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.
9 Delaware opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Malpiede v. Townsongreen2 sentences2023The Fiduciary Relationship For The Sale Process Claim The first element of a claim for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty is “the existence of a fiduciary relationship.” Malpiede, 780 A.2d at 1096 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2018The Company’s directors were fiduciaries who owed duties “to the corporation and its shareholders.”406 “This formulation captures the foundational relationship in which directors owe duties to the corporation for the ultimate benefit of the entity’s residual claimants.”407 402 Dkt. 214. 403 Dkt. 347. 404 Dkts. 381–83. 405 Malpiede v. Townson, 780 A.2d 1075, 1096 (Del. 2001). 406 N. Am. | 2 | 2 |
Hamilton Partners, L.P. v. Englardgreen2 sentences2015Ch. 2013) (noting that theory encompasses claims of breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting); Hamilton P'rs v. Englard, 11 A.3d 1180, 1197 (Del. 2015Ch. 2013) (noting that theory encompasses claims of breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting); Hamilton P'rs v. Englard, 11 A.3d 1180, 1197 (Del. | 2 | 2 |
Gimbel v. Signal Companies, Inc.green1 sentence2020See Gimbel v. Signal Cos., Inc., 316 A.2d 599, 602 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
Nix v. Sawyergreen1 sentence2019Del. 1982). 9 Nix v. Sawyer, 466 A.2d at 411 (Where the communication giving rise to the defamation claim was a Court of Chancery filing for a temporary restraining order, the court determined it was privileged.). °° Def.’s Mot. 8. 21 Williams v. Howe, 2004 WL 2828058 , at *4 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
Hoover v. Van Stonegreen1 sentence2019Thus, the first element of the privilege is met.”). '8 Hoover v. Van Stone, 540 F. Supp. 1118, 1124 (D. | 1 | 1 |
Stroud v. Gracegreen1 sentence2014As directors of a Delaware corporation, the members of the Board had a “fiduciary duty to disclose fully and fairly all material information within the board’s control when it seeks shareholder action.” Stroud v. Grace, 606 A.2d 75, 84 (Del.1992); accord Malone, 722 A.2d at 12 (“The directors of a Delaware corporation are required to disclose fully and fairly all material information within the board’s control when it seeks shareholder action.”). | 1 | 1 |
Malone v. Brincatgreen1 sentence2014As directors of a Delaware corporation, the members of the Board had a “fiduciary duty to disclose fully and fairly all material information within the board’s control when it seeks shareholder action.” Stroud v. Grace, 606 A.2d 75, 84 (Del.1992); accord Malone, 722 A.2d at 12 (“The directors of a Delaware corporation are required to disclose fully and fairly all material information within the board’s control when it seeks shareholder action.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McLaughlin v. McCann
green
2 sentences2017The first element of this test—that “the arbitration provision must generally provide for arbitration of all disputes”—prompted the court in McLaughlin to observe that the test might be applied in a manner that would undermine “the efficiency rationale” endorsed by our Supreme Court.19 In reconciling what might be construed as a mixed message in Willie Gary, McLaughlin noted that the “general tenor” of the two-part test “indicates that the Delaware Supreme Court believes a reference to the AAA Rules has a critically important role in determining whether the parties intended to arbitrate arbitr 2017The first element of this test—that “the arbitration provision must generally provide for arbitration of all disputes”—prompted the court in McLaughlin to observe that the test might be applied in a manner that would undermine “the efficiency rationale” endorsed by our Supreme Court.19 In reconciling what might be construed as a mixed message in Willie Gary, McLaughlin noted that the “general tenor” of the two-part test “indicates that the Delaware Supreme Court believes a reference to the AAA Rules has a critically important role in determining whether the parties intended to arbitrate arbitr | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Krivo Industrial Supply Company and Morgan Precision Parts, Inc. v. National Distillers and Chemical Corporation
green
1 sentence1987Merely taking an active part in the management of the debtor corporation does not constitute [such] control....” 483 F.2d at 1105 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.