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 396 posts in Chancery.
Following Flawed Business Acquisition, Chancery Dismisses Derivative Complaint for Failure to Plead Demand Futility
City of Coral Springs Police Officers' Pension Plan v. Dorsey, C.A. No. 2022-0091-KSJM (Del. Ch. May 9, 2023)
A terrible business decision does not ensure the Court of Chancery will sustain a derivative claim. A derivative plaintiff still must allege that a board of directors wrongfully refused a stockholder's demand to bring suit or that making a demand on the board would be futile because a majority of the board either was interested in the transaction or would face a substantial likelihood of liability for approving the transaction, or was dependent on someone who was interested or faced a substantial likelihood of liability. More ›
Entire Fairness Standard Applied to Transaction Benefitting Controllers of Controllers
Tueza v. Lindon, C.A. No. 2022-0130-SG (Del. Ch. Apr. 27, 2023)
Because controlling stockholders of Delaware corporations owe fiduciary duties to both the corporation and to its minority stockholders, the Court of Chancery will subject a transaction involving the company to entire fairness review if a controller receives a non-ratable benefit from a transaction. This case confronts a more nuanced question: Does entire fairness apply if the non-ratable benefit goes not to the controller but to a separate entity controlled by the controller's controllers? More ›
Chancery Court Again Applies Entire Fairness to Claims Challenging SPAC Transaction
Laidlaw v. GigAcquisitions2, LLC, C.A. No. 2021-0821-LWW (Del. Ch. Mar. 1, 2023)
In the aftermath of a SPAC merger, the plaintiff (a public stockholder) brought claims for breaches of fiduciary duty against the SPAC's board and sponsor, as controllers, for issuing an allegedly false and misleading proxy statement. According to the plaintiff, the proxy statement failed to disclose the net cash per share that the SPAC would contribute to the merger, which in turn misrepresented the anticipated value of post-merger shares, and that such information was material to the decisions of public stockholders whether to invest in the post-merger company or to redeem their SPAC investments. Plaintiff alleged that the sponsor and board were incentivized to minimize redemptions in order to secure returns for the sponsor, which purchased a 20% stake in the post-merger company at a nominal price. More ›
Plaintiff Overcomes Rule 23.1 In Walmart Opioids Litigation Based In Part On Over-Redacted Documents In Books And Records Productions
Ontario Provincial Council of Carpenters’ Pension Trust Fund v. Walton, C.A. No. 2021-0827-JTL (Del. Ch. Apr. 26, 2023)
To assert a derivative claim, a stockholder plaintiff must plead demand futility. The plaintiffs advanced three types of claims relating to Walmart’s distribution of opioids: a Massey Claim (i.e., affirmative law-breaking claim), a Red-Flags Claim (i.e., a species of a Caremark claim), and an Information-Systems Claim (i.e., a species of a Caremark claim). The Massey Claim asserted that Walmart’s directors and officers knew that Walmart was failing to comply with its legal obligations and made a conscious decision to prioritize profits over compliance. The Red-Flags Claim asserted that a series of red flags put Walmart’s directors and officers on notice of Walmart’s noncompliance or potential corporate trauma, but the directors and officers consciously ignored them. The Information-Systems Claim asserted that Walmart’s directors and officers knew that they had an obligation to establish a monitoring system to address a core compliance risk, but consciously failed to make a good faith effort to fulfill that obligation. More ›
Chancery Rules That Separate Accrual Periods Apply to an Information Systems Caremark Claim in Walmart Opioid Litigation
Ontario Provincial Council of Carpenters' Pension Trust Fund v. Walton, C.A. No. 2021-0827-JTL (Del. Ch. Apr. 12, 2023)
To determine the limitations period under laches, a court must determine when a claim accrued. Delaware courts have considered three different approaches to claim accrual: the discrete act approach, the separate accrual approach, and the continuing wrong approach. More ›
Chancery Relies on Unanimous Dictionary Entries To Confirm Unambiguity of Supply Agreement
Thermo Fisher Scientific PSG Corp. v. Arranta Bio MA, LLC, C.A. No. 2022-0608-NAC (Del. Ch. Apr. 4, 2023)
The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a supply agreement under which the defendant would manufacture plasmids, a central component for a variety of therapies and vaccines. The agreement included a non-compete provision that would require the defendant to pause its plasmid activities for three years if the defendant was acquired by one of the plaintiff's competitors—defined as a company deriving at least fifty percent of revenue from "biopharmaceutical" development or commercial manufacturing services. The agreement did not define the term "biopharmaceutical." Two years into the agreement, a third party acquired the defendant. The acquirer derived almost all its revenue in connection with small-molecule drugs, with almost no revenue connected to biologics. Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that the acquirer was a competitor and seeking specific performance of the non-compete provision. More ›
Chancery Orders Defendant to Pay Simple Prejudgment Interest and Reduces the Amount Because of Plaintiffs’ Delays
Ainslie v. Cantor Fitzgerald LP, C.A. No. 9436-VCZ (Del. Ch. Apr. 5, 2023)
Delaware law provides for the interest to be awarded under 6 Del. C. § 2301 in actions seeking compensatory damages, and the rate is fixed by the statute. The Court of Chancery has discretion, however, to adjust the rate and form of interest “as equity requires.” In this case, the Court awards Plaintiffs simple interest and reduces the amount because of the Plaintiffs’ inordinate delays in prosecuting the case. More ›
Chancery Finds Restrictive Covenant in Stock Purchase Agreement is Unreasonable and Unenforceable
Intertek Testing Servs. NA, Inc., C.A. No 2022-0853-LWW (Del. Ch. Mar. 16, 2023)
