Justia Delaware Court of Chancery Opinion Summaries

VTB Bank, a Ukranian bank and company, brought this lawsuit against Development Max, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and Navitron Projects Corp., a Panamanian corporation and managing member of Development Max, alleging fraudulent transfer, constructive fraudulent transfer, and unjust enrichment. Development Max and Navitron filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens, among other theories. The Court granted the motion with respect to VTB’s claim against Navitron but denied the motion with respect to VTB’s claim against Development Max. On reconsideration, the Court granted, without prejudice, Development Max’s motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens, holding that Ukraine, as opposed to Delaware, was the proper forum in which to litigate this dispute. View "VTB Bank v. Navitron Projects Corp." on Justia Law

This case involved a dispute between Plaintiffs, Rexas Inc., Rexam PLC, and Rexas Overseas Holdings Ltd. (“Rexam”), and Defendant Berry Plastics Corp. (“Berry”) over the risks of potential pension liability. In 2014, Berry agreed to purchase Rexam’s healthcare containers and closures business and accepted responsibility for the pensions of certain employees at one of Rexam’s facilities that it was acquiring (the “Rexam Pension Plan”). Before the anticipated closing, the Pnesion Benefit Guaranty Corp. (“PBGC”) notified Rexam that it had initiated an inquiry into the Pension Plan Transfer (the “PBGC Inquiry”). As part of the closing, the parties agreed to defer the Pension Plan Transfer. After the closing, the PBGC sent an email regarding the Pension Plan Transfer. Berry then informed Rexam that it would not complete the Pension Plan Transfer because it considered the PBGC’s email evidence of a threatened legal or administrative action by the PBGC. Rexam sued Berry for breach of contract. The Court of Chancery entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of Rexam and against Berry, holding that the PBGC did not “threaten” to take action, and therefore, Berry’s performance - acceptance of the Pension Plan Transfer - was not excused because of the PBGC Inquiry. View "Rexam Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs - George Polk, Tulum Management USA LLC, and RED Capital Investments LP - brought this action on behalf of nominal defendant RED Parent LLC against Defendants - certain members of the RED Parent Board of Managers, Recycled Energy Development LLC and RED Investment LLC - alleging breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. Earlier, RED Parent filed an action in Illinois in regard to essentially the same facts upon which the Delaware action claims were brought. In the Delaware action, Plaintiffs sought advancement, indemnification, and fees on fees incurred in both the Illinois action and the case at bar. The Court of Chancery denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss in favor of the Illinois action but granted Defendants’ motion to stay in favor of the Illinois action as to the valuation and fiduciary duty claims and retained jurisdiction over the Delaware action, holding (1) the parties and issues in the Delaware and Illinois actions are functionally identical; and (2) the Illinois court is capable of rendering prompt and complete justice. View "Tulum Mgmt. USA LLC v. Casten" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the sale of a portfolio company, Double E Parent LLC, by Prairie Capital III, LP and Prairie Capital III, private equity funds. The buyer was Double E Holding Corp. (“Buyer”), an acquisition vehicle formed by Incline Equity Partners, III, LP (“the Incline Fund”). A Stock Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) governed the transaction. Prairie Capital III, which served as the Sellers’ Representative under the SPA, later sued Buyer to compel the release of funds from escrow. The Incline Fund intervened. Thereafter, Incline Fund and Buyer asserted counterclaims and cross-claims for, inter alia, fraud and aiding and abetting fraud against the Prairie Funds and related individuals and two claims for indemnification under the SPA against the Sellers’ Representative. The counterclaim defendants filed a motion to dismiss the fraud-related claims and one of the two counts seeking indemnification. The Court of Chancery (1) granted the motion to dismiss to the extent that the Buyer and the Incline Fund grounded their fraud-related claims on omissions outside of the SPA and certain representations within the SPA; (2) granted the motion as to one aspect of the challenged indemnification claim; and (3) otherwise denied the motion to dismiss. View "Prairie Capital III, LP v. Double E Holding Corp." on Justia Law

