Delaware Business Litigation Report

Chancery Rules That Moving Situs of Trust to Delaware Supports Personal Jurisdiction Under the State’s Long-Arm Statute

Harris v. Harris, C.A. No. 2019-0736-JTL (Del. Ch. Jan. 12, 2023)
Three children filed suit against their mother and her associates, alleging they had seized control of a family-owned corporation and engaged in self-dealing, including via self-serving withdrawals from a family trust. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breaches of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting those breaches, breach of a trust agreement, and tortious interference with the trust agreement. The general counsel of the company moved to dismiss the tortious interference claim against him, including for lack of personal jurisdiction. More ›

Share

Chancery Finds Personal Jurisdiction Under Conspiracy Theory of Jurisdiction Based on Trust Domestication

Harris v. Harris, C.A. No. 2019-0736-JTL (Del. Ch. Jan. 16, 2023)
Under the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction, when defendants conspire to engage in tortious activities, the Delaware-directed acts of one co-conspirator can be attributed to the other conspirators for the purpose of establishing personal jurisdiction under Delaware’s Long-Arm Statute.  Here, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants acted in concert to support the domestication of a trust (specifically, a GRAT) in Delaware for purposes of a larger tortious scheme.  Based on these allegations, the Court of Chancery found there was sufficient support to support personal jurisdiction under the conspiracy theory, or minimally to allow for jurisdictional discovery.  But the Court also concluded that the discovery was unnecessary because there was evidence of spoliation, which allowed for a pleadings stage inference that the defendants were engaged in a conspiracy sufficient to support personal jurisdiction.

Share

Chancery Resolves Dispute About Competing Forum Selection and Arbitration Provisions

Fairstead Cap. Mgmt. LLC v. Blodgett, C.A. No. 2022-0673-JTL (Del. Ch. Jan. 6, 2023)
This case highlights the difficulties that can arise when relationships are governed by contracts with competing forum selection and arbitration provisions. Two LLCs brought claims against a former principal for breach of the respective LLC agreements, both of which contained Delaware forum selection clauses. In response, the principal sought an injunction barring the LLCs from proceeding outside of arbitration because the principal’s employment agreement contained a broad arbitration provision that encompassed all of the parties’ disputes. More ›

Share

Chancery Denies Motion to Dismiss Finding Primedia Argument Inapplicable

In Re Orbit/FR, Inc. Stockholders Litig., C.A. No. 2018-0340-SG (Del. Ch. January 9, 2023)
In In re Primedia, Inc. S’holders Litig., 67 A.3d 455 (Del. Ch. 2013), the Court examined whether a litigation asset being pursued derivatively was extinguished by the sale of the company to a third party that had no interest in pursuing the claim and had not valued the claim as an asset in the merger. Primedia sets forth certain stringent standards to assert a claim that the merger was unfair based on such a derivative claim. More ›

Share

Chancery Concludes Section 18-110 of the LLC Act Does Not Permit Standalone Books and Records Claims When Company Management Is Undisputed

Cardinale v. Feingold, 2023 WL 142510 (Del. Ch. Jan. 10, 2023)
In a dispute about the manager of a limited liability company, Section 18-110 of the LLC Act grants the Court of Chancery the statutory authority to order the production of books and records “relating to the issue.” Here, the plaintiff sought a declaration that he was the sole manager of six companies and also an order directing the defendants to turn over the companies’ books and records. The defendants, who had recently resigned as managers, confirmed that the plaintiff was the companies’ sole manager and asked the Court to dismiss the remainder of the action for lack of jurisdiction. The Court agreed. Because the identity of the companies’ manager was undisputed, the Court concluded it no longer had jurisdiction under Section 18-110 to order the production of books and records.

Share

Chancery Finds SPAC’s Sponsor and Board Potentially Violated Fiduciary Duties by Depriving Public Stockholders of the Information Material to the Stock Redemption Decision

Delman v. GigAcquisitions3 LLC, C.A. No. 2021-0679-LWW (Del. Ch. January 4, 2023)
Delaware law establishes that fiduciaries of a corporation cannot be exempted from "their loyalty obligation and the attendant equitable standards of review that [the] court will apply to enforce it." In this case, following last year's Multiplan decision (discussed here), stockholders alleged that a SPAC's sponsor and board members breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose information material to the stockholders' decision on whether to redeem the stock prior to the de-SPAC transaction. This decision denies the defendants' motion to dismiss and finds that stockholders properly brought the lawsuit as a class action based on the fact that the alleged harm they suffered was individually compensable. More ›

Share

Supreme Court Interprets an Alleged Irrevocable Proxy and Finds It Does Not Run with Shares and Bind Subsequent Owner

Daniel v. Hawkins, No. 184, 2022 (Del. Jan. 6, 2023)
Through an irrevocable proxy, the appellant held voting power for 100 shares of a partnership. The proxy had been a tool to immediately transfer the shares' voting power to the appellant, away from a beneficial owner experiencing legal troubles, to minimize the risk of tainted control harming the business pending transfer of beneficial ownership. Years later, with beneficial ownership having transferred for 75 shares, the appellee sought to purchase those shares free of the proxy. The appellant argued that the proxy was irrevocable and could not be relinquished. Appellee filed suit in the Court of Chancery, seeking a declaratory judgment that the irrevocable proxy did not apply to subsequent third-party owners. The Court of Chancery determined that the irrevocable proxy's plain language did not establish a grant of agency authority that ran with the shares. More ›

