In a significant decision that clarifies the standards for determining controlling stockholder status, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed claims against AstraZeneca and Viela Bio’s directors in connection with Viela’s $3 billion sale to Horizon Therapeutics. The case, Sciannella v. AstraZeneca UK Limited et al., addressed whether AstraZeneca, which held a 26.7% stake in
Latest from Delaware Business Dispute Blog
Delaware Court Enforces LLC Agreement’s Management Structure in Prince Estate Dispute
In the recent decision of McMillan, et al. v. Nelson, et al., C.A. No. 2024-0016-KSJM (Del. Ch.), the Delaware Court of Chancery reaffirmed the primacy of contractual language in LLC governance disputes. McMillan centered on a dispute over the management of Prince Legacy, LLC, an entity formed to manage assets from the estate of
Delaware Court of Chancery Rejects Oral Partnership Claim in Investment Banking Case
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently addressed the complexities of partnership formation–and the importance that an oral agreement contain all material terms–in the decision of Handler v. Centerview Partners Holdings, L.P., C.A. No. 2022-0672-SG (Del. Ch. Apr. 24, 2024).
Background
The case originated from a books and records demand under 6 Del. C. §
Merger Misfire: Cephalon Shareholders’ CVR Claims Fizzle in Delaware
In a recent decision that underscores the importance of precise contract language in M&A deals, the Delaware Court of Chancery dealt a blow to former Cephalon shareholders seeking a post-merger payday. The case, Himawan v. Cephalon, Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0075-SG (Del. Ch.), centered on the interpretation of contingent value rights (CVRs) issued as part
Chancery Determines that Arbitration Filings Are Not Confidential Under Rule 5.1
In the recent decision of Product Madness, Inc. v. Brooke Kingston, the Delaware Court of Chancery addressed whether portions of Product Madness, Inc.’s complaint and exhibits, related to a confirmed arbitration award, should remain confidential under Court of Chancery Rule 5.1. The Court concluded they should not.
Factual Background:
Product Madness is a corporation
Delaware Chancery Dismisses Complaint for Failure to Adequately Allege Demand Futility
In the decision of Harrison Metal Capital III, L.P., v. Mathé, et al., C.A. No. 2022-0261-PAF (Del. Ch. Mar. 27, 2024), the Delaware Court of Chancery considered whether plaintiff adequately plead demand futility under Rule 23.1 in its suit alleging that defendants, who were directors and officers of the company, breached their fiduciary duties
Chancery Orders Advancement Under Indemnification Agreements of Cancelled Company
In the decision OrbiMed Advisors LLC v. Symbiomix Therapeutics, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 2023-0769-MTZ, 2024 WL 747567 (Del. Ch. Feb. 23, 2024), the Delaware Court of Chancery considered an advancement dispute. The Court determined that the defendant was obligated to provide advancement under indemnification agreements between the plaintiffs and a company that defendant first
Delaware Court of Chancery Rescinds Musk’s $55.8B Tesla Stock Option Grant in Key Decision on Corporate Transactions with Controlling Stockholders
On January 30, 2024, the Delaware Court of Chancery rescinded Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”)’s January 2018 grant to CEO Elon Musk of performance-based stock options with a potential $55.8 billion maximum value and a $2.6 billion grant date fair value (the “Grant”).[1] The lawsuit was filed derivatively against Musk, in his capacity as Tesla’s controlling shareholder
Delaware Court of Chancery Holds that Internal Affairs Doctrine Governs Books and Records Demand; Applies Delaware Law Instead of California Corporations Code
Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law permits a stockholder or director to make a books and records against a corporation incorporated in Delaware, regardless of where the corporation conducts its business. Yet many jurisdictions have their own inspection statutes, some of which govern not only entities incorporated or formed in that state, but
Delaware Judicial Emergency Extended for Another 30 Days
Today, the Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court issued Administrative Order No. 9, which extends Delaware’s Judicial Emergency for another 30 days, effective August 7, 2020. Per the Administrative Order, the Delaware courts will continue to operate under Phase 2.
Citing the “national trend of increasing virus spread, new quarantine requirements by other