To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
This case arises from an insurance coverage dispute between an insured and multiple insurance providers in a policy tower for defense fees and settlement costs from two securities class action lawsuits. In the Complex Commercial Litigation Division of the Superior Court, the insurers argued that they were not obligated to reimburse losses arising from the two securities lawsuits because of,
inter alia, an exclusion regarding the “relatedness” of Wrongful Acts. Under Delaware law, the exception to coverage because of the “relatedness” of Wrongful Acts only applies “where the two underlying claims are fundamentally identical.” The Court held that the exception did not apply in this case simply because the securities lawsuits involved the same wrongdoers and the same transaction, among other things. Instead, the fact that there were variations in the
In
Ashland LLC v. Samuel J. Heyman 1981 Continuing Trust for Lazarus S. Heyman (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 10, 2020), the Complex Commercial Litigation Division of the Delaware Superior Court held that parties to a contract are required to cover their own legal fees absent clear and unequivocal fee shifting language, even where one party is required to indemnify the other party for losses associated with a breach of the contract and losses are defined to include attorneys’ fees and expenses.
Factual Background
Ashland LLC (“Ashland”) purchased three companies from The Samuel J. Heyman 1981 Continuing Trust for Lazarus S. Heyman, et al. (the “Sellers”) for $3.2 billion pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement, dated May 30, 2011 (the “SPA”). One of the companies purchased by Ashland pursuant to the SPA owned a property (the “Linden Property”) with significant environmental issues. Pursuant to the SPA, Linden Property Holdings LLC, an entity owned by the Sellers, repurcha
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Delaware courts generally uphold the attorney-client privilege, including by recognizing waivers that are limited in scope. But they also police selective disclosures to ensure fairness using doctrines like the “partial waiver doctrine,” under which a partial disclosure of a privileged communication may waive privilege as to the entire communication, and the “at issue” exception, under which privilege may be waived by injecting a particular privileged communication or broader issue into the litigation. Applying these doctrines in
The American Bottling Company decision, the Delaware Superior Court’s Complex Commercial Litigation Division defined the scope of a party’s tactical waiver broader than that party contended was appropriate.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Rite Aid Must Face Trial For Inflated Drug Price Claims
Law360 (January 15, 2021, 4:48 PM EST) A Delaware Superior Court judge on Friday sent toward trial some litigation claims filed by a group of health insurance and pharmacy benefit companies asserting Rite Aid charged the companies too much for prescriptions included in the drugstore chain s discount drug card program.
In a 31-page memorandum opinion and order, Judge Paul R. Wallace of the Superior Court s Complex Commercial Litigation Division let proceed toward trial breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims asserted by more than 50 health insurance and pharmacy benefit companies referred to as the Centene entities.