In several recent decisions, the Delaware Court of Chancery addressed a number of issues relating to mergers and acquisitions and debt and equity financings. In In re Orchard Enterprises, Inc.
Posts for "Case Law Analysis" filter
Harvard Law School's Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation has published a revised version of "Top Ten 2013 Delaware Corporate and Commercial De
At the New York Business Divorce Blog, Peter Mahler has an interesting post about recent New York case law interpretin
Eugene Volokh reports on a recent decision that addressed the propriety of a judge presiding over a case in which one of the attorneys is his or her Facebook "friend."
The Chancery Daily is reporting that the Plaintiff in Aibar Huatuco, M.D. v. Satellite Healthcare, CA No. 8465-VCG (Del. Ch. Dec.
LLC Law Monitor has the details of
As noted in Chapter 13 of Business Law Basics, a “forum selection” clause, also called a “choice of forum” provision, is a contract clause that identifies the court (or permissible courts) where the p
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):