To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
This top ten list summarizes significant decisions of the Delaware Supreme Court and the Delaware Court of Chancery over the past calendar year. Our criteria for selection are that the decision either meaningfully changed Delaware law or provided clarity or guidance on issues relevant to corporate and commercial litigation in Delaware. We present the decisions in no particular order. The list does not include every significant decision, but provides practitioners with an array of decisions on varied issues likely to affect business transactions or business litigation.
One:
AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Lebanon Cty. Employees’ Ret. Fund, A.3d , 2020 WL 7266362 (Del. Dec. 10, 2020) (Traynor, Justice)
Delaware Court of Chancery Dismisses Derivative Claims Case natlawreview.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from natlawreview.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
IN THIS ISSUE
Delaware Court of Chancery Allows Stockholder Litigation to Proceed Against Viacom-CBS Over $30B Merger; Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal with Prejudice of Securities Class Action Against Tesla; Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Securities Action Against Spencer Capital as Predominantly Foreign; Delaware Supreme Court Finds That Former Spectra Energy Shareholder Has Standing to Challenge Validity of Merger Price Based on Derivative Action Against Target Entity; Third Circuit Reverses Fraud Convictions Related to Regulatory Loan Reporting Requirements for “Past Due” Loans.
DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY ALLOWS STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION TO PROCEED AGAINST VIACOM-CBS OVER $30B MERGER
On January 27, 2021, in In re CBS Corporation Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Litigation, the Delaware Court of Chancery partially denied a motion to dismiss in a class action suit brought by stockholders against ViacomCBS, CBS Board members and executives, National Amusements, I
Legal Profession Blog
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief based on an alleged undisclosed judicial conflict
In 2010, Appellants Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC and Meso Scale Technologies, LLC (collectively “Meso”) filed suit in the Court of Chancery against Appellee entities Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Roche Diagnostics Corp., Roche Holding Ltd., IGEN LS LLC, Lilli Acquisition Corp., IGEN International, Inc., and Bioveris Corp. (collectively “Roche”), all of which are or were affiliates or subsidiaries of the F. Hoffmann La Roche, Ltd. family of pharmaceutical and diagnostics companies. Meso alleged two counts of breach of contract. Roche prevailed at trial, and this Court affirmed the judgment in 2014.
This decision addresses a matter of first impression arising out of a dispute pitting two special committees of the same company, WeCompany (“WeWork” or the “Company”), against one another over control of a lawsuit on the Company’s behalf. The lawsuit involved claims against the Company’s putative controlling shareholders, SoftBank Group Corp. and SoftBank Vision Fund (AIV MI) L.P. (together, “SoftBank”), for abandoning a multi-step agreement by which SoftBank committed to a $3 billion tender offer for WeWork’s shares in addition to providing equity and debt financing (the “Transaction”). The same two-member committee that negotiated the Transaction on the Company’s behalf (the “Transaction Committee”), initiated the lawsuit with the support of the Company’s management (including WeWork’s Chief Legal Officer) as well as the Company’s outside counsel, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (“Skadden”)