Justia Delaware Court of Chancery Opinion Summaries

A group of companies that are frequently sued in asbestos litigation brought an action against several settlement trusts and a claims processing facility. These trusts were established as part of bankruptcy reorganizations by former asbestos manufacturers to handle and pay out current and future asbestos-related claims. The plaintiffs rely on information held by these trusts—specifically, data about claimants’ other asbestos exposures—to defend themselves in ongoing and anticipated lawsuits. In January 2025, the trusts announced new document retention policies that would result in the destruction of most existing claims data after one year, which the plaintiffs argued would severely impair their ability to defend against asbestos claims and seek contribution or indemnification from the trusts.Previously, the trusts notified claimants of the impending data destruction, and the plaintiffs, upon learning of this, requested that the trusts not implement the new policies. When the trusts refused, the plaintiffs filed suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, seeking a declaratory judgment that the trusts have a duty to preserve the claims data and a permanent injunction to prevent the destruction of this information. The trusts moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, that the plaintiffs lacked standing, and that the complaint failed to state a claim.The Court of Chancery denied the motions to dismiss. It held that it had subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and because the case fit within the court’s traditional equitable powers, including the authority to grant a bill of discovery to preserve evidence for use in litigation. The court found that the plaintiffs had standing, as they faced a concrete and imminent injury from the threatened destruction of data essential to their defense and contribution claims. The court also held that the complaint stated a claim for relief, allowing the case to proceed beyond the pleading stage. View "DBMP LLC v. Delaware Claims Processing Facility, LLC" on Justia Law

Organovo Holdings, Inc. (the Company) filed suit against Georgie Dimitrov, asserting claims for, inter alia, libel, negligence, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The complaint also sought an injunction. The Court of Chancery ultimately held that Dimitrov had defaulted. Before this court had entered a final order, Dimitrov entered a limited appearance and moved to vacate the default judgment, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute. The Court of Chancery granted the motion to vacate the default judgment, holding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint because none of the complaint’s claims were equitable claims, and none of the equitable remedies that the Company cited supported the existence of jurisdiction in this court. View "Organovo Holdings, Inc. v. Dimitrov" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the 2015 annual meeting of stockholders held by Preferred Communications Systems, Inc. (PCSI). In advance of the meeting, five members of the Preferred Investors Association (the Association) signed a letter distributed to PCSI’s investors that stated their opposing to the reelection of the incumbent members of PCSI’s the board of directors. Three of the incumbent directors lost their seats. These former directors brought suit against the Association and the members who signed the letter, alleging defamation. Defendants moved to dismiss the claim for failure to state a claim. The Court of Chancery granted the motion as to a subset of statements made in the letter, holding (1) Delaware’s anti-SLAPP statute does not apply; (2) Plaintiffs are limited-purpose public figures; and (3) it is reasonably conceivable that a subset of the letter’s statements were defamatory and made with actual malice. View "Agar v. Judy" on Justia Law