Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Marion Coster and Steven Schwat – the two UIP Companies stockholders who each owned fifty percent of the company – deadlocked after attempting several times to elect directors. In response to the director election deadlock, Coster filed a petition for appointment of a custodian for UIP. The UIP board responded by issuing stock to a long-time employee representing a one-third interest in UIP. The stock issuance diluted Coster’s ownership interest, broke the deadlock, and mooted the custodian action. Coster countered by requesting that the Delaware Court of Chancery cancel the stock issuance. After trial, the Court of Chancery found that the stock sale met the most exacting standard of judicial review under Delaware law – entire fairness. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court concluded that the court erred by evaluating the stock sale solely under the entire fairness standard of review, reasoning that even though the stock sale price might have been entirely fair, issuing stock while a contested board election was taking place interfered with Coster’s voting rights as a half owner of UIP. Therefore, the court needed to conduct a further review to assess whether the board approved the stock issuance for inequitable reasons. If not, the court still had to decide whether the board, even if it acted in good faith, approved the stock sale to thwart Coster’s leverage to vote against the board’s director nominees and to moot the custodian action. To uphold the stock issuance under those circumstances, the board had to demonstrate a compelling justification to interfere with Coster’s voting rights. On remand, the Court of Chancery found that the UIP board had not acted for inequitable purposes and had compelling justifications for the dilutive stock issuance. Upon return, the Supreme Court agreed with the court’s assessment and "appreciate[d] its work to address the issues remanded for reconsideration." View "Coster v. UIP Companies, Inc." on Justia Law

According to allegations in the complaint, for over forty years, Monsanto was the only U.S. manufacturer of polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”). The federal government and states spent enormous sums cleaning up PCB environmental contamination. The State of Delaware alleged Monsanto knew that the PCBs it produced and sold to industry and to consumers would eventually be released into the environment and would cause lasting damage to public health and the State’s lands and waters. The State brought this action to hold Monsanto responsible for its cleanup costs, asserting claims for public nuisance, trespass, and unjust enrichment. A Delaware superior court dismissed the complaint, reasoning that even though the State alleged Monsanto knew for decades PCBs that were toxic and would contaminate the environment for generations, the State: (1) could not assert a public nuisance claim or trespass claim because Monsanto manufactured PCB products, which entered the environment after sale to third parties; (2) State did not have standing to bring a trespass claim because it held public lands in trust rather than outright and therefore did not have the exclusive possession of land needed to assert a trespass claim; (3) the superior court held it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the unjust enrichment claim as a standalone claim; and (4) the State could not use an unjust enrichment claim to recover future cleanup costs. The Delaware Supreme Court found the State pled sufficiently that even though Monsanto did not control the PCBs after sale it substantially participated in creating the public nuisance and causing the trespass by actively misleading the public and continuing to supply PCBs to industry and consumers knowing that PCBs were hazardous, would escape into the environment after sale to third parties, and would lead to widespread and lasting contamination of Delaware’s lands and waters. Further, the Supreme Court found the State alleged that it owned some land directly and therefore had exclusive possession of that land needed to assert a trespass claim. The Court affirmed in all other respects, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Delaware v. Monsanto Company" on Justia Law

In 1983, Alan Bass was convicted by jury on two counts of first degree rape, three counts of first degree kidnapping, two counts of first degree robbery, two counts of second degree robbery, and one count of third degree burglary. The superior court sentenced Bass to five consecutive life sentences plus 45 years in prison. The convictions were affirmed in 1985. Bass thereafter applied for post-conviction relief, relying in part on the announcement by the FBI and Innocence Project of a years long investigation into whether trial testimony by forensic examiners contained erroneous statements regarding microscopic hair comparison analysis used in certain cases. The Delaware Department of Justice determined that the forensic examiner who testified in Bass’ case “included statements that exceeded the limits of science.” According to Bass, without this improperly admitted testimony, the State’s remaining evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. As a result, he asserted the State’s use of this unreliable hair evidence violated his right to a fair trial and that he is entitled to a new trial. The Delaware Supreme Court determined that Bass did not meet his burden to establish that the erroneous testimony offered by the forensic examiner in his case, and new evidence, created a strong inference that Bass was actually innocent. The Supreme Court thus concluded the superior court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Bass post-conviction relief. “Thus, this is not the ‘extraordinary case’ where the defendant has met his heavy burden to overcome the procedural bar of Rule 61(d)(2).” View "Bass v. Delaware" on Justia Law

At issue before the Delaware Supreme Court in this case was the 2016 all-stock acquisition of SolarCity Corporation (“SolarCity”) by Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”). Tesla’s stockholders claimed CEO Elon Musk caused Tesla to overpay for SolarCity through his alleged domination and control of the Tesla board of directors. At trial, the foundational premise of their theory of liability was that SolarCity was insolvent at the time of the Acquisition. Because the Court of Chancery assumed, without deciding, that Musk was a controlling stockholder, it applied Delaware’s most stringent "entire fairness" standard of review, and the Court of Chancery found the Acquisition to be entirely fair. In this appeal, the two sides disputed various aspects of the trial court’s legal analysis, including, primarily, the degree of importance the trial court placed on market evidence in determining whether the price Tesla paid was fair. Appellants did not challenge any of the trial court’s factual findings. Rather, they raised only a legal challenge, focused solely on the application of the entire fairness test. After careful consideration, the Delaware Supreme Court was convinced that the trial court’s decision was supported by the evidence and that the court committed no reversible error in applying the entire fairness test. View "In Re Tesla Motors, Inc. Stockholder Litigation" on Justia Law

