Justia Delaware Court of Chancery Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a former shareholder of XTO, moved for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses following the stipulated dismissal of her derivative action, which was largely mooted by measures taken by XTO's Board shortly after plaintiff's complaint was served. In addition to XTO, the former members of XTO's Board were named as defendants. Plaintiff objected to the fact that the cash bonuses paid to XTO's CEO and four other officers were not tax-deductible because they did not meet the requirements of section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. The court denied the motion because an arguably poor business judgment, without more, did not excuse demand on the Board in a derivative action. View "Freedman v. Adams, et al." on Justia Law

This action arose out of plaintiff Lawrence Ng's sale (the Sale) of a majority of the common stock of plaintiff ODN to plaintiff Oak Hill. Defendant Lawrence Hsu initially filed an action challenging the Sale (the First Delaware Action) and subsequently dismissed the First Delaware Action with prejudice two weeks after it was filed, and no defendant ever appeared in that action. More than 20 months later, Hsu and three other plaintiffs filed another action challenging the Sale (California Action). Three weeks after that, defendants in the California Action filed the current action (Second Delaware Action), seeking, among other things, a declaration that they did not commit certain wrongs alleged in the California Action. Hsu has moved to dismiss, or alternatively, to stay the Second Delaware Action in favor of the California Action. The court denied Hsu's motion but granted his motion to stay the Second Delaware action because the California Action was in its initial stages. Depending on what happened in the California Action, the court might move forward with the Second Delaware Action. View "ODN Holding Corp. v. Hsu" on Justia Law

This action principally challenged the purported removal of Ak-Feel, a Delaware limited liability company, as the sole managing member of Oculus, also a Delaware limited liability company. Section 18-109(a) of the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (LLC Act), 6 Del. C. 18-109(a), empowered the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over NHA, a New York limited liability company, for purposes of the courts asserting breaches of duty to Oculus. Once jurisdictionally present in Delaware for these claims, NHA was subjected to the court's jurisdiction for the other claims as well, all of which arose out of a common nucleus of operative fact and related to actions NHA took purportedly on behalf of Oculus. The individual defendants, by contrast, have raised sufficient questions about the court's jurisdictional reach to warrant deferring a ruling on the motion pending jurisdictional discovery and further briefing. Therefore, the motion to dismiss was denied. View "Feeley, et al. v. NHAOCG, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

Stockholder plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin a merger between El Paso and Kinder Morgan. The CEO of El Paso undertook sole responsibility for negotiating the sale of El Paso to Kinder Morgan in the merger but did not disclose to El Paso's Board his interest in working with other El Paso managers in making a bid to buy El Paso's exploration and production (E&P) business. Further, the Board and management of El Paso relied in part on advice given by a financial advisor, Goldman Sachs, which owned 19% of Kinder Morgan and controlled two Kinder Morgan board seats. The court concluded that plaintiffs have a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that the merger was tainted by disloyalty. Because, however, there was no other bid on the table and the stockholders of El Paso, as the seller, have a choice whether to turn down the merger themselves, the balance of harms counseled against a preliminary injunction. Although the pursuit of a monetary damages award could not be likely to promise full relief, the record did not instill in the court the confidence to deny, by grant of an injunction, El Paso's stockholders from accepting a transaction that they could find desirable in current market conditions, despite the disturbing behavior that led to its final terms. View "In Re El Paso Corporation Shareholder Litigation" on Justia Law

This derivative action challenged a series of related-party transactions. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, contending that laches barred the bulk of the claims. Defendants were partly right, laches barred the challenges to certain stock options granted in 2004 and 2005. Laches also barred a portion of the challenge to compensation received under certain employment agreements and rent-free sublease. With respect to these claims, the doctrine applied to the extent the compensation was paid and rent-free space provided before March 18, 2008. The doctrine did not apply to the extent that compensation was paid and rent-free space provided on or after March 18, 2008. On a final set of claims, the court granted plaintiffs leave to replead because although the complaint alleged facts sufficient to invoke the doctrine of equitable tolling, the pleading failed to identify when plaintiffs subsequently found out about the self-dealing transactions. View "Buerger, et al. v. Apfel, et al." on Justia Law

The parties disputed the amount that defendant, Fitracks, must advance to Noam Danenberg in connection with his defense of claims asserted against him by Aetrix, Fitracks' parent, in litigation pending before the district court (Underlying Action). They also disputed the amount that Fitracks must pay Danenberg as indemnification for this proceeding. Judgment was entered in favor of Danenberg for advancements in the amount of $292,019.91 and indemnification in the amount of $276,332.13. Interest on these amounts, compounded quarterly, shall accrue at the legal rate beginning February 27, 2012 through the date of payment. Going forward, unless modified by stipulation, the parties shall follow the procedures set forth in this opinion. View "Danenberg v. Fitracks, Inc." on Justia Law

This action was before the court on a motion to preliminarily enjoin an all-cash negotiated tender offer for all of the shares of a biopharmaceutical company. Plaintiffs, shareholders of the target company, claimed that the offer was for an unfair price and was the result of an unfair and flawed sales process. Plaintiffs also claimed that the solicitation materials recommending the tender offer contained materially false and misleading information. As a result, plaintiffs sought to have the tender offer enjoined before its consummation. The court concluded that plaintiffs have failed to show a reasonable likelihood that they would succeed in proving that the challenged transaction was unfair or that the directors breached their fiduciary duties of care or loyalty, including their disclosure obligations, in approving the transaction. Therefore, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to preliminarily enjoin the tender offer. View "In re Micromet, Inc. Shareholders Litigation" on Justia Law

This case involved Bancorp's agreement to sell BankAtlantic to BB&T. Plaintiffs, institutional trustees, sued to enforce debt covenants that prohibited Bancorp from selling "all or substantially all" of its assets unless the acquirer assumed the debt. The evidence at trial established that Bancorp was selling substantially all of its assets, and BB&T had not agreed to assume the debt. The ensuing event of default would result in the debt accelerating. Bancorp could not pay the accelerated debt. Because this eventuality would inflict irreparable harm on plaintiffs, the court entered contemporaneously an order permanently enjoining Bancorp from consummating the sale. View "In re BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. Litigation" on Justia Law

This matter involved a stockholders' suit over the proposed takeover of Delphi by TMH. Based upon the record, the court found that plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits at least with respect to the allegations against defendant. However, because the deal represented a large premium over market price, because damages were available as a remedy, and because no other potential purchaser had come forth or seemed likely to come forth to match, let alone best, the TMH offer, the court could not find that the balance of the equities favored an injunction over letting the stockholders exercise their franchise, and allowing plaintiffs to pursue damages. Therefore, the court denied plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction. View "In re Delphi Financial Group Shareholder Litigation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought his Second Amended Complaint asserting various claims against former business associates, including his former fellow members and Board of Managers members of Aeosphere and two companies with which Aeosphere purportedly had business dealings, Flakt Woods and SEMCO. All of plaintiff's claims related to the dissolution of Aeosphere, which he argued was wrongfully undertaken by the other Managers in order to remove him from a cutting-edge and potentially lucrative fragrance business. Plaintiff further asserted that Flakt Woods and SEMCO aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty and were otherwise complicit in these wrongful actions. Flakt Woods and SEMCO moved for dismissal. The court concluded that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Flakt Woods or SEMCO, and that, even if it had personal jurisdiction over SEMCO, the Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted against SEMCO. Therefore, plaintiff's claims against Flakt Woods and SEMCO were dismissed. Counts II, IV, and V of the Counterclaims were also dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. View "Matthew v. Laudamiel, et al." on Justia Law