This article was written by Jim Rosenbluth and Carl Neff of Pierson Ferdinand LLP.
Delaware has long maintained its status as the mecca for U.S. corporations, with over 50% of all publicly listed corporations incorporated there. Devoted exclusively to the adjudication of business disputes and known for having developed a widely cited and extensive body…
In a significant decision that clarifies the standards for determining controlling stockholder status, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed claims against AstraZeneca and Viela Bio’s directors in connection with Viela’s $3 billion sale to Horizon Therapeutics. The case, Sciannella v. AstraZeneca UK Limited et al., addressed whether AstraZeneca, which held a 26.7% stake…
In the recent decision of McMillan, et al. v. Nelson, et al., C.A. No. 2024-0016-KSJM (Del. Ch.), the Delaware Court of Chancery reaffirmed the primacy of contractual language in LLC governance disputes. McMillan centered on a dispute over the management of Prince Legacy, LLC, an entity formed to manage assets from the estate…
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently addressed the complexities of partnership formation–and the importance that an oral agreement contain all material terms–in the decision of Handler v. Centerview Partners Holdings, L.P., C.A. No. 2022-0672-SG (Del. Ch. Apr. 24, 2024).
Background
The case originated from a books and records demand under 6 Del. C. §…
In a recent decision that underscores the importance of precise contract language in M&A deals, the Delaware Court of Chancery dealt a blow to former Cephalon shareholders seeking a post-merger payday. The case, Himawan v. Cephalon, Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0075-SG (Del. Ch.), centered on the interpretation of contingent value rights (CVRs) issued as…
In the recent decision of Product Madness, Inc. v. Brooke Kingston, the Delaware Court of Chancery addressed whether portions of Product Madness, Inc.’s complaint and exhibits, related to a confirmed arbitration award, should remain confidential under Court of Chancery Rule 5.1. The Court concluded they should not.
Factual Background:
Product Madness is a corporation…
In the decision of Harrison Metal Capital III, L.P., v. Mathé, et al., C.A. No. 2022-0261-PAF (Del. Ch. Mar. 27, 2024), the Delaware Court of Chancery considered whether plaintiff adequately plead demand futility under Rule 23.1 in its suit alleging that defendants, who were directors and officers of the company, breached their fiduciary duties…
In the decision OrbiMed Advisors LLC v. Symbiomix Therapeutics, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 2023-0769-MTZ, 2024 WL 747567 (Del. Ch. Feb. 23, 2024), the Delaware Court of Chancery considered an advancement dispute. The Court determined that the defendant was obligated to provide advancement under indemnification agreements between the plaintiffs and a company that defendant…
On January 30, 2024, the Delaware Court of Chancery rescinded Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”)’s January 2018 grant to CEO Elon Musk of performance-based stock options with a potential $55.8 billion maximum value and a $2.6 billion grant date fair value (the “Grant”).[1] The lawsuit was filed derivatively against Musk, in his capacity as Tesla’s controlling shareholder…
In Barry Leistner v. Red Mud Enterprises LLC, C.A. No. 2023-0503-SEM (Del. Ch. Dec. 8, 2023), the Delaware Court of Chancery addressed Plaintiff Barry Leistner’s exceptions to a Magistrate’s Final Report that denied his books and records request regarding Red Mud Enterprises LLC. Leistner, a member and investor of the company, previously obtained a…
