On August 5, 2021, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued revised Guidelines for Persons Litigating in the Court of Chancery. According to the Court’s press release, the Guidelines “review the expectations for remote and courtroom hearings and trials and offer best practices for litigating cases in the Court of Chancery.” These Guidelines are a
Court of Chancery Dismisses Defamation Claim, Rejects Parties’ Stipulation to Hear Claim Under Clean-Up Doctrine
In the recent decision of DG BF, LLC, et al. v. Michael Ray, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0459-MTZ (Del. Ch. June 30, 2021), the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a defamation claim despite the parties stipulating to have the Court hear such claim under the clean-up doctrine.
Earlier,
Court of Chancery Grants Stay of Discovery Pending Resolution of Advancement Claim
In the recent decision of Agspring Holdco, LLC, et al. v. NGP X US Holdings, L.P., et al., C.A. No. 2019-0567-JRS (Del. Ch. June 28, 2021), the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a stay of discovery pending resolution of the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment to confirm or vacate an arbitration ruling concerning advancement
Court of Chancery Holds that Arbitrability of Advancement Claim Must be Determined by Arbitrator
In the recent decision of Blackmon v. O3 Insight, Inc., C.A. No. 2020-1014-SG (Del. Ch. Mar. 9, 2021), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that the arbitrability of a Delaware director’s claim for advancement must be determined by an arbitrator.
The Petitioner, Theodore Blackmon, is a director and stockholder of respondent O3 Insight, Inc.
Court of Chancery Confirms Standard for Granting a Stay of Discovery Pending a Motion to Dismiss
A common tactic employed by experienced Chancery litigators defending a lawsuit is to file a motion to stay discovery while a motion to dismiss is pending. The argument is that if the case is dismissed, the expense of undertaking discovery while a motion to dismiss is pending should be avoided.
A recent short letter opinion
A Primer on Delaware Books and Records Demands Pursuant to Section 220 of the DGCL
Delaware stockholders and directors have an important tool in their arsenal to obtain information from a Delaware corporation: Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”). The statute confers standing upon stockholders or directors to demand inspection of the books and records of a Delaware corporation. 8 Del. C. § 220. This post will
Delaware Judiciary Extends Judicial Emergency, Delaware Courts Remain in Phase 2
On December 30, 2020, the Delaware Supreme Court extended the current judicial emergency for an additional 30 days, effective January 4, 2021. The Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court issued Administrative Order No. 15 memorializing the same.
Previously, on October 5, 2020, the Delaware Courts had moved to a modified Phase 3 of the
Chancery Upholds Agreement Permitting Transfer of Assets; Examines a Century-Long Development of the DGCL
In the recent opinion of Stream TV Networks, Inc. v. SeeCubic, Inc., C.A. No. 2020-0310-JTL (Del. Ch. Dec. 8, 2020) (Laster, V.C.), Vice Chancellor Laster invoked over a century-long development of Delaware corporate jurisprudence to support his ruling that the assets of a 3D television technology company can be transferred to secured creditors, notwithstanding
Delaware Chancery Grants Books and Records Demand; Revises Fee-Shifting Award on Remand
In a brief and short letter opinion of Durham v. Grapetree, LLC, Civil Action No. 2018-0174-SG (Del. Ch. Oct. 8, 2020), Vice Chancellor Glasscock ruled upon a pro se litigant’s books and records demand after it was remanded to the Court of Chancery on appeal. The plaintiff attached a number of books and records
New Confer in Good Faith Requirement Added to Rule 30(b)(6)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) now includes a confer-in-good-faith requirement. The amendment addresses perceived deficiencies in the Rule 30(b)(6) process, including inadequately prepared witnesses and deficient notices. To address these challenges, the rule makers concluded that requiring lawyers to address such issues in advance will increase clarity and resolution.
The new amendment provides as