Posts tagged Case Summaries

Superior Court Grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Finds that Clause in Construction Contract Required Arbitration

Tekmen & Co. v. Southern Builders, Inc., C.A. No. 04C-03-007 RFS, 2005 WL 1249035 (Del. Super. Ct. May 25, 2005). The defendant contracted to build a hotel on the plaintiff's property. Following completion of the structure, the defendant had to return on numerous occasions to repair leaks. Eventually, the plaintiff filed a complaint, arguing that it was entitled to compensatory and punitive damages for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of warranty. The defendant moved to dismiss, claiming that under the terms of the contract all disputes must first be submitted to the architect and any remaining claims must be heard in binding arbitration. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. More › Share

Rejecting Defendant's Argument that Partnership had Merely Dissolved and Was "Winding Up," Superior Court Finds that Partnership had Terminated and that its Right of First Refusal on Property was Extinguished when It Terminated

Estate of Foraker v. Larrimore, C.A. No. 04C-03-041, 2005 WL 1953075 (Del. Super. Ct. May 25, 2005). The court was faced with the question of whether a partnership had terminated or whether it had merely dissolved and was still in the process of "winding up." The partnership had been granted a right of first refusal on a piece of property. Subsequently, the partners entered into an agreement terminating the business and dividing the debts and assets between the partners. When the owners of the property attempted to sell, one of the former partners desired to exercise the partnership's right of first refusal. The owner brought and action against the partner, and the court found that the partnership had was already terminated rather than being merely dissolved and in the process of "winding up." The court also found that the right of first refusal had terminated with the partnership. More › Share

Court of Chancery Stays Litigation in Favor of First-Filed Suit in Another Jurisdiction under McWane

W.C. McQuaide, Inc. v. Leland R. McQuaide, et al., C.A. No. 612-N, 2005 WL 1288523 (Del. Ch. May 24, 2005) Court considered a motion to dismiss or stay this action in favor of an earlier filed case in Pennsylvania. The Court concluded that the Pennsylvania Action was first-filed and that this case should be stayed pending resolution of that action. More › Share

Court of Chancery Found Written Consent To Be Valid to Appoint Directors

Raphael F. Nevins v. George Bryan, et al., C.A. No. 19975-NC, 885 A.2d 233(Del. Ch. May 17, 2005) This was an action under 8 Del. C. § 225 to determine the proper directors and members of the Center for the Advancement of Distance Education in Rural America ("CADERA" or the "Corporation"). The court found that the appointment of the Director Defendants was proper and adequate. More › Share

Federal Court Denies Motion To Remand Because Plaintiffs Demand For Coverage Met the Amount-In-Controversy Requirement

Eames v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. CIV.A. 04-1324-KAJ, 2005 WL 1385130 (D.Del. Apr. 27, 2005). The plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand a proposed class action involving insurance issues. The defendant removed the action from the Delaware Superior Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiffs alleged that because the amount requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 ($75,000) were not met, the action merited remand. The Court denied plaintiffs' motion. More › Share

Federal Court Awards Attorney Fees And Expenses Despite Lack Of Bad Faith In Eleven Month Discovery Delay

Tracinda Corp. v. Daimlerchrysler AG, No. Civ.A. 00-993-JJF, 2005 WL 927187 (D.Del. Apr. 20, 2005). This opinion relates to plaintiff's motion for sanctions for defendants' late production of documents in discovery. The matter was referred to a Special Master for a hearing in 2003. The Special Master found for the plaintiff who then filed the present motion for relief including: (1) witness Valade be barred from testifying about matters included in the delayed production unless his responses were required by the plaintiff's or the Court's questions; (2) that two witnesses be recalled to testify at trial; and (3) that the defendants be ordered to pay plaintiff's fees and costs incurred towards resolving the matters connected with the late production of the Valade documents. The Court denied plaintiff's request to bar Valade's testimony and permitted him to testify on all matters. It dismissed the second relief as moot because the parties had agreed to permit recall of the two witnesses. The Court however granted plaintiff's motion and awarded all costs and fees associated with the delayed production of the Valade notes. More › Share

Federal Court Dismisses Claim Of Personal Jurisdiction Because Website Listing Did Not Meet Due Process Requirement

Kalk v. Fairfield Language Technologies, No. Civ.A. 04-1486-JJF, 2005 WL 945715 (D.Del. Apr. 22, 2005). Pro se Plaintiff, a resident of Delaware, filed a Complaint against defendants' alleging tort claims. Defendants' filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. The background to the suit involved violation of an alleged non-competition covenant by Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that subsequently, Defendants' caused the termination of his employment from Auralog, Inc., by sending a letter to them. Plaintiff filed this Complaint which alleged Tortious Interference with Contract and Conspiracy Against Rights. Plaintiff claimed that the court had subject matter jurisdiction under diversity of citizenship. However, Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate personal jurisdiction over the defendants'. Accordingly, the court granted the Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because: (1)Defendant Fairfield Language Technologies et al was a Virginia incorporated entity with its principal place of business in that state; (2) its President and Chairman, Defendant Eugene Stoltzfus, resided and worked in Virginia; (3) Defendant Kathryn S. Fairfield, its General Counsel likewise was a resident and worked in Virginia; and (4) none of the Defendants' had "purposefully availed" business in Delaware. More › Share

Court of Chancery Dismisses Stockholders' Claims Because Claims were Derivative and Demand was Not Excused

In re J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. S'holder Litig., 2005 WL 1076069 (Del. Ch. April 29, 2005), aff'd, 2006 WL 585606 (Del. Mar. 8, 2006). J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. ("JPMC") and Bank One agreed to a business combination that was expected to create the second largest financial institution in the country. JMPC paid a premium over the market share price for Bank One, effectively making JPMC the acquirer and the Bank One the target. After the merger was completed, the stockholders of the acquirer sued its directors, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty with regard to the acquisition. Their claims stemmed from the allegation that the directors paid too much for the acquired bank. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the claims were derivative, not direct, and that demand was not excused. The court granted defendants motion to dismiss. More › Share

