Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioners-Appellants, tort claimants in lawsuits pending against Krafft-Murphy Company, Inc. in other jurisdictions, sought the appointment of a receiver to enable them lawfully to pursue those claims against the company in those other courts. The company argued argued that because it held no assets other than unexhausted liability insurance policies, Delaware law did not authorize the appointment of a receiver and that it was not necessary to appoint one. The Court of Chancery granted summary judgment in favor of the company. The Petitioners appealed. The case raised two questions of first impression in for the Delaware Court, plus a third question directly addressed by settled Delaware law: (1) does a contingent contractual right, such as an insurance policy, constitute "property"?; (2) does Delaware's statutory corporate dissolution scheme contain a generally applicable statute of limitations that time-bars claims against a dissolved corporation by third parties after the limitations period expires?; and (3) after a three year winding-up period expires, does a dissolved corporation have the power to act absent a court-appointed receiver or trustee? Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded: (1) under 8 Del. C. 279, contingent contractual rights, such as unexhausted insurance policies, constitute "property" of a dissolved corporation, so long as those rights are capable of vesting; (2) Delaware's dissolution statutes impose no generally applicable statute of limitations that would time-bar claims against a dissolved corporation by third parties; and (3) the existence of the "body corporate" continues beyond the expiration of the statutory winding-up period of 8 Del. C. sec. 278 for purposes of conducting litigation commenced before the expiration of that period. But, for litigation commenced after the expiration of that statutory period, a dissolved corporation may act only through a receiver or appointed trustee. Because the judgment of the Court of Chancery rested on legal determinations inconsistent with these holdings, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Anderson v. Krafft-Murphy Co. Inc." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was an interlocutory appeal by the Court of Chancery of a preliminary injunction halting consummation of a stock purchase agreement under which Vivendi, S.A. would have divested itself of its controlling interest in Appellee Activision Blizzard, Inc., and an Activision stockholder. Appellees convinced the trial court that the company’s charter required that a majority of the public stockholders vote in favor of the transaction. The relevant provision applied to "any merger, business combination, or similar transaction" involving Vivendi and Activision. The trial court held that Activision's purchase of its own stock would be a business combination because significant value would be transferred to Vivendi in exchange for Activision's acquisition of a newly-formed Vivendi subsidiary that held Vivendi's Activision stock. In October 2013, the Supreme Court reversed, and this opinion set forth the basis for its decision. View "Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al. v. Hayes, et al." on Justia Law

A question of Delaware law was certified from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth. The issue focused on whether under the "fraud exception" to Delaware's continuous ownership rule, shareholder plaintiffs may maintain a derivative suit after a merger that divests them of their ownership interest in the corporation on whose behalf they sue by alleging that the merger at issue was necessitated by, and is inseparable from, the alleged fraud that is the subject of their derivative claims. The Delaware Court answered that question in the negative. View "Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al." on Justia Law

In this appeal, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether a derivative complaint challenging a corporate board's decision to pay certain executive bonuses without adopting a plan that could make those bonuses tax deductible states a claim for waste. The trial court concluded that the complaint failed to allege with particularity, that the board's decision not to implement a so-called "Section 162(m)" plan was a decision that no reasonable person would have made. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed and affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Freedman v. Adams, et al." on Justia Law

In resolving this dispute between the controlling member–manager and the minority investors of a Delaware Limited Liability Company (LLC), the Supreme Court interpreted the LLC's governing instrument as a contract that adopted the equitable standard of entire fairness in a conflict of interest transaction between the LLC and its manager. The Court held that the manager violated that contracted-for fiduciary duty by refusing to negotiate with a third-party bidder and then by causing the company to be sold to himself at an unfair price in a flawed auction that the manager himself engineered. The Court affirmed the trial court's damages award solely on contractual grounds, and affirmed the court’s award of attorneys' fees. View "Gatz Properties, LLC v. Auriga Capital Corp., et al." on Justia Law

