Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The issue this case presented to the Delaware Supreme Court centered on the circumstances under which an arbitration award could be vacated where it was argued that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law. The parties to a corporate acquisition agreed to arbitrate disputes about the acquired company’s balance sheet on the effective date of the transaction. They retained an arbitrator to decide whether a workers' compensation reserve had been calculated correctly. The arbitrator decided, without any analysis, that there would be no adjustment to the balance sheet. The Court of Chancery vacated the arbitrator's decision, finding that the arbitrator did not follow the relevant provision of the parties’ share purchase agreement. But the test for “manifest disregard for the law” was not whether the arbitrator misconstrued the contract (even if the contract language is clear and unambiguous). "To vacate an arbitration award based on 'manifest disregard of the law,' a court must find that the arbitrator consciously chose to ignore a legal principle, or contract term, that is so clear that it is not subject to reasonable debate." Because the record did not support such a finding, the arbitrator’s award was reinstated. View "SPX Corporation v. Garda USA, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from dispute in the Court of Chancery over the membership of the board of directors of Biolase, Inc. The Court of Chancery resolved the dispute by finding that the Biolase board of directors consisted of five directors, including Paul Clark. The Court of Chancery concluded that Clark was appointed to the Biolase board after a previous director, Alexander Arrow, resigned through oral statements at a board meeting. A press release issued by Biolase after the board meeting quoted Federico Pignatelli, Biolase's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, as saying he was "thrilled" with Clark's appointment to the board. But Pignatelli quickly reversed course when he learned that Clark had aligned himself with a faction of the board that wanted to remove Pignatelli from his position as CEO. Pignatelli argued that because Arrow's resignation at the board meeting was given orally and was not reduced to writing before Clark was appointed to fill the vacancy created by Arrow's resignation, Clark had not been properly appointed to the board under 8 Del. C. section 141(b). Biolase's largest stockholder, appellee Oracle Partners, L.P., brought suit Biolase seeking a declaration that, among other things, Arrow had resigned from the Biolase board and been replaced by Clark at the board meeting. The Court of Chancery rejected the Pignatelli Faction's legal argument and held that section 141(b) was a permissive statute, that a director may resign by an oral statement, and that there was no requirement that a resignation be in writing. Because the Court of Chancery's holding that directors are permitted under section 141(b) to resign by oral statements was not legally erroneous and the Court of Chancery's determination that Arrow resigned at the board meeting was supported by substantial evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery's ruling that Clark was properly appointed to the Biolase board of directors. View "Biolase, Inc. v. Oracle Partners, L.P." on Justia Law

In 2006, Michael and Connie Jo Zimmerman obtained two separate commercial loans from Eagle National Bank, the predecessor in interest to Customers Bank. The Zimmermans later defaulted on these loans and entered into a forbearance agreement. In addition to the Forbearance Agreement, the Zimmermans each executed a Disclosure for the Confession of Judgment acknowledging that a Confession of Judgment provision in the Forbearance Agreement had been called to their attention, that they understood that the provision permitted Customers Bank to enter judgment against them without notice or opportunity for a hearing, and that the waiver of the right to notice and a hearing was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The Forbearance Agreement also provided that all notices, requests, demands, and other communications were to be sent to the Zimmermans at an address in Dover, Delaware with a copy sent to their attorney. Based on the Warrant of Attorney to Confess Judgment in the Forbearance Agreement, Customers Bank filed a complaint seeking the entry of a judgment by confession against the Zimmermans. The Zimmermans opposed the entry of a judgment by confession and a hearing was held where the Zimmermans argued, among other things, that at the time the Forbearance Agreement was executed they were residents of Florida and that Customers Bank had not complied with the requirements for entry of judgment by confession against a non-resident under Rule 58.1. The Zimmermans also argued that they did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive their right to notice and a hearing before judgment could be entered against them. After deliberation, the superior court found the Zimmermans’ waiver of their right to notice and a hearing had been knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and entered judgment by confession against the Zimmermans. The Zimmermans appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Crothall, et al. v. Zimmerman, et al." on Justia Law

In 2007, Marisco Superholdco, LLC and Marisco Superholdco Notes Corp. issued notes ("Superholdco Notes") through a private placement under an indenture between the Issuer and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee. In 2010, as part of a financial restructuring, the Issuer proposed amendments to the Indenture that were approved by a majority of the Superholdco noteholders. Appellees GS Mezzanine Partners 2009, L.P. and GS Mezzanine Partners V, L.P., who owned a majority of the Superholdco Notes, voted in favor of the amendments. Appellants Caspian Alpha Long Credit Fund L.P., Caspian Select Master Fund, LTD., Caspian Capital Partners, L.P., and Mariner LDC were Superholdco noteholders who sued, alleging they were injured by the amendments to the Indenture. GS Mezzanine moved to dismiss the claims against it under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6), and the Court of Chancery granted that motion, finding that Section 6.06 of the Indenture could not reasonably have been read to provide Caspian with a basis to sue GS Mezzanine for voting to approve amendments to the Indenture. On appeal, Caspian argued that the Court of Chancery erred in its decision. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s dismissal of the claims Caspian brought against GS Mezzanine. View "Caspian Alpha Long Credit, Fund, L.P., et al. v. GS Mezzanine Partners 2006, L.P., et al." on Justia Law

