efforts clause (Delaware) · Go Syfert
← Delaware issues

efforts clause in Delaware

6 Delaware opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2026 4 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Stuart v. Stuartgreen
del · 2017 · cited in 3 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2021–2024
2 sentences

2024Reasonable Efforts In The Face Of An Express Contract Right In Defendants’ Pretrial Brief, they assert in passing in a single sentence that Section 10.5(c) provides the CEO the right to terminate non-executive-officer employees.316 Defendants have also argued that a party need not give up its contract rights in the face of a competing obligation arising from an efforts clause.317 Although Defendants made this 313 See id. at 273 ; Williams Companies, Inc., 2016 WL 3576682 , at *5 (“[T]he Merger Agreement includes a condition to closing that Latham provide ETC and Williams a written opinion” ref

2024Reasonable Efforts In The Face Of An Express Contract Right In Defendants’ Pretrial Brief, they assert in passing in a single sentence that Section 10.5(c) provides the CEO the right to terminate non-executive-officer employees.316 Defendants have also argued that a party need not give up its contract rights in the face of a competing obligation arising from an efforts clause.317 Although Defendants made this 313 See id. at 273 ; Williams Companies, Inc., 2016 WL 3576682 , at *5 (“[T]he Merger Agreement includes a condition to closing that Latham provide ETC and Williams a written opinion” ref

23
Caspian Alpha Long Credit Fund, L.P. v. GS Mezzanine Partners 2006, L.P.green
del · 2014 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018I note that Section 5.01 is a separate best efforts provision that would also presumably prohibit disparagement 26 Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp., 812 A.2d 894 , 896–97 (Del. 2002) (footnotes and internal quotation marks omitted). 27 Caspian Alpha Long Credit Fund, L.P. v. GS Mezzanine P’rs 2006, L.P., 93 A.3d 1203, 1205 (Del. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). 10 of the kind that ETE alleges.28 Section 5.01 allows the counterparty, upon breach of the best efforts clause, to recover actual damages; by contrast, Sections 3.01(d)(i) and 4.02(d) provide liquidated damages where the Board threate

11
NBT Bancorp, Inc. v. Fleet/Norstar Financial Group, Inc.green
nyappdiv · 1990 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009Group, 159 A.D.2d 902 , 553 N.Y.S.2d 864, 867 (N.Y.App.Div.1990) (dismissing claim for breach of a best efforts clause on a motion to dismiss), appeal dismissed, 76 N.Y.2d 886 , 561 N.Y.S.2d 546 , 562 N.E.2d 871 (N.Y.1990). 67 .Merger Agreement § 6.5.6. 68 .

2009Group, 159 A.D.2d 902 , 553 N.Y.S.2d 864, 867 (N.Y.App.Div.1990) (dismissing claim for breach of a best efforts clause on a motion to dismiss), appeal dismissed, 76 N.Y.2d 886 , 561 N.Y.S.2d 546 , 562 N.E.2d 871 (N.Y.1990). 67 .Merger Agreement § 6.5.6. 68 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Armstrong v. Council of the Devon green
del · 2018
2 sentences

2026Oct. 1, 2018), aff’d, 198 A.3d 724 (Del. 2018) (TABLE). 49 or be liable for resulting damages’ (or potentially be subject to an order compelling specific performance).”134 “At times, however, a party’s ability to perform its obligations depends on others or may be hindered by events beyond the party’s control.”135 In those situations, drafters commonly add an efforts provision to define the level of effort that the party must deploy to attempt to achieve the outcome,136 and the efforts standard specifies how hard the parties have to try.137 Commonly used standards include “best efforts,” “reas

2026Oct. 1, 2018), aff’d, 198 A.3d 724 (Del. 2018) (TABLE). 49 or be liable for resulting damages’ (or potentially be subject to an order compelling specific performance).”134 “At times, however, a party’s ability to perform its obligations depends on others or may be hindered by events beyond the party’s control.”135 In those situations, drafters commonly add an efforts provision to define the level of effort that the party must deploy to attempt to achieve the outcome,136 and the efforts standard specifies how hard the parties have to try.137 Commonly used standards include “best efforts,” “reas

22024–2026
Salamone v. Gorman green
del · 2014
1 sentence

2024It is also, however, an unduly restricted view of this special summary proceeding, particularly in light of the arguments and evidence presented at trial. 247 See Dkt. 200 Plaintiffs’ Post-Trial Reply Br. (“Plaintiffs’ Post-Trial Reply Br.”) at 10 n.9. 248 See Defendants’ Post-Trial Answering Br. at 37–38. 249 Id. 52 accordingly, analyze Section 12.1’s efforts clause as imposing a “reasonable efforts” obligation on Alphonso but not the Board.

