Delaware

Subscribe to Delaware via RSS
Paul Lockwood
Arthur Bookout

Among the most crucial issues in the world of directors and officers liability are the related questions of indemnification and advancement. Since so many companies are incorporated in Delaware, the laws of indemnification and advancement in Delaware are particularly important with respect to scope of protection available for directors and officers. In the following guest post, Paul Lockwood and Art Bookout of the Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom law firm take a look at these issues, with a particular focus on limitations under Delaware law on indemnification and advancement rights. A version of this paper previously was published as an AIG White Paper. I would like to thank the authors and AIG for allowing me to publish this article as a guest post. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Paul and Art’s article.
Continue Reading Limits on Indemnification and Advancement for Delaware Corporations

As discussed in a guest post on this site last week (here), on December 14, 2018 the Delaware Supreme Court published its opinion in Dell, Inc. v. Magnetar Global Event Driven Master Fund Ltd. (here). In the following guest post, Mark Lebovitch, Christopher J. Orrico and Alla Zayenchik of the Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP law firm provide their contrasting perspective on Dell and other recent Delaware decisions and of these decisions’ implications for investors and acquirers. I would like to thank the authors for their willingness to allow me to publish their article. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: From Corwin to Dell: Implications for Investors and Corporate Acquirers

In the following guest post, Delaware partners Edward Micheletti, Paul Lockwood and associate Chad Davis of the Skadden Arps law firm take a look at the Delaware Supreme Court’s December 14, 2017 opinion in Dell, Inc. v. Magnetar Global Event Driven Master Fund Ltd. (here), which examined important appraisal action valuation issues. I would like to thank the authors for allowing me to publish their article. 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 the authors’ guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Dell Strongly Reinforces Importance of Merger Price

Much has been written about the explosive growth in merger objection litigation in recent years. A less common but increasingly frequent type of merger-related litigation is appraisal rights litigation. In these types of lawsuits an investor exercises his or her statutory right for a judicial determination of the value of his or her stock. These kinds of cases present their own sets of issues and challenges.

Among the recurring issues is the question of whether or not the costs a company incurs in an appraisal proceeding are covered under a D&O insurance policy; traditionally, D&O carriers have argued that appraisal proceedings are not covered under their policies because the request for an appraisal proceeding does not involve an alleged “Wrongful Act.” However, an August 2, 2017 memo by Peter Gillon and Benjamin Tievsky of the Pillsbury law firm  (here) argues that in many cases this coverage analysis is inaccurate and that in fact there should be coverage under the D&O policy for the expenses incurred in an appraisal proceeding.
Continue Reading D&O Insurance and Delaware Appraisal Rights Proceedings

delawarePublic company D&O insurance policies typically provide coverage for the corporate entity only for “Securities Claims.” A recent case in the Delaware Superior Court involved the question of whether a bankruptcy trustee’s claim related to Verizon’s multi-billion dollar spinoff of its electronic directories business was a “Securities Claim.” In an interesting and detailed opinion dated March 2, 2017 and released March 15, 2017 (here), Judge William C. Carpenter, Jr. ruled that the bankruptcy trustee’s claim was a “Securities Claim” within the meaning of the Verizon’s D&O insurance policy and therefore that Verizon’s insurers were liable of the costs incurred in defending against the trustee’s claim. The opinion makes for interesting reading for anyone interested in how these kinds of disputes can arise, and also has some important practical lessons.  
Continue Reading D&O Insurance: When Is a Claim a “Securities Claim”?

gavel1In response to concerns that virtually every merger transaction was attracting at least one lawsuit, Delaware’s legislature and judiciary acted to try to cut down on the merger objection litigation in the state’s courts. In 2015, Delaware’s legislature adopted a provision expressly allowing corporations organized under the state’s law to adopt bylaw provisions designating Delaware’s courts as the exclusive forum for shareholder disputes. Delaware’s courts, in a series of decisions culminating in Chancellor Bouchard’s January 2016 decision in Trulia, made it clear that in most cases the courts will no longer support the kind of disclosure-only settlements by which these cases frequently were resolved.

