Full Value Partners L.P. v. Swiss Helvetia Fund Inc., C.A. No. 2017-0303-AGB (Del. Ch. June 7, 2018) -
A representative plaintiff who confers a non-monetary benefit on the represented class will be entitled to an award of...more
Obeid v. Gemini Real Estate Advisors LLC, C.A. No. 2017-0510-JTL (Del. Ch. June 5, 2018) -
To facilitate the proper exercise of one’s fiduciary duties, the right of directors to inspect a corporation’s books and records is...more
Steinberg v. Bearden, C.A. No. 2017-0286-AGB (Del. Ch. May 30, 2018) -
This is an interesting decision for its discussion of when pre-suit demand on the board is not excused for a derivative complaint alleging the...more
In Re Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. Unitholder Litigation, C.A. No. 12197-VCG (Del. Ch. May 17, 2018) -
Conflicted transactions are commonplace in the master limited partnership (MLP) context. The entity’s operating...more
CBS Corp., et al. v. National Amusements, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2018-0342-AGB (Del. Ch. May 17, 2018) (Letter Op.) -
Arising out of the highly-publicized dispute over the proposed transaction involving CBS and Viacom,...more
In re Tesla Motors Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 12711-VCS (Del. Ch. Mar. 28, 2018) -
Under Delaware law, a controlling stockholder need not be a majority stockholder. Rather, a controlling stockholder might be a...more
In Re Oracle Corporation Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 2017-037-SG (Del. Ch. Mar. 19, 2018) -
Delaware law requires a derivative plaintiff to make a pre-suit demand on the board unless excused as futile. Because some...more
Carr v. New Enterprise Associates, Inc., C.A. No. 2017-0381-AGB (Del. Ch. Mar. 26, 2018) -
This decision addresses a host of interesting topics. First, it declines to invoke the so-called step-transaction doctrine under...more
The Ravenswood Investment Company LP v. The Estate Of Bassett S. Winmill, C.A. No. 3730-VCS (Del. Ch. Mar. 21, 2018) -
It is easy to assume that some form of meaningful relief must be available when a fiduciary bears the...more
Chatham Asset Management LLC v. Papanier, C.A. No. 2017-0088-AGB (Dec. 22, 2017) -
It is often said that a mere prediction of some future event cannot be misleading because such predictions are speculations that cannot be...more
Lenois v. Lawal, C.A. No. 11963-VCMR (Nov. 7, 2017) -
This case illustrates the power of well-functioning special committee to diffuse the potentially corruptive influence of a self-interested controller on a transaction....more
Kahn v. Stern, C.A. No. 12498-VCG (Aug. 28, 2017) -
It is not easy to sufficiently plead a bad faith breach of fiduciary duty by a board in approving a merger when a majority of the directors were disinterested and...more
In Re Meadwestvaco Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 10617-CB (August 17, 2017) -
As this decision explains, to state a claim attacking a merger on the basis that the Board acted in bad faith you need more than ...more
H&N Management Group Inc. v Couch, C.A. No. 12847-VCMR (Del. Ch. Aug. 1, 2017) -
This is a rare case involving apparent lack of care in approving a conflicted transaction and a failure to employ almost any safeguards to...more
Henry v. Phixios Holdings Inc., C.A. No. 12504-VCMR (July 10, 2017) -
This is the rare decision explaining when restrictions on stock transfers (permitted by Section 202 of the DGCL) can be enforced. While the statute...more
While directors have the right to issue options, when the grant is to themselves and there are specific facts suggesting unfairness, those directors will have the burden of proving the grants were entirely fair in a...more
A derivative plaintiff who fails to make a pre-suit demand on the board must show why demand is excused using particularized facts. Here, the plaintiff argued that demand was automatically excused by sufficiently pleading a...more
This decision begins with a conventional analysis of a claim that disclosure violations and director self-interest have tainted a merger vote. That claim was rejected for want of factual support. More unusual, the decision...more
This is an interesting decision because it examines an intriguing legal theory for holding a controlling stockholder liable in a sale: the “known looter” theory. Generally speaking, controllers can sell their stock to whoever...more
This is a significant decision because it is the first to find that a stockholder vote did not invoke business judgment review under Corwin because the vote was coerced and not fully informed. Under Corwin, a transaction...more
On the same day the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the widely-reported TransPerfect decision, which ordered the sale of a successful company by custodian under Section 226 of the DGCL in order to break deadlock, the Court of...more
The Supreme Court has affirmed the Court of Chancery decision that Section 226 of the DGCL permits the Court to appoint a custodian to sell a Delaware corporation when the board of directors and stockholders are deadlocked...more
At first look, this decision seems to involve just another unsuccessful failure of oversight Caremark claim against directors. But it is worth reading because it outlines the various theories of a Caremark case and then...more
Morris James attorneys Lewis Lazarus, Albert Manwaring and Albert Carroll authored an article published in Transaction Advisors titled Delaware Corporate and Commercial Case Law Year in Review – 2016. The article summarizes...more
When a stockholder files a derivative suit she can avoid dismissal under Rule 23.1’s pre-suit demand-on-the-board requirement by showing that a majority of the directors were not independent enough to fairly consider her...more