Litigation parties have long sought to maneuver their cases into forums they believe to be more favorable to their positions or interests. In the following guest post, Richard Zelichov, Partner in the Corporate and Securities Litigation practice at DLA Piper (US), and Melanie Walker, Chair of the Corporate and Securities Litigation practice at DLA Piper (US), take a look at a recent variant of these efforts, involving shareholders who are seeking to avoid Delaware as a litigation forum. I would like to thank Richard and Melanie for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Richard and Melanie’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: Legal Shopping Spree Continues in Internal Affairs Disputes: Key Case Developments
Yet another Delaware court has issued a noteworthy management liability insurance coverage opinion. In a detailed September 12, 2022 opinion in a dispute between Godiva Chocolatier and its management liability insurers over coverage for underlying consumer protection claims against the company, Delaware Superior Court Judge Mary M. Johnston rejected many – but not all — of the insurers’ coverage defenses. A copy of Judge Johnston’s opinion can be found 
A perception has emerged in certain circles that Delaware Superior Court is a favorable forum for D&O insurance policyholder and unfavorable for D&O insurers. However, in a recent decision in a D&O insurance coverage dispute by the federal court in Delaware (as opposed to the state court in Delaware) not only determined that Delaware law applied but also determined that there was no coverage under the applicable policy for the underlying claim. As discussed below, the court’s ruling in the case may suggest that Delaware’s federal court may represent an alternative to Delaware’s state courts for D&O insurers. A copy of the District of Delaware’s May 23, 2022 decision in the Cocrystal case can be found 
Readers of this blog will be interested to know that in a recent D&O insurance coverage dispute, the Delaware Superior Court actually handed the D&O insurers a win — a rare development indeed in Delaware’s courts. However, the D&O insurers won by successfully arguing that Delaware law governed the insurance dispute; the ultimate outcome may have been due in part to the fact that the losing policyholder was in the uncomfortable position of trying to argue that another jurisdiction’s law controlled after all after having first argued that Delaware law applied. There are a lot of twists and turns to this case, but, as discussed below, the outcome of this case arguably is far from reassuring to D&O insurers, even though the insurers prevailed in this case.
A standard feature of virtually every commercial contract is a choice-of-law clause. The general perception is that these types of clauses help facilitate settlement and reduce litigation costs. There is, however, one type of contract the usually omits choice-of law-clauses – insurance policies. Throughout the insurance industry and across most lines of coverage, insurance policies lack choice of law clauses. The reasons why insurance policies omit provisions that are standard for virtually every other type of commercial contract is the subject of an interesting new paper from University of North Carolina Law Professor John F. Coyle, entitled “The Mystery of the Missing Choice-of-Law Clause.” Coyle’s paper raises a number of interesting questions, some of which may be relevant as some insurers consider the question of whether they many need to add choice of law clauses to their policies. A copy of Professor Coyle’s December 2, 2021 paper can be found 
In a development that undoubtedly will be discussed among D&O insurance professionals for months to come, the Delaware Supreme Court issued an opinion last week in the long-running Dole Foods insurance coverage battle. Many D&O insurance industry observers will not be surprised to learn that the Delaware Court’s opinion is favorable to policyholders. As discussed below, the opinion (and the many rulings in the court below in this dispute) may encourage insurers to consider possible policy wording revisions. A copy of the Delaware Supreme Court’s March 3, 2021 opinion can be found 
It is not uncommon for coverage disputes to arise in connection with D&O insurance claims, but every now and then there is a coverage dispute so broad that it constitutes a veritable D&O insurance coverage curriculum. That was certainly the case in what a Delaware Superior Court judge called the “sprawling insurance coverage dispute” between a unit of Northrup Grumman and its predecessors-in-interest’s D&O insurers. The coverage dispute arose out of underlying claims relating to the 2015 merger of Alliant Techsystems, Inc and Orbital Sciences Corporation to form Orbital ATK, Inc. The court’s lengthy opinion on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and for judgment on the pleadings covers a wide variety of recurring D&O insurance coverage issues and makes for interesting reading for anyone involved with D&O insurance. The Delaware Superior Court’s February 2, 2021 opinion in the Northrup Grumman case can be found 
In a recent decision, the Delaware Superior Court, applying Delaware law, held that two of Pfizer’s excess D&O insurers are on the hook for their portion of costs the company incurred in defending and settling a securities class action lawsuit, despite the excess insurers’ arguments that the claim was interrelated with an earlier securities suit and that coverage was therefore precluded under their policies’ Specific Litigation Exclusion. The critical determinant in the court’s ruling may have been its decision that Delaware law governed the coverage dispute, but there are still a number of interesting elements about issue of claims relatedness. The Delaware Superior Court’s July 23, 2019 decision can be found