But what has the impact of these changes been? That is the subject of a February 23, 2017 paper entitled “The Shifting Tides of Merger Litigation” (here) written by Matthew Cain of the SEC; U. Penn. Law Professor Jill Fisch; U.Cal. Berkeley Law Professor Steven Davidoff Solomon; and Vanderbilt Law Professor Randall Thomas. The authors conclude that there has been “a tidal wave of change in the merger objection litigation industry.”
Continue Reading A “Tidal Wave of Change” in Merger Objection Litigation

Bernard Sharfman

The business judgment rule is one of the important principles involved when questions of board and director liability are raised. In the following guest post, Bernard Sharfman, an associate fellow of the R Street Institute and a member of the Journal of Corporation Law’s editorial advisory board, takes a look at the way that the business judgment rule is often presented and understood. Bernie’s guest post is a summary of his longer academic paper on the same topic, which can be found here. This post previously appeared on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation. I would like to thank Bernie for his willingness to allow me to publish his article 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 publish a guest post. Here is Bernie’s guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: The Importance of the Business Judgment Rule

delawareMany readers will recall that just a short time ago companies were actively experimenting to try to incorporate litigation management measures into their corporate bylaws. These efforts led to decisions by Delaware courts upholding both forum selection bylaws (about which refer here) and fee-shifting bylaws (refer here). Delaware’s legislature ultimately addressed these bylaw experimentation efforts by adopting statutory provisions allowing forum selection bylaws but prohibiting fee-shifting bylaws.

Following the enactment of this legislation, the payroll software services firm Paylocity adopted a bylaw provision designating Delaware as the forum for any shareholder disputes and holding any shareholder who filed an action outside Delaware and who did not prevail on the merits liable for the company’s attorneys’ fees. A Paylocity shareholder filed an action in Delaware Chancery Court challenging the bylaw’s fee-shifting provision. In an interesting December 27, 2016 opinion (here), Chancellor Andre Bouchard held that the Paylocity bylaw’s penalty provisions violated the Delaware statutory fee-shifting bylaw prohibitions, but dismissed the claims that company’s board had violated its fiduciary duties in enacting the bylaw.
Continue Reading Del. Court Pans Fee-Shifting Portion of Forum Selection Bylaw

delmapBoth inside and outside the United States, litigation financing has become an increasingly important part of the litigation environment. But litigation financing remains controversial, at least in certain quarters, and questions continue to be asked about whether or not it is proper or even appropriate. In a recent decision in a Delaware lawsuit between Charge Injection Technologies and DuPont, DuPont challenged CIT’s arrangement for financing its participation in the litigation, arguing that the financing agreement violated Delaware’s prohibition against “champerty and maintenance.” In a March 9, 2016 decision (here), Delaware Superior Court Judge Jan R. Jurden rejected the challenge. Judge Jurden’s opinion supports the view that, at least under Delaware, an appropriately structured litigation funding agreement will not be found improper.

While parties and observers undoubtedly will still seek to challenge litigation funding in general and in the context of specific cases, this ruling and related developments suggest that Delaware’s courts will where appropriate condone litigation funding.  
Continue Reading Delaware Court Rejects Challenge to Litigation Funding Arrangement

del1In a January 22, 2016 Delaware Court of Chancery decision that likely will prove to be significant because of the light it sheds on the future of disclosure-only settlements in merger objection lawsuits in Delaware, Chancellor Andre Bouchard rejected the proposed settlement in the litigation arising out of Zillow’s acquisition of Trulia, saying that because the “none of the supplemental disclosures were material or even helpful to Trulia’s stockholder,” the proposed settlement “does not afford them meaningful consideration to warrant providing a claim release.”

In reaching these conclusions, Bouchard reviewed the dynamics that have led to the “proliferation of disclosure settlements” and the problems these kinds of settlements present. Bouchard also offered his perspective on the ways that remedial disclosure assertions in deal litigation could optimally be litigated. At a minimum, Bouchard’s opinion represents a warning to the plaintiffs’ bar that to the extent they continue to pursue disclosure settlements, they can “expect that the Court will be increasingly vigilant in scrutinizing the ‘give’ and the ‘get’ of such settlements to ensure that they are genuinely fair and reasonable to the absent class members.” Chancellor Bouchard’s January 22, 2016 opinion in the Trulia case can be found here.
Continue Reading Delaware Chancellor Rejects Disclosure-Only Settlement, Signals What’s Next for Merger Objection Suits