Share

Chancery Upholds Claims Post-Merger

Harris v. Harris, C.A. No. 2019-0736-JTL (Del. Ch. Jan. 6, 2023)
Delaware law allows for two exceptions to the continuous stock ownership rule for stockholders to bring and maintain standing to assert derivative claims that predate a transaction: (1) when the transaction, which would otherwise deprive the plaintiffs of standing, is essentially a reorganization that does not affect the plaintiff’s relative ownership in the post-merger enterprise; or (2) when a plaintiff stockholder loses standing based on a merger consummated for the purpose of depriving the stockholder of the ability to bring or maintain a derivative action. Stockholders with derivative claims that predate a transaction also may assert direct claims to challenge a merger by pleading that the value of the derivative claim is material in the context of the merger, that the acquirer did not assign value or provide additional consideration for the value of the derivative claim, and that the acquirer will not assert the derivative claim.  More ›

Share

Chancery Finds Payment Condition, Non-Compete, and Non-Solicit Provisions Unenforceable

Ainslie et al. v. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P., C.A. No. 9436-VCZ (Del. Ch. Jan. 4, 2023)
Under Delaware law, restrictive covenants generally are enforceable unless overly broad in the circumstances, and Delaware courts closely scrutinize them. Similarly, contractual conditions precedent generally are enforceable unless they result in a penalty, and Delaware courts construe ambiguous conditions narrowly to avoid forfeitures. In this decision from the Court of Chancery, a provision in a limited liability partnership agreement intended to discourage competitive activities by former partners was held unenforceable both because it was overly broad and resulted in a forfeiture.
More ›

Share

Chancery Denies Motion Seeking Appointment of a Receiver

Bighorn Ventures Nevada LLC v. Solis, C.A. No. 2022-1116-LWW (Del. Ch. Dec. 23, 2022)
The Court of Chancery has the discretion to appoint a custodian or receiver under Section 226(a)(2) of the DGCL when the board of directors is deadlocked, the business is suffering or is threatened with irreparable injury because of the deadlock, and the shareholders are unable to terminate the deadlock. Under Section 291, the Court has the discretion to appoint a receiver when the corporation is insolvent and special circumstances indicate some beneficial purpose will be served. More ›

Share

Citing MFW, Court of Chancery Dismisses Merger Challenge

Smart Local Unions and Councils Pension Fund v. BridgeBio Pharma, Inc., C.A. No. 2021-1030-PAF (Del. Ch. Dec. 29, 2022)
Typically, the “entire fairness” standard of review applies to any transaction in which a controlling stockholder acquires the outstanding minority shares. But, under the MFW framework, the more lenient business judgment standard of review may apply if the controller can establish that, among other things, an independent, fully-empowered special committee met its duty of care to negotiate a fair price for the shares and also that an informed, uncoerced majority of the minority stockholders approved the transaction.  More ›

Share

Chancery Finds Plaintiff Failed To State A Non-Exculpated Claim Against Special Committee Defendants In Complaint Challenging A Merger

Ligos v. Tsuff, C.A. No. 2020-0435-SG (Del. Ch. Dec. 1, 2022)
The Delaware Supreme Court’s Cornerstone Therapeutics decision established that, although a transaction involving a controller must satisfy entire fairness review, plaintiffs seeking money damages against independent directors protected by an exculpation clause must still state a non-exculpated claim against each such director, or that director will be entitled to dismissal. In other words, to proceed against independent directors, the complaint must adequately plead that they breached the fiduciary duty of loyalty. More ›

Share

Chancery Finds Stockholder Conferred a Substantial Corporate Benefit by Challenging the Joint Vote of Two Classes of Common Stock under Section 242(b)(2) of the DGCL

Garfield v. Boxed Inc., C.A. No. 2022-0132-MTZ (Del. Ch. Dec. 27, 2022).
Section 242(b)(2) of the DGCL requires the separate approval of different classes of stock for charter amendments that, inter alia, “increase or decrease the aggregate number of authorized shares of such class…” Section 242(b)(2) permits corporations to opt-out of this separate class approval requirement via a charter amendment – but any such amendment also must be approved by a separate class vote. This decision awards attorneys’ fees under the corporate benefit doctrine to a stockholder who questioned the validity of Class A and Class B common shares voting together on proposed amendments triggering these requirements, which then caused the corporation to provide separate class votes.  More ›

Share

Court of Chancery Awards Plaintiffs Attorneys’ Fees and Costs in Section 225 Action for Obtaining a Substantial Benefit for the Corporation and its Stockholders

Totta v. CCSB, LLC, C.A. No. 2021-0173-KSJM (Del. Ch. Nov. 3, 2022)
Delaware follows the “American Rule”: each party bears its own legal fees and expenses. However, there are certain exceptions. This includes the “corporate benefit exception,” where a party has obtained a substantial benefit for the corporation or its stockholders through prosecuting the lawsuit. In this recent decision from the Court of Chancery, the Court awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses to a plaintiff in a Section 225 action under the corporate benefit exception. More ›

Share

Chancery Orders Stay of “Dr. J” Litigation Pending Arbitrator’s Decision on Arbitrability

Erving v. ABG Intermediate Holdings 2, LLC, C.A. No. 2021-0816-NAC (Del. Ch. Nov. 28, 2022)
Basketball legend Julius W. Erving II, also known as “Dr. J”, sold a majority interest in his trademark and other intellectual property to a brand development and marketing company. The transaction involved the creation of an LLC—in which Dr. J held a minority interest and the marketing company held a majority interest and promised to grow Dr. J’s brand. The LLC operating agreement contained a dispute resolution provision that included an exclusive arbitration clause. Several years later, Dr. J filed claims in the Court of Chancery, alleging that the defendants had wrongfully diverted funds and failed to devote reasonable efforts to grow Dr. J’s brand. Defendants moved to dismiss the action in favor of arbitration or, in the alternative, to stay the case pending an arbitrator’s decision regarding whether the dispute must be arbitrated. More ›

Share