Justia Delaware Court of Chancery Opinion Summaries

Respondent was a former corporation that for several decade was involved in the business of plastering and spray insulating. Due to the nature of its business, Respondent had been subject to hundreds of asbestos-related tort suits. The corporation dissolved in 1999. Petitioners subsequently filed an action seeking the appointment of a receiver for Respondent based on the perceived existence of undistributed assets in the form of liability insurance coverage. After examining Delaware's corporate scheme of dissolution, the Court of Chancery granted Respondent's motion for summary judgment, holding (1) Respondent was not amenable to asbestos-related tort suits commenced more than ten years after its dissolution; and (2) consequently, under the circumstances, the insurance contracts were valueless, and therefore, the appointment of a receiver was unnecessary. View "In re Krafft-Murphy Co., Inc." on Justia Law

This case addressed the allegations of a minority unitholder in a privately held medical device company. The unitholder, the former CEO of the company, became a minority stakeholder after accepting investments in the company in exchange for units after he sold some of his own units. After the board of directors caused the company to enter into several financing transactions, the unitholder filed this action against the board. The unitholder alleged (1) the transactions were in breach of the company's operating agreement, and by undertaking the transactions, the directors also breached their fiduciary duties, and (2) certain unitholders breached fiduciary duties and they and their affiliates aided and abetted the directors' breach of fiduciary duties. The court of chancery held (1) the directors exceeded their authority in engaging in the financing transactions, but they did not breach the fiduciary duties they owed thereunder when they engaged in the transactions; and (2) the directors' breach caused no damage and all defendants were entitled to indemnification notwithstanding the directors' breach of the company's operating agreement. View "Zimmerman v. Crothall" on Justia Law

A stockholder of Republic, a Delaware corporation that engages in waste hauling and waste disposal, filed a derivative suit based on Republic’s compensation decisions: that a payment to O’Connor was made without consideration and was, therefore, wasteful; that an incentive payment to O’Connor was wasteful because it was not tax-deductible and rendered Republic’s compensation plan not tax-deductible; that Directors paid themselves excessive compensation; that Directors breached their duty of loyalty and wasted corporate assets by awarding a certain type of stock option; and that Directors improperly awarded employee bonuses because the requirements of the bonus scheme under which the bonuses were awarded were not met. The chancellor dismissed all but the claim arising from the board’s granting itself stock awards.View "Frank David Seinfeld v. Donald W. Slager, et al." on Justia Law

A 2007 conveyance of commercial property in Milton was characterized by mistakes, starting with an error-filled purchase offer, so that the deed ultimately conveyed a residential parcel that was not owned by the seller at the time of conveyance and that the seller did not intend to convey. In an opinion characterized as “unpleasant to write,” the chancellor declared the purported conveyance a nullity and noted that the “matter has been litigated far beyond what a rational evaluation of its costs and potential benefits would dictate.” The chancellor found that the deed, purporting to transfer the residential parcel, was altered by the buyer’s attorney, to the detriment of the seller and without the effective consent of the seller and was ineffective to convey any property. The actual deed signed by the parties contained a reference to the residential parcel by tax number, but omitted that property from the metes and bounds description. View "Point Mgmt., LLC v. MacLaren, LLC" on Justia Law

