other jurisdictions. Accordingly, as this case illustrates, a court applying Delaware law will respect parties’ contractual choices and will not enforce alleged contractual rights not reflected in the plain language of the agreement. More ›
Chancery Confirms the Challenges in Pleading Caremark and Non-Shareholder Action Disclosure Claims
Fisher v. Sanborn, C.A. No. 2019-0631-AGB (Del. Ch. Mar. 30, 2021)
Under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1, a plaintiff attempting to bring a derivative action on behalf of a corporation faces a heightened “particularized” pleading standard. This pleading challenge is compounded when a plaintiff attempts to bring a Caremark failure of oversight claim – “possibly the most difficult theory in corporate law.” Similarly, a plaintiff alleging false or misleading disclosures not made in connection with soliciting shareholder action faces the additional pleading challenge of demonstrating that those disclosures were knowing or deliberate. More ›