Justia Delaware Court of Chancery Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a Settlement and License Agreement to resolve then-pending patent infringement litigation. After Plaintiff’s license was terminated, Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory, injunctive, and other relief against Defendant. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the Court of Chancery was an improper venue because the Agreement’s forum selection clause directed “any dispute” between the parties to Georgia. Plaintiff argued that the Agreement was terminated before it filed the complaint, and regardless, its claims were not subject to the forum selection clause. The Court of Chancery dismissed the complaint without prejudice, holding that the courts identified in the forum selection clause were proper forums to determine whether the Agreement had been terminated, and if the Agreement was effective when Plaintiff filed the complaint, then dismissal for improper venue would be proper. View "Scanbuy, Inc. v. NeoMedia Techs., Inc." on Justia Law

Seaport Village Operating Company, LLC (the “Company”) sought to recover from Seaport Village Ltd. (“Limited”) attorneys’ fees and expenses that the Company incurred in two lawsuits against Limited. The Company’s limited liability company agreement included a fee-shifting provision providing that the prevailing party in disputes arising out of the Agreement is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees in connection with the prosecution or defense of the action. Limited argued that because the Company did not sign the agreement, it was not a party to the agreement. The Court of Chancery awarded the Company fees and expenses, holding that, under Delaware law, the Company, although not a signatory, was a party to the operating agreement and could therefore enforce the fee-shifting provision against Limited. View "Seaport Village Ltd. v. Seaport Village Operating Co., LLC" on Justia Law

Augustus Evans, who was incarcerated, filed two actions that he sought to bring in Chancery against Bayer Corp. and Johnson & Johnson Co. alleging that he had been injured by pharmaceutical products manufactured and sold by Defendants. Evans sought to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court of Chancery denied the motions to proceed in forma pauperis, holding that Evans could not establish jurisdiction in the Court because Evans’ claims neither sought equitable relief nor involved equitable subject matter and because the statutory bases recited by Evans did not support equitable jurisdiction, and therefore, permitting Evans to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court would be futile. View "Evans v. Bayer Corp." on Justia Law

In 2003, Plaintiffs loaned Utility Systems, Inc. (“USI”), which provided wastewater disposal services to the Woods on Herring Creek community, almost $250,000 to meet the costs of managing and improving the wastewater treatment system (“System”). Plaintiffs were not repaid by USI. In 2013, Plaintiffs filed this action seeking to recover the loaned funds under the doctrines of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs named as defendants Woods on Herring Creek Homeowners Association, which took over the System in 2004, and Sussex County, to whom the Association transferred the system in 2008. The Court of Chancery granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that Plaintiffs’ action was barred by laches. View "Carbaugh v. Woods on Herring Creek Homeowners Ass’n" on Justia Law

The parties in this dispute were Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Philips N.V.”), a Netherlands holding company, and Carlo Vichi, an Italian businessman who had a longstanding business relationship with Philips N.V. Philips N.V. was a participant in a joint venture, LG.Philips Displays Holdings B.V. (LPD), that did business with Vichi and other entities. LPD approached Vichi for a substantial loan, which Vichi agreed to make. The joint venture eventually defaulted on the loan. Vichi filed a complaint against Philips N.V., claiming that Philips N.V. committed fraud by misrepresenting the joint venture’s financial condition and prospects and by falsely promising that it would stand behind LPD to ensure it could meet its financial obligations. The Court of Chancery held that Philips N.V. was not liable to Vichi on any of the claims he presented at trial and that Philips N.V. should not be held responsible for the loss Vichi suffered on the loan he made to LPD. View "Vichi v. Koninklijke Philips Elecs., N.V." on Justia Law

The party to an exclusive marketing, license, and distribution agreement (licensee) brought contract and tort claims in California against the other parties to that agreement and their affiliated companies (licensors). The defendants in that action, including the licensors, were the plaintiffs in this action. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that the agreement was properly terminated and injunctive relief relating to the agreement's confidentiality and termination provisions. Defendant asserted counterclaims for breach of contract, among other claims. The Court of Chancery awarded the licensee damages against the licensors, their parent, and a sister company, holding (1) those plaintiffs who were parties to the agreement breached the non-compete provision of that agreement or the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and those plaintiffs and a sister company were liable in tort for tortious interference with contract; (2) the additional named plaintiffs were not liable in contract or tort; (3) the agreement was properly terminated, and Defendant was required to comply with the agreement's termination and confidentiality provisions; and (4) both parties' requests for attorneys' fees were denied. View "eCommerce Indus., Inc. v. MWA Intelligence, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2009, Sirius SM Radio Inc. negotiated a capital infusion (the investment agreement) from Liberty Media Corporation in return for Liberty Media receiving preferred stock in Sirius. Under the investment agreement, Liberty Media secured the ability to take control of Sirius in 2012 without paying a premium to Sirius stockholders by purchasing additional shares needed to obtain control in the market. When Liberty Media announced in 2012 that it intended to acquire majority control, Plaintiffs sued, contending that the Sirius board had breached its fiduciary duties by adhering to the provisions of the investment agreement and that Liberty Media breached its fiduciary duties by purchasing shares on the open market to acquire majority control of Sirius without paying a premium. The Court of Chancery granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, holding (1) Plaintiffs' challenge to the investment agreement was time-barred, as it was filed after the three-year limitations period expired; and (2) Liberty Media's decision to give valuable consideration in exchange for the right to make open market purchases after the standstill period expired provided no basis for a cause of action against it. View "In Re Sirius XM S'holder Litig." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and two defendants engaged in settlement negotiations and, after the parties agreed to the amount of monetary consideration to be paid toward the settlement, one of the defendants was no longer willing to settle. Plaintiff sought to enforce what he contended was the parties' settlement agreement. The court concluded that the settlement was not enforceable because the parties did not reach an agreement on all of the essential terms to the settlement. View "Harrison v. Dixon, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Costantini, Jr. and Kahn sought indemnification for their fees and costs in underlying litigation involving Swiss Farm. The court concluded that Costantini was entitled to indemnification under Article 14 of the Operating Agreement because he was a manager of Swiss Farm and was sued by Swiss Farm in that capacity and prevailed. However, the court concluded that, although Kahn was sued for breach of fiduciary duty and prevailed, he was not a member of the Board of Managers, an officer, an employee or an agent of the company and, therefore, was not entitled to indemnification under the Operating Agreement. Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings. View "Costantini, et al. v. Swiss Farm Stores Acquisition LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a license agreement for the development of boron-based small-molecule drug candidates for the treatment of acne. As part of the agreement, the parties agreed to arbitrate certain disputes. The parties also agreed that each had the right to initiate judicial proceedings to enforce their rights through equitable relief. A dispute arose under the agreement, and Defendant initiated arbitration regarding it. Approximately two weeks later, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking to enjoin Defendant from proceeding with arbitration and seeking specific performance of the agreement. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that the parties agreed to resolve the claims at issue in arbitration. The Court of Chancery denied Defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that Plaintiff's claims were not subject to mandatory arbitration under the parties' license agreement. View "Medicis Pharm. Corp. v. Anacor Pharms., Inc." on Justia Law