Revenue projections are an inexact science, but they should have some basis in fact. Where they are alleged to be without a basis in reality, and indeed contrary to reality, a court may, as here, find that an officer’s...more
This is a great decision on when the provisions of a contract bar tort claims of fraud and tortious interference. Briefly, when the contract speaks to an issue (e.g., expressly permitting certain acts, or imposing no duty to...more
This decision is helpful in clarifying that claims alleging disclosure violations in a proxy statement need to be pressed before a merger closes. ...more
This is an important decision because it explains when a prior dismissal of a derivative complaint does not preclude a second complaint alleging a wrong close to that alleged in the dismissed case.
It distinguishes a...more
This is one of two recent Court of Chancery decisions explaining that the Corwin case really does mean that there is an “irrebuttable business judgment rule” that bars challenges to a merger approved by a majority of the...more
This is a significant decision because it explains how filing suit somewhere other than in the contractually-designated jurisdiction does not toll the time to sue in the proper jurisdiction. Hence, if the improperly-filed...more
This decision applies the Corwin doctrine to dismiss a suit attacking a merger that received stockholder approval. It explains that approval by a fully-informed, uncoerced majority of disinterested and independent...more
This decision explains when a Caremark claim exists based on illegal corporate conduct. The “substantial likelihood” of liability that justifies excusing a pre-suit demand on the board must involve a knowing violation of the...more
Normally it is the board in place at the time the derivative suit is filed that is evaluated to determine if demand is excused....more
This decision deals with when the actions of directors may be considered to be in bad faith, at least when there is no self-interest involved and the directors are properly informed before taking the time to decide what to...more
Delaware does hold that the dismissal of a derivative suit in another jurisdiction may preclude the prosecution of a similar derivative suit in Delaware. ...more
This is another in a line of decisions that explains when the issue of arbitrability should be sent to the arbitrator to decide. ...more
This decision holds that Delaware does not recognize a claim for the implied warranty of accuracy for a report of an inspection company. Of course, that does not mean there is no breach of contract claim for inspection...more
This is an important decision because it enforces a nearly ironclad protection against any attack on the decision of a special committee to approve a conflict transaction for a LLP and an LLC....more
This decision illustrates the importance of putting your best foot forward in derivative litigation. Here, a different plaintiff had his complaint dismissed for failure to satisfy the demand excused rules. When this plaintiff...more
This is a novel decision because it deals with when a guarantor can defend against enforcement of his guarantee by claiming the company whose obligations he guaranteed was wrongly put out of business by the plaintiff who is...more
This is an interesting decision because it illustrates what many do not understand - a complaint has to have some actual facts to support its claims, not just inferences. ...more
Dieckman v. Regency GP LP, C.A. 11130-CB (March 29, 2016) -
This is an interesting decision in the master limited partnership context because it shows how far a limited liability agreement may go to limit member rights...more
This is an interesting decision because it applies the demand rules in a derivative case to an odd situation — when some but not all of the board members have changed between when the challenged conduct occurred and when the...more