Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Delaware opinions name it 2 courts 2019–2025 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Delaware courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bhole, Inc. v. Shore Investments, Inc.green2 sentences2024Jan. 13, 2021) (quoting Bhole, Inc. v. Shore Invs., Inc., 67 A.3d 444, 453 (Del. 2013)). 73 Id. (quoting Sherin, 652 A.2d at 589). -19- adopted an affiliate privilege for contractual interference.74 Delaware courts are resolute in their respect for the separate existence of legal entities.75 Our law has therefore recognized the extreme difficulty of tagging a parent entity with a claim for its subsidiary’s breach of contract.76 Were it otherwise, “every-day consultation or direction between parent corporations and subsidiaries about contractual implementation would lead parents to be always br 2024Jan. 13, 2021) (quoting Bhole, Inc. v. Shore Invs., Inc., 67 A.3d 444, 453 (Del. 2013)). 73 Id. (quoting Sherin, 652 A.2d at 589). -19- adopted an affiliate privilege for contractual interference.74 Delaware courts are resolute in their respect for the separate existence of legal entities.75 Our law has therefore recognized the extreme difficulty of tagging a parent entity with a claim for its subsidiary’s breach of contract.76 Were it otherwise, “every-day consultation or direction between parent corporations and subsidiaries about contractual implementation would lead parents to be always br | 4 | 4 |
Shearin v. E.F. Hutton Group, Inc.green2 sentences2025Jan. 8, 2007)). 170 Shearin, 652 A.2d at 591 ; AM Gen., 2013 WL 5863010 , at *12. 171 Shearin, 652 A.2d at 590 . 172 Id. at 591 ; see also AM Gen., 2013 WL 5863010 , at *12 (explaining that to overcome the affiliate exception, a plaintiff’s allegations must meet a “stringent bad faith standard” (citing Allied Cap. 2025Jan. 8, 2007)). 170 Shearin, 652 A.2d at 591 ; AM Gen., 2013 WL 5863010 , at *12. 171 Shearin, 652 A.2d at 590 . 172 Id. at 591 ; see also AM Gen., 2013 WL 5863010 , at *12 (explaining that to overcome the affiliate exception, a plaintiff’s allegations must meet a “stringent bad faith standard” (citing Allied Cap. | 2 | 6 |
Allied Capital Corp. v. GC-Sun Holdings, L.P.green2 sentences2025Feb. 14, 2025) (explaining that, in the corporate fiduciary duty context, pleading bad faith is “no easy task”). 77 Buck, 2021 WL 673459 , at *6; Allied Capital, 910 A.2d at 1039 (noting that the bad faith standard is “stringent”). 78 See, e.g., Surf’s Up, 2021 WL 117036 , at *9 (citing examples of cases that “involved insolvent breaching parties in which a controlling entity was alleged to have forced their insolvency by siphoning the breaching parties’ assets and arrogating those assets to itself”); Bandera, 2019 WL 4927053 , at *27 (holding bad faith adequately pled because complaint allege 2025Corp. v. GC-Sun Hldgs., LP, 910 A.2d 1020, 1039 (Del. | 2 | 3 |
Beard Research, Inc. v. Katesgreen1 sentence2025CAM argues that the Complaint’s tortious interference claims are barred by the “affiliate privilege” doctrine.70 That doctrine “shields an affiliate from primary or vicarious tort liability for the breach of a contract to which the affiliate itself was not a signatory.” 71 Courts assess the affiliate privilege under the “justification” element because the doctrine balances value judgments about when a corporate parent is “justified” in interfering with its subsidiary.72 The privilege arises from a 68 Beard Research, Inc. v. Kates, 8 A.3d 573, 605 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Aeroglobal Capital Management, LLC v. Cirrus Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025Ch. 2010) (quoting AeroGlobal Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Cirrus Indus., Inc., 871 A.2d 428 , 437 n.7 (Del. 2005)). 69 See Opening Br. in Support of Czech Asset Mgmt., L.P.’s Mot. to Dismiss Counts III and IV of the Compl. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp.
green
2 sentences2024Corp., 812 A.2d 894 , 896- 97 (Del. 2002)). 39 Id. 4 by specific facts,” nor “draw unreasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” 40 The Court will grant the motion to dismiss “only if it appears with reasonable certainty that the plaintiff could not prove any set of facts that would entitle [the plaintiff] to relief.”41 Discussion A tortious interference with contract claim must satisfy five elements: “(1) a contract, (2) about which defendant knew, and (3) an intentional act that is a significant factor in causing the breach of such contract, (4) without justification, (5) which 2024Corp., 812 A.2d 894 , 896- 97 (Del. 2002)). 39 Id. 4 by specific facts,” nor “draw unreasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” 40 The Court will grant the motion to dismiss “only if it appears with reasonable certainty that the plaintiff could not prove any set of facts that would entitle [the plaintiff] to relief.”41 Discussion A tortious interference with contract claim must satisfy five elements: “(1) a contract, (2) about which defendant knew, and (3) an intentional act that is a significant factor in causing the breach of such contract, (4) without justification, (5) which | 1 | 2024–2024 |
United States of America v. Anthem, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020The Blues Rules “would prohibit Anthem” from using the Cigna rates under an affiliate clause, and rebranding Anthem customers to Cigna “would only exacerbate Anthem’s ‘Best Efforts’ problem.” Id. 2020The Blues Rules “would prohibit Anthem” from using the Cigna rates under an affiliate clause, and rebranding Anthem customers to Cigna “would only exacerbate Anthem’s ‘Best Efforts’ problem.” Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
United States v. Anthem, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020The Majority also found that the District Court properly had rejected the affiliate clauses as a viable option because it would not help Anthem comply with the Blues Rules, 176 citing Matheis’s testimony that Anthem intended to rebrand the “lion’s share” of Cigna’s customers in the Anthem Blue States, and “widespread exercise of the affiliate clause[s] would remove any incentive for Cigna customers to convert to Anthem because those customers would then be receiving the Cigna product at Anthem prices.” Id. 2020Anthem and its expert had assumed that renegotiation would result in providers accepting Anthem’s lower rates, but the Majority regarded that assumption “as questionable in the case of a provider that has just terminated a contract because Anthem mandated, through an affiliate clause, the acceptance of those very rates.” Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
ASDI, INC. v. Beard Research, Inc.
green
1 sentence2019As noted, the result of that approach is a limited affiliate privilege that protects a parent entity that “pursues lawful 16 WaveDivision, 49 A.3d at 1174–75 (affirming trial court’s determination that four of the seven Restatement factors weighed against a finding of improper interference); Beard Research, Inc., 11 A.3d at 750–52 (describing trial court’s analysis of justification and the affiliate privilege as interpreting “too narrowly the nature and scope of a claim for tortious interference”); NAMA, 2014 WL 6436647 , at *28–36 (balancing the Restatement factors to determine whether the af | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.