Husband died intestate in 2008. A woman, claiming to be his wife, was appointed as administrator of the estate. Petitioner, who resides in the Peoples’ Republic of China, alleged that she was the surviving spouse and sought an elective share. The petition was dismissed. According to petitioner, the first stipulation of dismissal was based upon counsel’s belief that the parties had reached a settlement, and the second stipulation of dismissal was to allow parallel litigation in Pennsylvania. Unable to resolve that litigation, petitioner filed the instant action in May 2011. In her belated response to a motion to dismiss, petitioner alleged that she was not informed of husband’s death for several weeks, and was not timely notified of appointment of the administrator. The court declined to set aside the dismissal. No petition for an extension of time for election was filed during the sixth-month period. The first petition was filed more than five months after the limitations period had expired, and the current petition was filed nearly two years after the limitations period had expired.View "in Re: Ren Xiong Estate" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged the Town's actions in regards to a Mutual Agreement and Release (MAR) for the redevelopment of Ruddertowne, primarily upon the bases that they constituted impermissible contract zoning and that the MAR, the Building Permit, and the Record Plat Plan (together, the Challenged Documents) violated numerous aspects of the Town's zoning, building, and land use regulations. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit. The court concluded that the Complaint was filed after the period provided for in the applicable statute of repose, 10 Del. C. 8126. As for the Building Inspector's approval and issuance of the Building Permit, the court concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction because an adequate remedy at law was available to plaintiffs. Therefore, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss. The Town's motion to strike, which was rendered moot, was denied.View "Murray v. Town of Dewey Beach" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, both individually and as the trustee of several trusts that she directed, asserted claims against defendants arising out of her decision to invest in Lord Baltimore. Defendants moved to dismiss all of the claims asserted against them. The court held that defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, except to plaintiff's claim that there was an implied covenant in the Shareholders' Agreement requiring that repurchase proposals be presented to and considered by the Board, which was not dismissed. View "Blaustein v. Lord Baltimore Capital Corp." on Justia Law

This was a declaratory judgment action under 6 Del. C. 111 to determine the duties, obligations, and liabilities, if any, of a Delaware limited liability company to one of its initial members. The court concluded that a clear forum selection clause in Todd's employment agreement with RWI (N.M.), which closely paralleled a similar provision in a related Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA), precluded the court from determining what effect, if any, Todd's termination from RWI (N.M.) had upon, at least, a subset of RWI (Del.) units he previously held. As a result, the court lacked the ability to determine definitely whether Todd continued to hold any interest in RWI (Del.), at least until a court in New Mexico resolved Todd's ownership of this subset of units. Therefore, the court stayed the action as a matter of judicial efficiency and in deference to the apparent intent of the contracting parties in favor of the proceedings pending in New Mexico.View "RWI Acquisition LLC v. Todd" on Justia Law

In these cross-motions for partial summary judgment, at issue was whether ION violated the rights of its preferred stockholder, Fletcher, by causing a wholly-owned ION subsidiary to issue certain promissory notes without Fletcher's approval in connection with ION's purchase of a business. The court agreed with the parties that to determine whether the notes were securities was an issue appropriate for summary judgment. On the merits, however, the court held that it did not agree with ION's argument that all notes issued as compensation to a seller of a business by the buyer of that business were not securities. The court concluded that two of the promissory notes issued to the business seller by the ION subsidiary were not securities because they were most sensibly characterized as short-term commercial bridge financing to facilitate the closing of the acquisition transaction. But the court concluded that the third note was a security. Accordingly, the court found that Fletcher's consent rights under the Certificates were not breached by the issuance of the first two notes, but were breached when ION caused its subsidiary to issue the third note.View "Fletcher Int'l, Ltd. v. ION Geophysical Corp., et al." on Justia Law

This action involved claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary against an individual defendant, a former investment professional accused of having committed a massive fraud related to a quantitatively-based trading program that he allegedly developed to trade futures contracts. Plaintiffs, as a result of their association with defendant and Paron, the firm they founded with defendant, claimed that they have been stigmatized and thus face dismal prospects of finding employment in the financial services industry. The court found that defendant committed fraud and breached his fiduciary duties to plaintiff and Paron by making false statements of fact about his program, his investment track record, and his personal financial situation. As a result, plaintiffs were entitled to extensive damages against defendant based on their lost future earnings and other costs associated with the formation and operation of Paron. The court also awarded plaintiffs limited injunctive relief requiring defendant to destroy or return copies of Paron's trading program and to stop marketing any versions of that trading program.View "Paron Capital Mgmt., LLC, et al. v. Crombie" on Justia Law