Delaware courts do not mechanically enforce non-competes. Instead, the non-compete must be reasonable in scope and duration and advance a legitimate economic interest of the party enforcing the covenant. More ›
Chancery Holds That Party’s Untimely Counterclaim Cannot Avoid Laches Defense By Invocation of Unclean Hands
Thomas D. Murray et al. v. Shannon Rolquin et al., C.A. No 2018-0819-KSJM (Del. Ch. Mar. 9, 2023)
In the Court of Chancery, untimely equitable claims may be time-barred by the doctrine of laches. However, a belated claimant may avoid a laches defense through a tolling theory. Here, a party attempted to excuse her delay in bringing counterclaims under a tolling theory and under a novel unclean hands theory. Post-trial, the Court was not persuaded by either theory. More ›
Chancery Declines to Modify Status Quo Order to Allow Partial Performance of Pending Settlement
In re AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 2023-0215-MTZ (Del. Ch. Apr. 5, 2023)
In various contexts, upon request or stipulation, the Court of Chancery will impose status quo orders, which typically restrain corporate action pending the Court’s adjudication of disputed rights. A party seeking to modify or vacate such an order bears the burden of establishing good cause for the change. Here, following a settlement agreement between the parties, the plaintiffs sought to lift a status quo order to permit the defendant, AMC, to partially effectuate the settlement. The proposed action would alter the company’s capital structure. The litigation involved class claims, implicating Court of Chancery Rule 23, and the requirement that any class action or derivative settlement be approved by the Court following notice to the stockholders and the opportunity to object. The Court had not yet considered or approved the proposed settlement. In these circumstances, with little more than a desire for speed offered in support of the motion, the Court declined to lift the status quo order, citing the Court’s gatekeeping role in Rule 23 settlements.
Chancery Finds for Defendants in Challenge to Oracle Acquisition of NetSuite
In re Oracle Corporation Derivative Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 2017-0337-SG (Del. Ch. May 12, 2023)
In this “vigorously litigated” matter, the Plaintiffs argued that Oracle’s founder and current officer and director, Larry Ellison, manipulated a special committee of Oracle’s board to overpay for NetSuite, another company in which Ellison was a substantial investor. Plaintiffs offered two theories to bring the transaction within the entire fairness standard of review: first, that Ellison was a controller who sat on both sides of the transaction, and second, that Ellison, on his own and with Oracle CEO Safra Catz, misled the Oracle board and special committee, and thus the transaction was a product of fraud. Post-trial, the Court of Chancery rejected both theories, applied the business judgment rule, and found for the defendants. More ›
Director violated Revlon Duties by Tilting the Sales Process in favor of the Buyer
In re Mindbody Inc. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 2019-0442-KSJM (Del. Ch. Mar. 15, 2023)
Under Revlon, to demonstrate that they satisfied their fiduciary duties in connection with a sale of control, directors bear the burden of establishing both the reasonableness of their decision-making process and the reasonableness of their actions in light of the circumstances then present. As the Court reasoned in a prior opinion in this action (discussed here), "[t]he paradigmatic Revlon claim involves a conflicted fiduciary who is insufficiently checked by the board and who tilts the sale process toward his own personal interests in ways inconsistent with maximizing stockholder value." More ›
Chancery Holds Stockholders Can Assert Disclosure Claims on Behalf of Other Stockholders but Must Do So Through a Derivative Action
New Enterprise Associates 14, L.P. vs. Rich, C.A. No. 2022-0406-JTL (Del. Ch. March 9, 2023)
Delaware law establishes that directors owe a duty of disclosure which arises as "the application in a specific context of the board's fiduciary duties…." In this case, stockholders asserted various claims against the board, including an allegation that the company's directors breached a duty of disclosure to other stockholders, which injured the plaintiffs when those stockholders were misled into approving a dilutive stock offering. This decision finds that the stockholder-plaintiffs can assert such a cause of action but that the resulting claim is derivative. More ›
Chancery Grants Injunction Under the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act
Next Level Ventures, LLC v. AVID USA Technologies LLC, C.A. No. 2022-0699-MTZ (Del. Ch. March 16, 2023)
The Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act (the "DDTPA”), 6 Del. C. § 2531, et seq., prohibits confusing or creating misunderstanding as to "the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services" as well as to the products' “affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, another." In this case, the plaintiff asserted violations of the DDTPA in connection with the defendants' allegedly misleading statements. This decision grants the injunction against all defendants but narrows it to fit the specific allegations. More ›
Chancery Dismisses Oversight Claim Based on Board’s Response to Red Flags
In re McDonald's Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litig., CA No. 2021-0324-JTL (Del. Ch. March 1, 2023)
A plaintiff can plead an oversight claim against a board by alleging particularized facts to support an inference that the directors either: (1) utterly failed to implement a reporting or information system or controls or (2) consciously failed to monitor or oversee the business and, as a result, disabled themselves from being informed of problems or risks that required their attention. A "prong-two" failure to monitor Caremark claim, or "red flags" claim, requires that the plaintiff plead that the board's information system generated red flags and that the board subsequently failed to respond and address the red flags. More ›