The Court of Chancery held that Defendants-Appellants, Americas Mining Corporation (AMC), a subsidiary of Southern Copper Corporation's (Southern Peru) controlling shareholder, and affiliate directors of Southern Peru, breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty to Southern Peru and its minority stockholders by causing Southern Peru to acquire the controller’s 99.15% interest in a Mexican mining company, Minera Mexico, S.A. de C.V., for much more than it was worth (at an unfair price). The Plaintiff challenged the transaction derivatively on behalf of Southern Peru. The Court of Chancery found the trial evidence established that the controlling shareholder through AMC, "extracted a deal that was far better than market" from Southern Peru due to the ineffective operation of a special committee. To remedy the Defendants' breaches of loyalty, the Court of Chancery awarded the difference between the value Southern Peru paid for Minera ($3.7 billion) and the amount the Court of Chancery determined Minera was worth ($2.4 billion). The Court of Chancery awarded damages in the amount of $1.347 billion plus pre- and postjudgment interest, for a total judgment of $2.0316 billion. The Court of Chancery also awarded the Plaintiff's counsel attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of 15% of the total judgment, which amounts to more than $304 million. Defendants raised five issues on appeal pertaining to their perceived errors at trial, the valuation of the shares and companies involved and the awarding of attorneys fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that all of the Defendants' arguments were without merit. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Chancery was affirmed. View "Americas Mining Corp. v. Theriault Southern Copper Corp." on Justia Law

Central Laborers instituted this action under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, section 220, to compel News Corp. to produce its books and records related to its acquisition of Shine. The court held that Section 220 permitted a stockholder to inspect books and records of a corporation if the stockholder complied with the procedural requirements of the statute and then showed a proper purpose for the inspection. Section 220 required a stockholder seeking to inspect books and records to establish that such stockholder had complied with the form and manner of making demand for inspection of such documents. Central Laborers had not made that showing. Because Central Laborers' Inspection Demand did not satisfy the procedural requirements of Section 220, it did not establish its standing to inspect the books and records of News Corp. On that basis alone, and without reaching the issue of proper purpose, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Central Laborers Pension Fund v. News Corp." on Justia Law

RAA appealed from a final judgment of the Superior Court that dismissed its complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). RAA's complaint alleged that Savage told RAA, one of several potential bidders for Savage, at the outset of their discussions that there was "no significant unrecorded liabilities or claims against Savage," but then during RAA's due diligence into Savage, Savage disclosed three such matters, which caused RAA to abandon negotiations for the transactions. The complaint contended that had RAA known of those matters at the outset, it never would have proceeded to consider purchasing Savage. Therefore, according to RAA, Savage should be liable for the entirety of RAA's alleged $1.2 million in due diligence and negotiation costs. The court held that, under Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the non-disclosure agreement (NDA), RAA acknowledged that in the event no final "Sale Agreement" on a transaction was reached, Savage would have no liability, and could not be sued, for any allegedly inaccurate or incomplete information provided by Savage to RAA during the due diligence process. The court also held that RAA could not rely on the peculiar-knowledge exception to support its claims. Finally, the court held that, when Savage and RAA entered into the NDA, both parties knew how the non-reliance clauses had been construed by Delaware courts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "RAA Management, LLC v. Savage Sports Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed this action against defendants claiming that defendants breached a limited partnership agreement under which another limited partnership was formed to seek out, acquire, and develop oil and gas producing properties through the use of three-dimensional seismic technology. At issue was whether the Court of Chancery abused its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff contended, that notwithstanding more than two years of inactivity, it established good cause for its failure to prosecute - change of counsel and settlement negotiations. The trial court found that plaintiff's showing was insufficient to overcome the long delay and the court found no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Solow v. Aspect Resources, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

Series C-1 preferred shareholders, claiming that the forced conversion of their shares was unlawful, sued Omneon in the Superior Court for breach of contract. Those shareholders, as plaintiffs, claimed that, because the conversion of their preferred shares was integral to Harmonic's acquisition of Omneon, the conversion was part of a "Liquidation Event" under Omneon's certificate of incorporation, that entitled the shareholders to the liquidation "preference" payable for their shares. The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Omneon, holding that under the plain language of Omneon's certificate of incorporation, only one series of preferred stock - the Series A-2.2 - was legally entitled to a liquidation preference payout. The shareholders were not entitled to a liquidation payout because the Series C-1 preferred shares had been validly converted into common stock before the Omneon-Orinda merger took place. The court agreed and concluded that the conversion was not part of a "Liquidation Event" as defined by Omneon's charter. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Berkeley VI C.V., et al. v. Omneon, Inc." on Justia Law