UPDATED 1/8/14 at 3:09 PM: Governor Markell's office confirms that Chancellor Strine has been nominated for the position of Chief Justice of th
Posts for "Equity / Chancery" filter
In Aibar Huatuco, M.D. v. Satellite Healthcare, CA No. 8465-VCG (Del. Ch. Dec.
In Boris v. Schaheen, C.A. No. 8160-VCN (Del. Ch. Dec.
In The Ravenswood Investment Company, L.P. v. Winmill, C.A. No. 3730 (Del. Ch. Nov. 27, 2013), the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to grant summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on its claim that a corporation’s issuance of stock options was invalid for failure to obtain approval of the stock option plan by the corporation’s stockholders in a manner that complied with DGCL requirements regarding the dating of stockholder consents. More specifically, plaintiff argued, based on Section 228(c) of the DGCL and the Chancery Court’s decision in H-M Wexford LLC v. Encorp, Inc., 832 A.2d 129 (Del. Ch. 2003), that the stockholder consent which approved the plan was invalid because it was not individually dated by the stockholder, but rather bore a pre-printed, “as of” date. Section 228(c) of the DGCL reads: “every written consent shall bear the date of signature of each stockholder … who signs the consent….” In H-M Wexford v. Encorp, Inc., the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to dismiss a claim that stockholder consents were invalid where multiple stockholders executed consents all containing a pre-printed “as of” date. The Court’s ruling in H-M Wexford v. Encorp, Inc. appeared to be based on a strict construction of Section 228(c):
Delaware Law Weekly has an interview with the Delaware Supreme Court's former Chief Justice Myron Steele, who retired from the bench last month.
An updated and consolidated version of Berger Harris's analysis of Delaware entities and opinion practice (previously published in three parts on this blog), can be downl
The State of Delaware has launched corplaw.delaware.gov, a website dedicated to educating the public about Delaware's corporate law and ass
In Cooper Tire & Rubber Company v. Apollo (Mauritius) Holdings Pvt. Ltd, C.A. No. 8980-VCG (Del. Ch. Nov.
Lawyers drafting contracts (including operating agreements for LLCs and other business entities) often use "notwithstanding anything to the contrary" clauses to lend preclusive effect to a particular section. For example, an agreement might contain a provision that "notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this agreement, any Member may engage in other business without the permission of the Company or the other Members."