In the recent decision of CapStack Nashville 3 LLC, et al. v. MACC Venture Partners, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0552-SG (Del. Ch. Aug. 16, 2018), the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to enter a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) which would amount to a prior restraint of speech. Plaintiffs sought a TRO to temporarily enjoin the Defendants from making allegedly defamatory statements about the Plaintiffs to the SEC, investors or other third parties.
The Court recited the well-known standard of a TRO, which requires the moving party to demonstrate: (1) a colorable claim, (2) a likelihood of imminent, irreparable harm if relief is not granted, and (3) that movant will suffer greater hardships if the TRO is not granted than the defendants would suffer if the relief were granted.
The Court found that “Plaintiffs’ request runs afoul of the ‘traditional maxim that equity will not enjoin a libel.'” Slip op. at 9 (citing Organovo Holdings, Inc. v. Dimitrov, 162 A.3d 115 (Del. Ch. 2017)). The Court further noted that “[w]hen an injunction against speech is entered before a full trial on the merits, “’it is almost always treated as an unconstitutional prior restraint.’” Slip op. at 10 (citing Mark A. Lemley & Eugene Volokh, Freedom of Speech and Injunctions in Intellectual Property Cases, 48 Duke L.J. 147, 171 (1998)). Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for TRO.
[View source.]