We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-6 of 6

The state of M&A standstill agreements in Delaware

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 15 2013

Recent bench rulings in the Delaware Court of Chancery in In re Complete Genomics and In re Ancestry.com have cast the spotlight on so-called "don't

2009 review of significant Delaware law developments

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 21 2010

The Delaware courts issued several significant decisions in 2009 that we have summarized below

The duties of an acquiring company’s board of directors

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 27 2010

On January 11, 2010, in In re The Dow Chemical Company Deriv. Litig., the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed breach of fiduciary duty claims brought against the directors of an acquiring company in connection with a completed merger

Court refuses to dismiss loyalty claims against outside directors in a third-party sale

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 12 2011

A recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision refused to dismiss claims alleging that a board of directors breached its fiduciary duty of loyalty in authorizing a sale of a corporation to a third party

Delaware court awards $2.4m fee award for “loosening” deal protections

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 14 2011

On December 9, 2011, in In re Compellent Technologies, Inc. S’holder Litig., the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a $2.4 million fee award to plaintiffs’ attorneys who negotiated a settlement arising out of stockholder litigation challenging a merger

Two Delaware decisions address CEO conflicts in M&A transactions

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 13 2012

Two recent Delaware decisions reflect the potential pitfalls of having an interested chief executive officer lead a sale process