The Delaware Supreme Court stirred up quite a bit of controversy earlier this year in the ATP Tours, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund case when it upheld the facial validity of a fee-shifting by law. The bylaw provided that an unsuccessful shareholder claimant in intracorporate litigation would have to pay his or her adversaries’ cost
More About Stories We’re Following
Cybersecurity as a D&O Liability Issue: I have noted in prior posts on this site (refer for example here) that cybersecurity represents, among other things, a D&O liability exposure. The recent lawsuits filed against Target (refer here) and Wyndham Worldwide (refer here) underscore this point. In addition, at least according to a
Delaware Legislative Proposal to Restrict Fee-Shifting Bylaws Held Over to Next Year
As I noted in a recent post (here), in response to a recent Delaware Supreme Court decision upholding the facial validity of fee-shifting bylaws, proposed legislation was introduced in the Delaware General Assembly to limit the Supreme Court’s ruling and to restrict the ability of Delaware corporations to utilize their bylaws to shift
Delaware Legislative Revision Proposed to Restrict Fee-Shifting Bylaws
As discussed in a recent post (here), in a May 8, 2014 decision the Delaware Supreme Court upheld the facially validity of a nonstock corporation’s bylaw provision shifting attorneys’ fees and costs to unsuccessful plaintiffs in intra-corporate litigation. Because the court’s holding seemed to be equally applicable to stock corporations as well as
Delaware Supreme Court Upholds Fee-Shifting Bylaw Validity
In a development with significant implications for the economics of shareholder litigation, the Delaware Supremee Court has upheld the validity of a corporate bylaw provision shifting fees to an unsuccessful litigant. In a May 9, 2014 opinion (here), the Court held in ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund that a by-law provision