Delaware Coalition for Open Government, Inc., filed a lawsuit yesterday against the Delaware Court of Chancery and the individual members of its bench.
The Delaware federal district court issued an order directing the district's bankruptcy court to determine whether an adversary proceeding constituted a "core" proceeding.
In this opinion, the Court of Chancery ruled on the motion of intervenor Mark V. Hurd, the former Chairman of the Board and CEO of Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP” or the “Company”), to maintain the sealing of a letter filed with the Court relating to his well-publicized departure from HP. In
In one of the most anticipated opinions from the Court of Chancery in many years, Chancellor Chandler declined to order the board of directors of Airgas, Inc. to redeem its stockholder rights plan.
In a recent appellate decision entitled Airgas, Inc. v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. 2010 WL 4734305 (Del Supr 2010), the Delaware Supreme Court on November 23, 2010 reversed the decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery and held that a bylaw shortening the term of Airgas’s Directors by eight months constituted a “de facto removal” that was inconsistent with Airgas’s charter.
In a case of first impression, the Delaware Court of Chancery considered the validity of a shareholder proposed bylaw amendment that would cause the company's annual meetings to be held in January of each year as opposed to August when the meetings have historically been held.
In Greb v. Diamond Int’l Corp., 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 566 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. Apr. 26, 2010), the California Court of Appeal for the First District affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a personal injury claim against a dissolved Delaware corporation, holding that the claim was filed more than three years after dissolution of the corporation in violation of Delaware General Corporation Law Section 278.
In this letter decision, the Court of Chancery granted defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing claims brought by eBay Domestic Holdings, Inc. that challenged the director defendants’ approval of a new form of indemnification agreement.