ATP Tour, Inc. (ATP) operates a global professional men’s tennis tour. Its members include professional men’s tennis players and entities that own and operate professional men’s tennis tournaments. Two of those entities are Deutscher Tennis Bund (DTB) and Qatar Tennis Federation. ATP is governed by a seven-member board of directors, of which three are elected by the tournament owners, three are elected by the player members, and the seventh directorship is held by ATP’s chairman and president. In 2007, ATP’s board voted to change the Tour schedule and format. Under the board’s “Brave New World” plan, the Hamburg tournament, which the Federations owned and operated, was downgraded from the highest tier of tournaments to the second highest tier, and was moved from the spring season to the summer season. Displeased by these changes, the Federations sued ATP and six of its board members in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging both federal antitrust claims and Delaware fiduciary duty claims. After a ten-day jury trial, the District Court granted ATP’s and the director defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on all of the fiduciary duty claims, and also on the antitrust claims brought against the director defendants. The jury then found in favor of ATP on the remaining antitrust claims. Four questions of Delaware law were certified to the Supreme Court from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware when the Federations appealed. The questions centered on the validity of a fee-shifting provision in a Delaware non-stock corporation’s bylaws. The provision, which the directors adopted pursuant to their charter-delegated power to unilaterally amend the bylaws, shifts attorneys’ fees and costs to unsuccessful plaintiffs in intra-corporate litigation. The federal court found that the bylaw provision’s validity was an open question under Delaware law and asked under what circumstances such a provision was valid and enforceable. Although the Delaware Supreme Court could not directly address the bylaw at issue, it held that fee-shifting provisions in a non-stock corporation’s bylaws could be valid and enforceable under Delaware law. In addition, bylaws normally apply to all members of a non-stock corporation regardless of whether the bylaw was adopted before or after the member in question became a member. View "ATP Tour, Inc., et al. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant T.A.H. First, Inc. had a default judgment entered against it because it failed to answer appellee Clifton Leasing Company, Inc., t/a Delmarva Kenworth's complaint in a timely manner. T.A.H. First moved the Superior Court to vacate the default judgment. The Superior Court denied that motion, and specifically held that not only was T.A.H. First not entitled to defend the claims brought by Clifton against it, but T.A.H. First also was prohibited from pressing counterclaims against Clifton because those counterclaims were not filed in a timely manner. The Superior Court agreed to hold an inquisition hearing to quantify the amount of the default judgment against T.A.H. First. But Clifton eventually concluded that T.A.H. First was likely judgment proof and that it did not want to waste further resources or those of the Superior Court by holding an inquisition hearing. Clifton sought to dismiss the case with prejudice as to all claims that any party to the case was required to have raised in a timely pleading in the case. The Superior Court granted Clifton’s request and dismissed the case. T.A.H. First appealed, arguing that the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying the motion to vacate the default judgment. Because Clifton had dismissed the case without seeking to quantify the default judgment and impose a duty upon T.A.H. First to pay a sum certain, the Supreme Court was concerned that it was addressing a moot point and that there might not be proper grounds for appeal. After receiving supplemental submissions, the Court entered an order that, "in candor, was confusing and can be read as contradictory. In essence, the Order contains language that can be read as both affirming the Superior Court’s denial of T.A.H. First’s motion to vacate the default judgment, while simultaneously reviving T.A.H. First’s ability to file counterclaims that it had not timely filed." After the Superior Court granted summary judgment on T.A.H. First’s claims on remand, T.A.H. First again appealed, arguing that the Supreme Court's prior mandate required the Superior Court to allow T.A.H. First to press its claims, despite the default judgment T.A.H. First had earlier suffered. Upon re-review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion or commit an error of law in its rulings in this case. View "T.A.H. First, Inc. v. Clifton Leasing Company, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Christiana Mall, LLC appealed the Superior Court’s finding of substantial prejudice. Plaintiff-appellee Emory Hill and Company appealed the Superior Court’s finding of excusable neglect and a meritorious defense with respect to the claim of quantum meruit. Upon review of the dispute, the Supreme Court concluded that Christiana’s failure to file a timely answer to the Complaint was not due to excusable neglect. The Court affirmed the trial court's order but on different reasons. View "Christiana Mall, LLC v. Emory Hill and Company" on Justia Law