Tesla Inc. appealed a Delaware superior court judgment upholding a Division of Motor Vehicles’ (“DMV”) decision denying Tesla’s application for a new dealer license. The superior court agreed with the DMV Director that the Delaware Motor Vehicle Franchising Practices Act (“Franchise Act”) prohibited Tesla, as a new motor vehicle manufacturer, from selling its electric cars directly to customers in Delaware. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, finding the Franchise Act excluded Tesla's direct sales model, where new electric cars were not sold through franchised dealers in Delaware. View "Tesla Inc. v. Delaware Division of Motor Vehicles" on Justia Law

The Delaware Court of Chancery was asked to resolve a dispute between a company and one of its former directors over the meaning of a stock option agreement and option grant notice. Applying the plain text of the agreement, the Court of Chancery determined that the dispute was to be resolved in accordance with a board committee’s interpretation of the agreement and notice. After the board, acting through a committee, interpreted the agreement and notice in a manner favorable to the company, the Court of Chancery, without hearing further from the former director, promptly dismissed the former director’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Delaware Supreme Court found the Court of Chancery properly stayed the action to permit the board’s committee to interpret the agreement and notice in the first instance. The Supreme Court disagreed, however, with the court’s decision to dismiss the former director’s complaint without any meaningful review of the committee’s interpretation. The Court of Chancery’s order of dismissal was therefore reversed, and the case remanded for a review of the committee’s conclusions. View "Terrell v. Kiromic Biopharma, Inc." on Justia Law

Ronnie Williams was convicted of several sexual offenses committed against two children. On appeal, Williams claimed that during the course of his trial, the Superior Court erroneously denied his requests that the court declare a mistrial when the jury was exposed to evidence that Williams deemed to be highly prejudicial. The evidence that, according to Williams, was so prejudicial as to warrant a mistrial falls within two categories: (1) “outbursts” by the victims’ mother and, specifically, her two references to Williams as a “liar;” and (2) references to a friend of the victims—another child who resided with Williams named Cyree, should have been excluded because it might have caused the jury to improperly infer that Williams may have engaged in uncharged sexual misconduct with him. The Delaware Supreme Court's review of the trial record persuaded it to rule that while the victims’ mother’s outbursts may have been inappropriate, they were still unlikely to have misled or prejudiced the jury. "And Williams does not explain how the testimony referring to Cyree was inadmissible, let alone prejudicial." Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed Williams' convictions. View "Wililams v. Delaware" on Justia Law

A grand jury indicted Raquan Womack on five counts: (1) Possession or Control of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (“PFBPP”); (2) Possession or Control of Ammunition by a Person Prohibited (“PABPP”); (3) Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon (“CCDW”); (4) Resisting Arrest; and (5) Possession of Marijuana. Following a three-day jury trial, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts except the marijuana charge. Womack was sentenced to 20 years at Level 5, suspended after five years with decreasing levels of probation. Before his trial began, Womack moved to suppress the evidence seized during his arrest in light of the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Juliano v. Delaware, 260 A.3d 619 (Del. 2021). The trial court denied Womack’s motion, and Womack appealed. He argued that the Superior Court erred because there was no justification for his detention beyond that of a routine traffic stop and because there was no probable cause for his arrest. Finding that claim lacked merit, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Womack's motion to suppress, and his convictions. View "Womack v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Aaron Thompson was convicted by jury of multiple crimes for his role in the 2013 double murder of Joe and Olga Connell. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. Thompson moved for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. The Superior Court denied his motion. The court found that Thompson’s trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate the connection between Thompson and a property near the crime scene at the time of the killings. The court also held that trial and appellate counsel did not have a conflict of interest when he represented the State’s ballistics expert in an unrelated criminal proceeding during Thompson’s direct appeal. Thompson appealed the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief. But finding no error, the Supreme Court again affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. View "Thompson v. Delaware" on Justia Law

William West, the founder of Access Control Related Enterprises, LLC (“ACRE”), was forced out as an officer of the company by its majority owners, LLR Equity Partners, IV, L.P. and LLR Equity Partners Parallel IV, L.P. (collectively, “LLR”). He filed a wrongful termination suit against ACRE and others in California state court. The California court stayed the case based on the forum selection provisions in the controlling agreements that designated Delaware as the exclusive forum for disputes arising out of the agreements. After a failed detour to Delaware District Court, West filed the same claims in the Delaware Superior Court. A Delaware jury eventually found against West on his breach of contract claim. West did not appeal the jury’s adverse verdict. Instead, he sought to undo his loss in Delaware by challenging the Superior Court’s procedural rulings, arguing: (1) the Superior Court no longer had jurisdiction once it issued the order transferring the case to the Court of Chancery; (2) the Superior Court improperly denied his motions for voluntary dismissal; and (3) if the Superior Court had applied forum non conveniens, it would have dismissed the Delaware case in favor of the California litigation. Finding no reversible error, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's decisions. View "West v. Access Control Related Enterprises, LLC" on Justia Law