Justia Delaware Court of Chancery Opinion Summaries

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

The parties in this case were two members of a Delaware LLC that was created to hold a subsidiary operating a wind farm on the island of Maui in Hawaii. Defendant filed an arbitration demand in Hawaii based on its understanding of the operative LLC agreement. In response, Plaintiff filed suit in the Court of Chancery seeking to enjoin the Hawaii arbitration. After the initiation of this litigation, Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration in Hawaii. Defendant argued that the Court of Chancery should dismiss this litigation in favor of the pending Hawaii action. The Court of Chancery concluded that the parties agreed in the LLC agreement that both arbitration and questions of arbitrability shall be undertaken in a Hawaii court, and therefore, this action must be stayed or dismissed in favor of Defendant’s action currently pending in Hawaii. View "Kahuku Holdings, LLC v. MNA Kahuku, LLC" on Justia Law

First Citizens BancShares, Inc. (FC North), a bank holding company incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina, adopted by forum selection bylaw (the “Forum Selection Bylaw”) the same day it announced it had entered into a merger agreement to acquire First Citizens Bancorporation, Inc. The Forum Selection Bylaw selected as the forum the federal or state courts of North Carolina instead of the state or federal courts of Delaware. The City of Providence filed complaints challenging as invalid the Forum Selection Bylaw and asserting various claims against the FC North board of directors concerning the proposed merger. The Court of Chancery granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss both complaints for failure to state a claim, holding (1) the Forum Selection Bylaw is facially valid; and (2) it is not unreasonable, unjust, or inequitable to enforce the Forum Selection Bylaw in this case. View "City of Providence v. First Citizens Bancshares, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a senior in the nursing program at Delaware State University (DSU) when she was dismissed for consuming a half of a margarita while on break during a clinical program. Plaintiff filed suit seeking reinstatement in the nursing program. The Court of Chancery granted relief, holding (1) DSU dismissed Plaintiff for academic reasons; (2) because Plaintiff was not fully informed of the charges against her or the severity of the consequences, she was not validly removed from the nursing program; and (3) Plaintiff was duly excluded from the clinical course but not from the nursing program. View "Jenkins v. Del. State Univ." on Justia Law

A former officer and director of two Delaware companies filed an action for mandatory advancement from those companies of the legal fees and expenses he incurred in underlying litigation between the parties in a Pennsylvania federal court, seeking indemnification from January 2013. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, contending that Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue advancement and indemnification from them because he was entitled to and had been receiving mandatory advancement from his new employer or client through at least the end of 2012. Defendants contended that because Plaintiff had incurred no out-of-pocket expenses, he had no standing to seek advancement from them. The Court of Chancery (1) granted the motion to dismiss as to any legal fees and expenses incurred since January 2013 that had been paid by Plaintiff’s current employer or client on the ground that Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue those claims; and (2) denied the motion to dismiss with respect to any fees and expenses incurred since January 2013 that had not been paid by the co-indemnitor, holding that Plaintiff was entitled to advancement from at least one defendant that clearly owed a mandatory advancement and indemnification obligation to Plaintiff. View "Pontone v. Milso Indus. Corp." on Justia Law

