Posts tagged Case Summaries

Federal Court Denies Transfer of Venue Applying Jumara Balancing Test

Ace Capital v. Varadam Foundation, 392 F.Supp.2d. 671 (D.Del. 2005). This action arose under the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the Federal Court. Marine insurers Ace Capital filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for declaratory judgment against the insured, Varadam Foundation, a Delaware corporation, and Jaime Jalife, the owner of the vessel, a citizen of Mexico. The suit was filed to seek a determination that the marine policy between the parties excluded coverage for damages sustained by the insured's vessel. Defendant Varadam moved to transfer the venue to Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Court denied the motion applying the Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995) balancing test. More › Share

Federal Court Sets Aside Judgment of Dismissal and Reopens Judgment To Enter Settlement Agreement On Record

Money Centers of America, Inc. v. Regen, No. Civ. A. 04-1516-KAJ, 2005 WL 2663709 (D.Del. Oct. 17, 2005). Plaintiff filed a Motion To Vacate Dismissal and to enforce a Settlement Agreement that the parties had entered into earlier. Regen and Coast ATM (collectively "Defendants") contested subject matter jurisdiction. The Court vacated dismissal to the extent requested by the plaintiff. Plaintiff requested the court to: (1) reopen the case; (2) enter the settlement agreement ("Agreement") between the parties on the record; (3) permit plaintiff to depose Defendant Regen, his wife, Helene Regen, and a representative of Coast ATM ("Coast"), a joint defendant and; (4) permit Plaintiff Money Centers to recover its costs and attorney fees in connection with the case and this motion. More › Share

Court of Chancery Partially Grants Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Complaint

Chrin v. Ibrix Inc., C.A. No. 20587, 2005 WL 2810599 (Del. Ch. Oct. 19, 2005). Plaintiff, a co-founder, stockholder and former employee of Defendant Ibrix, Inc., brought a complaint against Ibrix and Steven Orszag, a co-founder and chairman of the Ibrix board of directors, asserting claims relating to his termination and a stock repurchase agreement. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. More › Share

District Court Grants Motion to Reopen and Vacates Stipulation of Dismissal

Money Centers of America, Inc. v. Regen, 2005 WL 2663709, (D.Del., October 17, 2005). Plaintiffs brought a Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enforce Settlement Agreement. Defendants contended the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the Motion. The Court vacated dismissal for the limited purposes of entering the settlement agreement on the record and allowing Plaintiffs to take Defendants' depositions with regard to assets available to satisfy the settlement agreement. Share

Court of Chancery Grants Summary Judgment In Favor Of Defendants Alleged To Have Breached Their Fiduciary Duties By Approving Asset Sale Likely To Result In Zero Value To Equity Owners

Blackmore Partners, L.P. v. Link Energy LLC, C.A. No. 454-N, 2005 WL 2709639 (Del. Ch. Oct. 14, 2005). Plaintiff Blackmore Partners L.P. instituted cause of action against Defendant Link Energy LLC and its directors, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the sale of Link's assets for a price likely to leave zero value to Link's equity investors. Defendants moved for summary judgment. More › Share

District Court Denies Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint

Brashears v. 1717 Capital Management, 2005 WL 2585247 (D.Del., October 13, 2005). Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The Complaint alleged that Defendants 1717 Capital Management and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. d/b/a Nationwide Provident violated § 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10(b)-5 through their insurance sales practices. The Court denied Plaintiff's motion. More › Share

Court of Chancery Grants Plaintiff's Motion To Amend Derivative Complaint Against Director-Defendants For Insider Trading

Zimmerman v. Braddock, C.A. No. 18473-NC, 2005 WL 2266566 (Del. Ch. Sept. 8, 2005). Plaintiff, a shareholder of priceline.com, Inc., moved for leave to amend his derivative complaint against directors of Priceline based upon three defendants' alleged insider trading and misappropriation of confidential information. Defendants argued amendment would be futile. More › Share

District Court Denied Transfer to Other Venue Pursuant to Service of Suit Clause in Marine Insurance Policy

Ace Capital v. Varadam Foundation, 392 F.Supp.2d 671 (D.Del. 2005). The United Stated District Court for the District of Delaware denied Defendants' Motion to transfer venue, finding that a clause in a marine insurance policy which governed service of suit did not mandate choice of venue. More › Share