Court of Chancery Finds that Substantial Litigation Expenses Not a Sufficient Material Adverse Effect to Rescind a Contract

Frontier Oil Corporation v. Holly Corporation, 2005 WL 1039027 (Del. Ch. April 29, 2005). Frontier Oil Corporation and Holly Corporation are petroleum refiners that sought to merge. In conducting its due diligence review of Frontier, Holly discovered that activist Erin Brockovich was planning to bring a toxic tort suit claiming that an oil rig that had been operating for decades on the campus of Beverly Hills High School caused the students to suffer from a disproportionately high incidence of cancer. This raised concerns for Holly because a subsidiary of Frontier had previously operated the Beverly Hills drilling facility. Although the terms of the merger agreement were modified to address the situation, including broadening the representation to apply to litigation that would reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect ("MAE") on Frontier, the court found that substantial litigation costs were not a MAE and therefore the contract could not be rescinded. More › Share

Superior Court Dismisses Case Against Member of Limited Liability Company, Finding that Member Was Not Liable for the Actions of the Limited Liability Company

Thomas v. Hobbs, C.A. No. 04C-02-010 RFS, 2005 WL 1653947 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 27, 2005). The Plaintiff brought an action for breach of contract against the defendant limited liability company and against the sole member of that defendant limited liability company personally. The member moved for summary judgment, arguing that she could not be held personally liable for the actions of the defendant limited liability company. The court granted the defendant member's motion. More › Share

Federal Court Dismisses Fraud And All Securities Claims Against Defendants In DaimlerChrysler AG Merger

Tracinda Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler AG, 364 F.Supp.2d 362 (D.Del. 2005). Tracinda Corporation ("Tracinda"), a Nevada entity with its principal place of business in California and engaged in investing in companies and then Chrysler's largest shareholder, brought this action against defendants comprising DaimlerChrysler AG, Daimler-Benz AG ("Daimler"), Jurgen Schrempp and Manfred Gentz (collectively "Defendants") and citizens of Germany alleging: (1) violations of securities laws; (2) common law fraud; and (3) conspiracy in connection with the 1998 merger between Chrysler Corporation ("Chrysler") and Daimler-Benz AG ("Daimler-Benz"). After a thirteen day bench trial, the Court held that: (1) personal jurisdiction did not exist over the German corporation; (2) the German company and its CEO were subject to the proxy solicitation statute although the American manufacturer solicited proxies; (3) pre-merger oral statements of the CEO did not attract liability; and (4) the documents memorializing the merger did not misrepresent that it was a merger between equals. More › Share

Federal Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud And Punitive Damages Claims In Diversity Suit Under Arizona Law

J-Squared Technologies, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 364 F.Supp.2d 449 (D.Del. Apr. 13, 2005). Plaintiff brought this suit alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) promissory estoppel; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; and (5) violation of Arizona's Consumer Fraud Act. Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages. The defendant moved to transfer the action to the District of Arizona or alternatively dismiss the case under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) and 12(b)(6). The Court denied the motion in part and granted it in part with respect to the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and punitive damages claim. The Court declined to dismiss the negligent misrepresentation and estoppel claims. More › Share

Court of Chancery Decides Atypical Appraisal Proceeding in Which Parties had Stipulated to All But One Asset of Merging Company

Finkelstein v. Liberty Digital, Inc., 2005 WL 1074364 (Del. Ch. April 25, 2005). This appraisal case involved the fair value of shares of a company, Liberty Digital, Inc., that was merged with an acquisition subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation and survived the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Liberty Media. What was atypical about this appraisal case was that the parties were able to stipulate to the value of all but one of Liberty Digital's assets. More › Share

Court of Chancery Finds Change of Control Payments are Reasonable if a Majority of a Board of Directors Ceased to be "Existing Directors"

California Public Employees' Retirement System v. Coulter, 2005 WL 1074354 (Del. Ch. April 21, 2005). Defendant Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. agreed to make change of control payments to certain employees if a majority of its board of directors ceased to be "Existing Directors." "Existing Directors" were those directors in office at the time of the change of control agreements and those new directors who were approved by Existing Directors. The views of new directors who were not approved as Existing Directors would not be considered in determining whether subsequent new directors would be considered Existing Directors. The question is whether such a provision contravenes the teachings of Carmody v. Toll Brothers, Inc., 723 A.2d 1180 (Del. Ch.1998), which concluded that directors may not be granted distinctive voting powers unless they are authorized by the certificate of incorporation, something Lone Star's certificate of incorporation does not do. More ›

Share

Court of Chancery Enforces Arbitration Clause of LLC Agreement Because Claims "Arose Under" the Agreement

CAPROC Manager, Inc. v. The Policemen's & Firemen's Retirement System of the City of Pontiac, 2005 WL 937613 (Del. Ch. April 18, 2005). This case stemmed from a dispute between shareholders of the Delaware limited liability company, CAPROC LLC, which is governed by a Limited Liability Company Agreement. Defendants sought to remove CAPROC Manager as the Managing Shareholder of CAPROC and purport to have done so by a majority shareholder vote. In response to Defendants' actions, CAPROC Manager and CAPROC brought this suit for, among other things, entry of a status quo order and a declaration under 6 Del. C. - 18-110 that CAPROC Manager remain the Managing Shareholder of CAPROC. The court granted Defendants motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration because Plaintiffs' claims were subject to arbitration under the LLC Agreement. More ›

Share