Delaware

Subscribe to Delaware

One of the recurring D&O insurance coverage issues is whether or not the so-called “bump-up” exclusion precludes coverage for amounts paid in settlement of post-merger litigation. The outcome of these disputes is often a reflection of several situation-specific factors, including the specific policy language involved, the nature of the underlying transaction, the claims alleged in the underlying litigation, the features of the settlement, and the applicable law. All of these factors came into play in a recent Delaware Superior Court decision in which the court held that the primary policy’s bump-up exclusion does not preclude coverage for the settlement of the lawsuit relating to the 2017 merger of Harman International Industries and Samsung’s American division. The court’s January 3, 2025 opinion, as amended in a January 7, 2025 corrected opinion, can be found here.Continue Reading Del. Court: Bump Up Exclusion Doesn’t Bar Coverage for Post-Merger Suit Settlement

One of the hot topics in the corporate space over the last several months has been the question whether Delaware corporations should consider reincorporating in another state, such as Texas or Nevada. Much of the discussion in this re-domestication debate has centered on recent controversial decisions out of Delaware’s courts. The ongoing discussion of these issues resurfaced in the last few days with the news that Delaware Chancellor Katherine McCormick had rejected Tesla’s motion for reconsideration of her earlier rejection of Elon Musk’s $55.8 billion pay package.

A recent law review article by Yale Law Professor Jonathan R. Macey addresses the question whether, in light of the recent case law developments in the state’s courts, Delaware corporations will now be “Leaving for Las Vegas.” Professor Macey’s article considers the extent to which recent Delaware case law developments may motivate key Delaware constituents to consider incorporation alternatives. As discussed below, Professor Macey’s article has in turn triggered further discussion of the central questions about the recent output of Delaware’s courts in corporate and securities lawsuits.Continue Reading Will Delaware Corporations Be “Leaving for Las Vegas”?

In the wake of the SPAC frenzy, which peaked in 2021, investors have filed a significant number of SPAC-related lawsuits, including not only securities class action lawsuits, but also including Delaware direct action breach of fiduciary duty suits. The Delaware actions have so far in at least some cases proven to be successful. More recently, however, the Delaware courts have projected impatience and even fatigue with these kinds of suits, and in at least one recent case, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. However, in a more recent case, the Delaware Chancery Court, although noting that the plaintiff’s allegations are “not strong” and “close to the line between an adequate and an inadequate claim,” denied the defendants’ dismissal motion. There are several interesting features to court’s opinion, as discussed below. The Delaware Chancery Court’s October 18, 2024, opinion can be found here.Continue Reading Del. Court Denies Dismissal Motion in SPAC-Related Action

Long-time readers know that the significant amount of SPAC activity in past years led to a surge in SPAC-related litigation. Some of this litigation has taken the form of traditional securities class action lawsuits. However, among the more noteworthy developments in the rise of SPAC-related litigation has been the emergence of a separate type of suit, the Delaware direct action breach of fiduciary class action lawsuit, sometimes referred to a MultiPlan claim in reference to the first suit of the type to be filed. As detailed below, these kinds of lawsuits have gone through a relatively swift evolution. Many of the these kinds of cases remain pending, have not yet reached the settlement stage. However, the GeneDX lawsuit, which is one of these kinds of cases, recently settled for $21 million, subject to court approval. There are a number of interesting aspects of this settlement, as discussed below. The parties settlement stipulation in the case can be found here.Continue Reading Delaware SPAC-Related Direct Action Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit Settles for $21 Million

In last Thursday’s post, I noted recent case law developments in which federal court breach of the duty of oversight claims against the boards of Wells Fargo and Abbott Laboratories had survived motions to dismiss, at least in part. I also noted that these decisions have important implications for board governance processes and documentation. As I have continued to consider the implications of these recent decisions and other developments concerning the so-called Caremark duties relating to board members’ fiduciary duties of oversight, I developed further thoughts on the steps well-advised boards will want to take to put themselves in a better position to defend themselves against these kinds of claims. I have set out my thought below.Continue Reading Corporate Governance, Board Risk Management, and Duty to Monitor Case Law Developments

As I have noted in several recent posts (most recently here), over the last several months Delaware’s Chancery Court has appeared increasingly skeptical of breach of the duty over oversight claims, seemingly underscoring the oft-stated proposition that so-called Caremark claims are among the most difficult to sustain. However, a recent decision out of the Northern District of California, applying Delaware law but arguably ruling contrary to the recent Delaware Chancery Court trends, sustained at least some of the breach of the duty of oversight claims alleged against Wells Fargo board of director in connection with discriminatory lending allegations against the company. As discussed in detail below, the Wells Fargo decision could have interesting implications for the evolving body of duty of oversight case law.Continue Reading Breach of the Duty of Oversight Claims Against Wells Fargo’s Board Sustained in Part

In a post last week, I wrote about the recurring question of who is an “officer” for purposes of determining qualification for advancement, indemnification, and insurance benefits. I received several comments about the post, including a note from Keith Paul Bishop of the Allen Matkins law firm, who writes the California Corporate & Securities Law blog. Bishop wrote to send me links to two of his blog posts, in which he explored the California and Delaware statutory provisions relevant to the question of, as he put it, “what makes an officer an officer?” His blog posts provide interesting additional perspective on this question.Continue Reading More About Who is an “Officer”

Individuals serving as corporate officers take on significant potential liability exposures in the performance of their duties. As a result, most companies provide their officers with advancement, indemnification, and insurance protection for liabilities incurred while acting as corporate officers. However, it is not always clear who is an “officer” for purposes of claiming the benefits…

As readers of this blog know, one of the vestiges of the SPAC frenzy that peaked in 2021 is a large volume of SPAC-related securities class action litigation; indeed, as I have recently noted, SPAC-related securities class action lawsuits continue to be filed. In addition to these federal court securities suits, prospective claimants with SPAC-related grievances have also filed Delaware state court breach of fiduciary duty actions, a form of litigation often referred to as “MultiPlan actions,” in reference to the MultiPlan lawsuit, which, as discussed here, was the first of these Delaware court actions to survive a motion to dismiss. Since the ruling in the MultiPlan case, plaintiffs have largely been successful in surviving dismissal motions in these kinds of cases.

However, as discussed in a June 2024 memo from the Skadden law firm (here), in May 2024, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the motion to dismiss in the SPAC-related direct action breach of fiduciary duty suit relating to Canoo Inc., a company that was the result of a 2020 merger with a publicly traded SPAC, Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV. According to the law firm memo, the Court’s ruling was the first opinion granting a motion to dismiss in a MultiPlan claim. As discussed below, the Court’s opinion reflects a number of interesting observations about the lawsuit and claims of this type. A copy of the Court’s May 31, 2024 opinion can be found here. Continue Reading Delaware Court Grants Dismissal Motion in SPAC Transaction Proxy Disclosure Case