Breaking Down Bad Faith: Insurers’ Good Faith Duties and Defending Bad Faith Claims
An Uncompromising Insurer: What is a Policyholder to Do?
Hinshaw Insurance Law TV: Recent Changes in Florida Property Insurance Law and How They Will Affect First Party Insurance
Podcast - The Briefing from the IP Law Blog: Lord of The Rings Author’s Estate Clings to its Precious Trademark, Blocking JRR Token
The Briefing from the IP Law Blog: Lord of The Rings Author’s Estate Clings to its Precious Trademark, Blocking JRR Token
Butler's Thursday Tips #7 | Civil Remedy Notices
Subro Sense Podcast - Considerations In Fixed Funds/Limited Pool Scenarios
Protecting Your Brand in China
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently held that an employer’s proposal and adherence to proposals could in itself be deemed to be unlawful bad faith bargaining. District Hospital Partners, 375 NLRB No. 55...more
Over the last ten years, we have seen a marked shift from the Delaware Chancery Court chipping away at corporate board member liability claims. In a number of seminal cases involving Boeing airplane crashes (In re the Boeing...more
California’s common law “business judgment rule,” as described by the courts, protects from court intervention “those management decisions which are made by directors in good faith in what the directors believe is the...more
A claim for breach of the duty of oversight is known as a Caremark claim, after the landmark Delaware Court of Chancery decision in In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation (1996). Since then, Delaware courts...more
In our February 14, 2023 Stay Current, we discussed a Delaware Court of Chancery decision allowing shareholder derivative claims to proceed against a corporate officer for alleged oversight duty failures stemming from...more
Human Resources Executives and Chief Compliance Officers now face the potential for increased personal liability following a first-of-its-kind decision from a Delaware court, which established the fiduciary duty of oversight...more
Delaware Court of Chancery Declines to Dismiss Investment Firm from Stockholder Derivative Suit; Delaware Chancery Court Dismisses Majority of Claims Alleging that California Biotech Firm Profited from Nonpublic Information...more
Special committees, by design, are created to address conflicts and to insulate the board of directors from liability for the very conflicts that may invite judicial scrutiny of the fairness of the board’s decision. A...more
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently issued two opinions — Richardson v. Clark (MoneyGram) and Fisher v. Sanborn (LendingClub) — that dismissed stockholder derivative claims for breach of directors’ oversight duties...more
In Re Pattern Energy Group Inc. Stockholders Litigation involved an M&A transaction where the sales process of Pattern Energy Group Inc. was run by an undisputedly disinterested and independent special committee that...more
A piece by Dick Cassin in the FCPA Blog had some very stark language. He quoted from the Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Ericsson) 6-K filing for the following, “While the Company had a compliance program and a supporting...more
Health care provider boards of directors have been put on notice—given these two recent Delaware court decisions - Clovis and Marchand—that courts may be willing to significantly extend a corporate board’s Caremark duty to...more
In Marchand v. Barnhill, a unanimous Delaware Supreme Court imposed substantial new procedural expectations on corporate directors to satisfy their fiduciary duty of oversight related to material risk areas and legal...more
On July 25, 2019, Vice Chancellor Kathaleen S. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a stockholder suit challenging the $18 billion merger of equals between Towers Watson & Co. and Willis Group Holdings plc,...more
In Marchand v. Barnhill, No. 533, 2018, 2019 Del. LEXIS 310 (Del. June 18, 2019), the Delaware Supreme Court (Strine, C.J.) reversed a Delaware Court of Chancery (Slights, V.C.) order dismissing a derivative claim alleging...more
Summer is usually the best time of year for ice cream companies, but the season is off to a rough start for Blue Bell Creameries, USA, Inc. The Delaware Supreme Court, in Marchand v. Barnhill, held on June 18 that a suit...more
The Delaware Supreme Court recently took the opportunity to revisit Caremark with its en banc decision in Marchand v. Barnhill, No. 533, 2018 (Del. June 19, 2019). In Marchand, the Court reversed the dismissal of a...more
In Marchand v. Barnhill et al. (“Blue Bell”),1 the Delaware Supreme Court on June 19 unanimously reversed the dismissal of a shareholder derivative lawsuit against the members of the board of directors and two officers of...more
In 2015, Blue Bell Creameries USA, Inc., a Delaware subchapter S corporation headquartered in Brenham, Texas (Blue Bell), through subsidiaries made and distributed ice cream tainted with listeria bacteria. As a consequence,...more
In Marchand v. Barnhill et al the Delaware Supreme Court overturned the Court of Chancery’s decision to dismiss a complaint asserting a Caremark cause of action for failure to state a claim. The case involved Blue Bell...more
Executive Compensation Recoupment - The most recent development in the prominent University of Louisville Foundation controversy is the release of an independent analysis suggesting that its senior executive leadership was...more
Board of directors member Y.I. Gnough, who is also president of Algae Company, is in a pickle. Although denying any knowledge of sexual harassment and misconduct by the company founder and deal-maker Iam Algae, three co-board...more
Delaware jurisprudence encourages decision-making by boards of independent and disinterested directors. If a transaction does not involve a controlling stockholder and is approved by a majority of disinterested and...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 Wilson v. Alharayeri, 2017 SCC 39 [Alharayeri], the Supreme Court of Canada in a unanimous decision provides significant guidance as to when directors ought to be held personally liable for oppressive conduct under the...more