This matter involved a former presidential yacht whose owner (the LLC) and its sole member (together, Plaintiffs) co-induced Defendant by means of fraud to extend the owner a loan with the yacht as collateral. Under the operative loan documents, Defendant had the option to purchase up to a 100 percent interest in either the LLC or the yacht itself. Plaintiffs brought this case to enjoin Defendant from pursuing its rights in connection with the loan. Once the fraud came to light, Plaintiffs entered a stipulated order in default judgment (the judgment order). The judgment order provided that Defendant was entitled to exercise its rights under the loan documents, specifically including the option, and provided for the appointment of an independent counsel to determine outstanding current and potential liabilities of the LLC and the yacht. The judgment order retained the Court of Chancery’s jurisdiction to hear disputes arising out of the interpretation and enforcement of the order. The parties disagreed about the conclusions of the independent counsel concerning liabilities that may constitute liens against the LLC or the yacht. The Court of Chancery held (1) Defendant must exercise its option within sixty days of this letter opinion at the default option price as defined by the judgment order; and (2) the deduction for the liabilities used in reaching the default option price are as stated in the report of the independent counsel. View "Sequoia Presidential Yacht Group LLC v. FE Partners, LLC" on Justia Law

Seller entered into a purchase agreement with Buyer for the sale of certain equipment. The purchase agreement included an arbitration clause. Buyer eventually assigned its assets for the benefit of creditors to Assignee. Assignee sold Buyer’s tangible assets but retained choses in action. Assignee later brought a complaint in arbitration seeking damages for breach of the purchase agreement. The arbitrator concluded that Assignee had standing to bring the action and that the purchase agreement conferred jurisdiction upon him to hear the matter. Seller then brought this action seeking to enjoin the arbitration. The Court of Chancery dismissed this matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that a complete contractual remedy existed in arbitration. View "CVD Equip. Corp. v. Dev. Specialists, Inc." on Justia Law

American Messaging Services, LLC (AMS) purchased an ownership interest in DocHalo, LLC. The parties entered into an agreement establishing the terms of their business relationship. After AMS discovered that DocHalo had contacted some of AMS’s sales personnel about joining DocHalo and had unilaterally reached out to some of AMS’s customers, AMS filed a complaint alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misappropriation of trade secrets, and tortious interference with contractual relations. AMS sought a temporary restraining order seeking DocHalo from contacting its customers and sales personnel. The Court of Chancery denied the motion, holding that while AMS established colorable claims against DocHalo, it did not appear to face imminent and irreparable harm that would justify extraordinary relief. View "Am. Messaging Servs., LLC v. DocHalo, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were four Delaware-domiciled captive insurance companies. The State Insurance Commissioner prosecuted their claims as their receiver in liquidation, alleging fraudulent conduct on the part of the companies’ president, breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the other directors of the corporation, and, as to the companies’ auditors and their administrative management company, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligence. The Court of Chancery dismissed in part the claims against the auditors and their company, holding (1) the doctrine of in pari delicto applies in this case and effectively bars the relevant claims against those defendants; (2) Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract and negligence are dismissed on grounds of in pari delicto, but the fiduciary duty exception to in pari delicto covers Plaintiffs’ claims for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty; and (3) Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss their claims for aiding and abetting against each of the auditors and the administrative management company is denied, except as they relate to the auditor that was retained second. View "Hon. Karen Stewart v. Wilmington Trust SP Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

The parties in this case, two corporations, were parties to a Development Agreement. Defendant claimed Plaintiff owed it approximately $60 million under the Development Agreement. Plaintiff sought a declaration that it did not owe Defendant any money, and Defendant sought reformation of the Development Agreement. After two years of discovery, and as the trial approached, the parties filed a Joint Pretrial Stipulation and Proposed Order (the Proposed Order) identifying fifteen facts as admitted and not requiring proof at trial (the Admitted Facts). Plaintiff moved to have the Court of Chancery declare that certain facts were Admitted Facts and to require Defendant to meet and confer in good faith about additional Admitted Facts. The Court granted the motion, holding (1) facts Defendant admitted in its answer, in its responses to requests for admissions, and drawn from its sworn interrogatory responses constituted Admitted Facts, and Defendant should not have objected to their inclusion in the Proposed Order; and (2) Defendant did not confer in good faith regarding Admitted Facts as required by Ch. Ct. R. 16. View "Itron, Inc. v. Consert, Inc." on Justia Law

After Plaintiff fell behind on her payments to Attorney in the underlying litigation, Attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff and requested a charging lien in the amount of approximately $300,000. Plaintiff did not oppose Attorney’s withdrawal but did oppose the entry of a charging lien. The Court of Chancery found that a charging lien was appropriate and granted a charging lien in the amount of $200,000 against any judgment in this action, holding (1) a fee agreement between the parties did not preclude the entry of a charging lien; (2) the total amount of the charging lien that was appropriate in this case should not exceed Plaintiff’s lowest-possible net recovery of $263,872; and (3) Attorney was not liable to the experts for their fees, so there was no basis for include those fees in the charging lien. View "In re Zutrau v. Jansing & ICE Sys., Inc." on Justia Law