RB Entertainment is one of a complicated web of at least seventeen different companies that Appellant Jeffrey Cohen allegedly owns and controls. Central to this appeal was one issue: whether the delinquency proceedings for Indemnity Insurance Corporation, RRG violated the constitutional due process rights of Cohen or Co-Appellant RB Entertainment Ventures. Co-Appellant IDG Companies, LLC (Indemnity's managing general agent), was also one of the Cohen-affiliated entities. After uncovering evidence that Cohen had committed fraud in his capacity as Indemnity's CEO and that Indemnity might be insolvent, the Delaware Insurance Commissioner petitioned the Court of Chancery for a seizure order. The Delaware Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act. Based on the detailed allegations and supporting evidence presented by the Commissioner, the Court of Chancery granted that seizure order, which, among other things, prohibited anyone with notice of the proceedings from transacting the business of Indemnity, selling or destroying Indemnity’s assets, or asserting claims against Indemnity in other venues without permission from the Commissioner. The seizure order also prohibited anyone with notice of the proceedings from interfering with the Commissioner in the discharge of her duties. Cohen, who founded Indemnity and had served as its President, Chairman, and CEO, resigned from Indemnity's board during the ensuing investigation and the board removed him from his managerial positions. After his resignation, Cohen interfered with the Commissioner's efforts to operate Indemnity in various ways. The Commissioner returned to the Court of Chancery several times, first seeking an amendment to the seizure order to address Cohen's behavior and then seeking sanctions against him. The Court of Chancery entered a series of orders that increased the restrictions on Cohen's behavior and imposed stiffer sanctions upon him. Cohen argued that he was denied due process at several junctures during the Court of Chancery proceedings. Because Cohen's claims alleged violations of his right to due process, the focus of the Supreme Court's opinion was on whether Cohen was given notice of the allegations against him and a fair opportunity to present his side of the dispute. Having carefully examined the record in this case, the Court concluded that he was given that opportunity: no violation of Cohen's or the affiliated entities' due process rights occurred. View "Cohen, et al. v. State of Delaware, et al." on Justia Law

Barley Mill, LLC appealed a Court of Chancery judgment invalidating a vote of the New Castle County Council on a rezoning ordinance. Barley Mill planned to develop a piece of property to house office space and a regional shopping mall. The increase in traffic associated with the development was of considerable concern to both the public and members of the Council itself. But the Council was advised that: (1) it could not obtain the traffic information and analysis that Barley Mill was required to provide to the Delaware Department of Transportation as part of the overall rezoning process before the Council exercised its discretionary authority to vote on the rezoning ordinance; and (2) that the traffic information was not legally relevant to the Council's analysis. That advice was incorrect and there were no legal barriers that prevented the Council from obtaining the information or considering it before casting its discretionary vote on the rezoning ordinance. After the rezoning ordinance was approved, nearby resident homeowners and Save Our County, Inc. challenged the zoning ordinance, arguing that not only was the Council allowed to consider the traffic information, but the New Castle County Unified Development Code required it to consider that information before its vote. They also argued that, even if the Council was not required to consider the information before the vote, the vote on the rezoning ordinance was arbitrary and capricious because the Council had received erroneous legal advice that the information was both unavailable and irrelevant at the time the Council cast its vote. The Court of Chancery held that the mistake of law caused the Council to vote without first obtaining the information, rendering the vote arbitrary and capricious. On appeal, Barley Mill argued that the Court of Chancery erred when it invalidated the Council's vote. Save Our County and New Castle County cross-appealed, arguing that the Court of Chancery erred in holding that neither 9 Del C. Sec. 2662 nor the UDC required the Council to consider a traffic analysis before casting its discretionary vote on the rezoning ordinance. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery's decision. View "Barley Mill, LLC v. Save Our County, Inc." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this matter centered on a Court of Chancery decision arising from a 2011 acquisition by MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc. (M&F), a 43% stockholder in M&F Worldwide Corp (MFW), of the remaining common stock of MFW. M&F’s proposal to take MFW private was made contingent upon two procedural conditions. Appellants initially sought to enjoin the transaction. They withdrew their request for injunctive relief after taking expedited discovery, including several depositions. Appellants then sought post-closing relief against M&F, Ronald Perelman, and MFW’s directors for breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants then moved for summary judgment, which the Court of Chancery granted. Appellants raised two arguments on appeal: (1) the Court of Chancery erred in concluding that no material disputed facts existed regarding the conditions precedent to business judgment review; and (2) the Court of Chancery erred, as a matter of law, in holding that the business judgment standard applied to controller freeze-out mergers where the controller’s proposal is conditioned on both Special Committee approval and a favorable majority-of-the-minority vote.The Supreme Court concluded Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted on all of those issues. The Court determined that the business judgment rule standard of review applied to this controlling stockholder buyout. View "Kahn, et al v. M&F Worldwide Corp., et al." on Justia Law