On June 17, 2025, the Delaware Supreme Court (Court), sitting en banc, reversed a Court of Chancery ruling that had held a bidder liable for aiding and abetting fiduciary breaches of the target’s management....more
The Delaware Supreme Court’s June 17, 2025 decision in In re Columbia Pipeline Group Merger Litigation reversed a $199 million damages award against TC Energy for aiding and abetting breaches by fiduciaries of Columbia...more
A recent opinion from the Delaware Supreme Court could be viewed by some as expanding plaintiffs’ ability to viably plead a duty of oversight (or “Caremark”) claim against directors. In Lebanon County Employees’ Retirement...more
As discussed in prior articles, stockholder plaintiffs have increasingly sought to obtain companies’ books and records under 8 Del. C. § 220 (Section 220) and the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act’s analogous provision,...more
Recent rulings underscore the attention boards of directors and management must continue to pay to the risks faced by companies across all sectors of the economy and their potential impact on business operations...more
Below is our Corporate / M&A decisions update covering decisions in the third quarter of 2021. This update is designed to highlight selected important M&A, corporate, and commercial court decisions on a quarterly basis. The...more
In Coster v. UIP Companies, Inc., No. 49-2020, 2021 WL 2644094 (Del. June 28, 2021), the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a Court of Chancery ruling, No. 2018-0440-KSJM, 2020 WL 429906 (Del. Ch. Jan. 28, 2020) (McCormick,...more
Caremark Developments -- Do You Know What You Don’t Know? In 1996, the Delaware courts created what has become known as a Caremark claim: an allegation that directors failed to exercise oversight of the organization....more
Cydney Posner at Cooley LLP wrote last week about a new challenge to California's Board Gender Quota law. The lawsuit, Creighton Meland v. Alex Padilla, Secretary of State of California, was reportedly filed in federal...more
On October 1, 2019, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued its decision in In re Clovis Oncology, Inc. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 2017-0222-JRS (Del. Ch. Oct. 1, 2019), which addresses the duties of directors to oversee...more
Following this summer’s much publicized decision by the Delaware Supreme Court in the Marchand v. Barnhill (Blue Bell Creameries) case, the Delaware Court of Chancery’s holding in In re Clovis Oncology, Inc. Derivative...more
Over the past two years, there has been an uptick in the number of lawsuits challenging director and executive compensation. Cases such asIn Re: Investors Bancorp, Stein v. Blankfein, Hertz v. Frissora and, most recently,...more
Corporate Governance and Securities Law Developments - Directors Can Be Held Liable for Failure to Oversee “Mission Critical” Regulatory Compliance - On October 1, the Delaware Court of Chancery refused to dismiss a...more
I have long predicted that corporate board members are in for a rude awakening. Corporate boards have to improve their ability and knowledge surrounding supervision and monitoring of a company’s ethics and compliance...more
I’ve written a number of articles and blogs about some sticky issues that can surface in the context of setting pay for public company non-employee directors... On March 6th the parties to the In re Investors Bancorp, Inc....more
We are pleased to share with you the inaugural issue of Insights: The Delaware Edition, a periodic publication addressing significant Delaware deal litigation and corporation law developments. In This Issue: - Q&A...more
Prohibition on Fee-Shifting Provisions - The legislation signed into law last week responds to the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund, 91 A.3d 554 (Del. 2014) in which the Court...more