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
At Bloomberg Business Week, Joshua Brustein discusses Overstock.com's
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):
The New York Times's Dealbook blog has news about Bitcoin fraud:
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
Io9.com has a report on the world's first ATM, located in Vancouver: