Showing 590 posts in Case Summaries.
Court of Chancery Finds Majority Stakeholder, Chief Executive Officer and General Partner of Limited Partnership Breached His Fiduciary and Contractual Duties to Limited Partnership
McGovern v. General Holding, Inc., C.A. No. 1296-N, 2006 WL 1468850 (Del. Ch. May 18, 2006). Plaintiffs brought action individually and on behalf of limited partnership against 90% owner of limited partnership for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of limited partnership agreement. More › ShareSuperior Court Grants AT&T Corp. Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order Granting Summary Judgment
Court of Chancery Finds Merger Between Controlling Stockholder and Subsidiary Unfair
Gesoff v. IIC Indus. Inc., C.A. No. 19473, 2006 WL 1458218 (Del. Ch. May 18, 2006). Plaintiff filed a class action, claiming a merger was the subject of unfair dealing and produced an unfair price. Another plaintiff filed a statutory appraisal claim based on the same merger. More › ShareCourt of Chancery Orders Production of Documents in Books and Records Action
Superior Court Denies Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument of Dismissal of Case for Failure to Substitute Counsel
Court of Chancery Grants Motion to Enforce Confidentiality Provisions of Rule 174
Court of Chancery Denies Request for Two-Tier Confidentiality Order
In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., C.A. No. 1554-N, 2006 WL 1388749 (Del. Ch. May 10, 2006). Respondent in appraisal action sought two-tier, rather than one-tier, confidentiality order. More › ShareCourt of Chancery Grants In Part Motion To Dismiss Class and Derivative Complaint
Khanna v. McMinn, C.A. No. 20545-NC, 2006 WL 1388749 (Del. Ch. May 9, 2006). Defendants moved to dismiss class and derivative complaint under Court of Chancery Rules 23.1 and 12(b)(6). Defendants also moved to disqualify the plaintiffs, to strike portions of the complaint and for continued sealing of the complaint. More › ShareSuperior Court Finds that Plaintiffs' Medical and Scientific Evidence that Exposure to Automotive Friction Products Increases the Risk of Contracting an Asbestos-related Disease is Sufficiently Reliable Under the Daubert Test
Court of Chancery Denies Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Judgment, Specific Performance and Damages Resulting From Alleged Breaches of Licensing Agreements
District Court Issues Show Cause Order to Determine Whether Tort Action Should Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute
Superior Court Finds that Settlement Agreement Did Not Require Insurance Companies to Reimburse Insureds for Money Paid to Cover Shortfalls in Payments to The Center for Claims Resolution by Defaulting Members
I.U. North America, Inc. v. A.I.U. Ins. Co., 896 A.2d 880 (Del. Super. Ct. 2006). This case involved claims for breach of contract and for declaratory judgment and ancillary relief to determine the responsibility for payment of liabilities incurred as a result of numerous claims and actions seeking to recover damages allegedly due to exposure to asbestos resulting from the conduct of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, the insureds, argued that a settlement agreement to resolve coverage issues arising out of asbestos claims required insurer to indemnify insureds for payments on behalf of defaulting parties to settlements. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, and the Superior Court found that the settlement agreement did not require insurer to reimburse insureds for payments on behalf of defaulting parties. More › ShareDistrict Court Denies Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Breach of Warranty Action
Court of Chancery Finds Remedy for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Identical to Appraisal Award
Delaware Open MRI Radiology Associates, P.A. v. Kessler, C.A. No. 275-N, 2006 WL 1215096 (Apr. 26, 2006). This case was described by Vice Chancellor Strine as "another progeny of one of our law's hybrid varietals: the combined appraisal and entire fairness action." The court was tasked with determining whether the share price in a squeeze-out merger was fair, and, if not, what the extent of the underpayment to the minority shareholders was. The court found that the merger price was unfair, and finding no difference between the award the petitioners/plaintiffs would receive in appraisal or in equity, the court awarded an amount equivalent to petitioners' pro rata share of the company's appraisal value on the date of the merger. More ›
Share