District Court Holds that Price Adjustment for Conversion of Preferred Stock was not "Purchase" of Corporation's Common Stock

Morrison v. Madison Dearborn Capital Partners III, LP, 389 F. Supp. 2d 596 (D.Del. 2005). A shareholder brought a derivative action to recover profits from short-swing insider trading of stock. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b)(6). More › Share

Court of Chancery Holds Plaintiff's Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Claims Fail And Defendant's Loan and Veil Piercing Claims Fail

Ruggerio v. Poppiti, C.A. No. 18961, 2005 WL 2622716 (Del. Ch. Oct. 5, 2005). Plaintiff, who was limited partner of partnership and sole stockholder of corporation controlled by Defendants, alleged that Defendants failed to report or account to him regarding his ownership interest in the entities, breached their fiduciary duties and commingled assets. Defendants counterclaimed for money loaned by limited partnership to corporation. More › Share

Federal Court Denies Motion to Dismiss For Failure To Join Indispensable Party Pending Discovery On Agency Issue But Dismisses Common Law Counts As Merged In Trade Secret Claim

Ethypharm S.A. France v. Bentley Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 388 F.Supp.2d 426 (D.Del. 2005). This action was brought by Ethypharm, a French pharmaceutical company and its Spanish subsidiary alleging fraud, violation of the Delaware Uniform Trade Secret Act ("DUTSA"), unjust enrichment and intentional interference with ongoing and prospective business relationships. Defendant Bentley Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation, filed a Motion To Dismiss For Failure To Join An Indispensable Party, namely Belmac, a Spanish company, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a) and (b) and a motion to dismiss the various common law claims. The Court treated the motions as that of summary judgment and held that: (1) the defendant's subsidiary Spanish company, Belmac, was an indispensable party; (2) DUTSA preempted the unjust enrichment and fraud claims; and (3) the business tort claims could exist independent of the misappropriation claim because they were not preempted by DUTSA. More › Share

Choice of Law Analysis: Delaware's "Continuous Trigger" Theory vs. Alabama's Reliance on the "Exposure Trigger" Theory

Shook & Fletcher Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Safety National Casualty Corp., 04C-02-087 MMJ, 2005 WL 2436193 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 29, 2005). Plaintiff Shook & Fletcher Asbestos Settlement Trust, as Successor to Certain Assets and Liabilities of Shook & Fletcher Insulation Company ("Shook & Fletcher"), brought an action to establish coverage for asbestos bodily injury claims under three excess liability policies issued by Safety National Casualty Company, successor to Safety Mutual Casualty Corporation ("Safety"), for policy years 1983 through 1985. The parties moved for summary judgment on various issues, including the choice of law and what act "triggered" the insurance coverage. The court found that Alabama law governed the insurance policies. The Court also determined that a conflict between Delaware and Alabama law exists because Delaware has adopted the "continuous trigger" standard. Because the choice of law analysis favored Alabama, that state's "exposure trigger" standard governed. More › Share

District Court Rules That Spanish Subsidiary of Delaware Parent Corporation is an Indispensible Party to Allegations under DUTSA

Ethypharm S.A. France v. Bentley Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 388 F. Supp. 2d 426 (D.Del. 2005). United States District Court for the District of Delaware considered motions to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party and a motion to dismiss various common law counts are precluded by the Delaware Uniform Trade Secret Act ("DUTSA"). More › Share

Court of Chancery Denies Motion For Continued Sealing Of Portions Of Derivative Complaint

Stone v. Ritter, C.A. No. 1570-N, 2005 WL 2416365 (Del. Ch. Sept. 26, 2005). Defendants sought continued sealing of portions of derivative complaint. More › Share

Federal Court Dismisses Delaware-Based Deceptive Trade Practices Claim But Denies Dismissal Of Contract, Conversion And Enrichment Claims For Motor Yacht Charter

Worldspan, L.P. v. Ultimate Living Group, LLC., 390 F.Supp.2d 412 (D.Del. 2005). This action was brought under the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal Court. It claimed breach of a single-day maritime contract for charter of a motor yacht, unjust enrichment, conversion and violation of Delaware's Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA"). The Court denied defendant's motion to dismiss with respect to all but the DTPA claim which did not survive for lack of consumer standing against the seller of the chartered motor yacht services. More › Share