12024–2024
Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. v. Huntsman Corp. green
delch · 2008
2 sentences

2021Efforts clauses generally replace “the rule of strict liability for contractual non-performance that otherwise governs” 494 with “obligations to take all reasonable steps to solve problems and consummate the” obligation. 495 When assessing whether a party has breached an efforts clause in a transaction agreement, “this court has looked to whether the party subject to the clause (i) had reasonable grounds to take the action it did and (ii) sought to address problems with its counterparty.” 496 This 493 SPA § 6.15(a). 494 Akorn, 2018 WL 4719347 , at *86 (holding that “reasonable best efforts” an

2021Efforts clauses generally replace “the rule of strict liability for contractual non-performance that otherwise governs” 494 with “obligations to take all reasonable steps to solve problems and consummate the” obligation. 495 When assessing whether a party has breached an efforts clause in a transaction agreement, “this court has looked to whether the party subject to the clause (i) had reasonable grounds to take the action it did and (ii) sought to address problems with its counterparty.” 496 This 493 SPA § 6.15(a). 494 Akorn, 2018 WL 4719347 , at *86 (holding that “reasonable best efforts” an

12021–2021
Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp. green
del · 2002
1 sentence

2018I note that Section 5.01 is a separate best efforts provision that would also presumably prohibit disparagement 26 Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp., 812 A.2d 894 , 896–97 (Del. 2002) (footnotes and internal quotation marks omitted). 27 Caspian Alpha Long Credit Fund, L.P. v. GS Mezzanine P’rs 2006, L.P., 93 A.3d 1203, 1205 (Del. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). 10 of the kind that ETE alleges.28 Section 5.01 allows the counterparty, upon breach of the best efforts clause, to recover actual damages; by contrast, Sections 3.01(d)(i) and 4.02(d) provide liquidated damages where the Board threate

12018–2018
NBT Bancorp, Inc. v. Fleet/Norstar Financial Group, Inc. neutral
ny · 1990
2 sentences

2009Group, 159 A.D.2d 902 , 553 N.Y.S.2d 864, 867 (N.Y.App.Div.1990) (dismissing claim for breach of a best efforts clause on a motion to dismiss), appeal dismissed, 76 N.Y.2d 886 , 561 N.Y.S.2d 546 , 562 N.E.2d 871 (N.Y.1990). 67 .Merger Agreement § 6.5.6. 68 .

2009Group, 159 A.D.2d 902 , 553 N.Y.S.2d 864, 867 (N.Y.App.Div.1990) (dismissing claim for breach of a best efforts clause on a motion to dismiss), appeal dismissed, 76 N.Y.2d 886 , 561 N.Y.S.2d 546 , 562 N.E.2d 871 (N.Y.1990). 67 .Merger Agreement § 6.5.6. 68 .

12009–2009
In re Poole neutral
ny · 1990
1 sentence

2009Group, 159 A.D.2d 902 , 553 N.Y.S.2d 864, 867 (N.Y.App.Div.1990) (dismissing claim for breach of a best efforts clause on a motion to dismiss), appeal dismissed, 76 N.Y.2d 886 , 561 N.Y.S.2d 546 , 562 N.E.2d 871 (N.Y.1990). 67 .Merger Agreement § 6.5.6. 68 .

12009–2009

Where else courts name it

CA 10 (1968–2022) TX 8 (1929–2022) MD 7 (1986–2013) IL 7 (1965–2021) DE 6 (2009–2026) NY 4 (1988–2026) CO 4 (1957–2009) IN 3 (1982–2006) NJ 3 (1999–2011) OH 3 (2000–2024) AK 3 (1994–2023) NC 2 (1989–2005) FL 2 (1997–2015) MT 2 (2009–2009) MA 2 (1981–1986)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check