Defendants, collectively referred to as “InterDigital,” and LG Electronics, Inc. entered into a non-disclosure agreement, titled “Agreement Governing Confidential Settlement Communications (the NDA), after LG filed a demand for arbitration with the International Centre for Dispute Resolution. InterDigital claimed that the parties did not intend to prevent the submission of pre-NDA evidence to the arbitral tribunal and disclosed in its brief to the tribunal alleged settlement communications. LG then filed this action seeking injunctive relief compelling InterDigital to withdraw its brief, claiming that InterDigital breached the NDA by submitting the documents to the arbitrators. InterDigital moved to dismiss LG’s complaint in favor of arbitration, asking the Court of Chancery to exercise its discretion under the doctrine established in McWane Cast Iron Pipe Corp. v. McDowell-Wellman Engineering Co. to dismiss the action in favor of the earlier-filed arbitral proceeding. The Court of Chancery dismissed the action in favor of the earlier-filed arbitral proceeding under the McWane doctrine, concluding that this case met the McWane doctrine’s requirements. View "LG Elecs., Inc. v. Interdigital Commc’ns, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought attorneys’ fees and legal expenses from Defendants, two corporations and her two brothers, after successfully pursuing a books and records action under Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, 220 and after filing a complaint alleging derivative and double-derivative claims against Defendants. Although the Defendants substantially prevailed on Plaintiff’s derivative claims, Plaintiff sought attorneys’ fees and costs for her attorneys’ litigation efforts arising from the section 220 action and from overcoming a special litigation committee’s investigation and recommendation to terminate the litigation. Plaintiff sought approximately $1.4 million. In response, Defendants argued that Plaintiff achieved only minimal, therapeutic benefits and should only be awarded $25,000 for her litigation efforts. The Court of Chancery concluded that Plaintiff should be awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses of $275,000, as Plaintiff’s litigation efforts brought about some positive benefits for the companies involved, although those benefits were not as valuable as Plaintiff had argued. View "Sutherland v. Sutherland" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a trust (“the Raiff Trust”) that had expired under the terms of the trust instrument that established the trust. The trust was funded with shares of Jenzabar, Inc. At the time of this litigation, the Raiff Trust continued to hold shares of Jenzabar stock on behalf of its beneficiary. Plaintiff, trustee of a trust holding stock in Jenzabar, brought derivative claims related to a bonus payment for Jenzabar’s CEO and Chairman. The Raiff Trust moved to intervene in the litigation. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the trust lacked the capacity to prosecute this action on behalf of Jenzabar because it had no beneficial or economic interest in Jenzabar. The Court of Chancery granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the trust could take only actions related to preserving its assets for purposes of distribution and wind-up, together with those actions for which the trust instrument specifically provided, which did not include the maintenance of the derivative litigation contemplated in this action. View "In re Jenzabar, Inc. Derivative Litigation" on Justia Law

During divorce proceedings between Daniel Kloiber (Dan) and Beth Ann Kloiber the Kentucky Family Court issued status quo orders that restricted Dan in his capacity as a human being over whom the Kentucky Family Court had personal jurisdiction, thereby restricting Dan’s actions as special trustee of the Daniel Kloiber Dynasty Trust and sole manager of three LLCs. Dan subsequently resigned from his positions and appointed Nick Kloiber as special trustee. Nick proceeded to take action contrary to the status quo orders, and the Kentucky Family Court issued a rule to show cause why Nick should not be held in contempt. PNC Delaware Trust Company (PNC), the trustee of the Dynasty Trust, and Nick filed petitions seeking instructions and declarations from the Court of Chancery, arguing that the Kentucky Family Court improperly asserted jurisdiction over the trustee, special trustee and trust and was requiring them to take actions contrary to their fiduciary duties. The Court of Chancery denied Nick’s application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent Beth from seeking to enforce the status quo orders, including the pending rule to show cause, holding that, because the Kentucky Family Court was not interfering with the Court’s jurisdiction, Nick lacked a colorable claim on which to base a TRO. View "In re Daniel Kloiber Dynasty Trust " on Justia Law

Plaintiff and three individual defendants worked together as principals in a financial services boutique. After plaintiff resigned, he sought a declaration that he continues to own equity stakes in two of the entities. The court concluded that plaintiff withdrew from the entities as of January 26, 2006; because plaintiff only presented evidence a trial sufficient for the court to determine the value of his capital accounts and did not present any evidence of the fair value of his interests, the most plaintiff can receive is the value of his capital accounts; and, therefore, plaintiff is awarded $35,042.67, plus pre- and post-judgment interest from January 6, 2006, until the date of payment. View "Levey v. Brownstone Asset Mgmt., LP, et al." on Justia Law