Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against the acquisition of Compellant by Dell. The parties settled after significant discovery but before merits briefing or a hearing. The settlement consideration consisted of modifications to the deal protections in the merger agreement, including the rescission of a stockholder rights plan adopted in connection with the transaction, and six supplemental disclosures. Plaintiffs applied for a fee of $6 million and defendants argued for not more than $1.25 million. In addressing the fee application, and thus to estimate the value of the resulting benefits conferred by the settlement, the court relied primarily on four studies that measured market-wide rates of topping bid activity and the incremental value generated by multiple bidders. The court also evaluated the benefits conferred by the supplemental disclosures. In total, the court awarded $2.4 million.

This action involved a challenge to a decision by the board of directors of a company to call certain of its outstanding shares. The purchasers of those shares claimed that the company called the shares at a below market price in violation of the express terms of the contracts governing the shares as well as the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The company moved to dismiss the purchaser's complaint for failure to state a claim. The court found that the purchaser had alleged facts that conceivably would support a conclusion that the call price was set below fair market value and that the company acted in bad faith by setting the call price at that value. Therefore, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss.

Gibraltar brought this action against Boston Private for specific performance of Boston Private's obligations under the tax allocation provision of the stock purchase agreement between the parties. Both parties moved for judgment on the pleadings under Court of Chancery Rule 12(c) on the question of how the tax payment provided for in the Stock Purchase Agreement should be calculated. In support of their respective motions, both parties argue that Section 5.5(d) of the Stock Purchase Agreement was unambiguous and that their respective interpretation was the only reasonable interpretation. The court held that the relevant portion of Section 5.5(d) was ambiguous. Since each party had advanced a reading of Section 5.5(d) that was reasonable, neither party had met its burden of demonstrating that its interpretation was the only reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, judgment on the pleadings was denied.

This action involved a challenge to the decision by a purchaser to terminate a share purchase agreement and related consulting services agreement based on the purchaser's contention that certain conditions precedent to closing those agreements had not been met by the seller. Purchaser brought an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, seeking a determination that it properly terminated the share purchase and consulting services agreements and was entitled to the return of its down payment on the purchase price from escrow. The court found that the agreements between the parties unambiguously provided that the Development Fees were contingent on the commencement of actual development of the projects and that the purchaser was under no obligation to develop the projects. Therefore, the court granted purchaser's motion for partial summary judgment on that issue and held that seller was not entitled to any Development Fees as a result of purchaser's decision to terminate the transaction.

Plaintiff asserted wide-ranging claims against defendant and its managing member after plaintiff and defendant agreed to combine their investment management operations into a single firm. After coming to believe that defendant was engaged in fraud, plaintiff terminated the arrangement. In a formal termination agreement, plaintiff agreed to pay certain enumerated expenses and the parties granted each other expansive global releases. The court held that, on its face, the broad and unambiguous language of the General Release encompassed all of the claims asserted in the Complaint. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss was granted.

This action arose out of a dispute between two companies involved in the development of pharmaceuticals. Plaintiff was a biodefense company engaged in the development and commercialization of medical countermeasures against biological and chemical weapons and defendant was also a biodefense company that concentrated on the discovery and development of oral antiviral and antibacterial drugs to treat, prevent, and complement vaccines for high-threat biowarfare agents. The court rejected plaintiff's claim that defendant breached a binding license agreement, but found that defendant did breach its obligations to negotiate in good faith and that defendant was liable to plaintiff under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The court rejected defendant's claim that plaintiff breached its obligation to negotiate in good faith. The court denied plaintiff's claims for specific performance of a license agreement with the terms set forth in the time sheet or, alternatively, for a lump sum award of its expectation damages. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff was entitled to share in any profits relied on from the sale of the drug in question, after an adjustment for the upfront payments it likely would have had to make had the parties negotiated in good faith a license agreement in accordance with the terms of the term sheet. In addition, plaintiff was entitled to recover from defendant a portion of the attorneys' fees and expenses plaintiff incurred in pursuing the action.

This action arose from a transaction involving the sale of equity in a Texas-based dental practice management company to a Chicago-based private equity firm. At issue was whether the purchasers' ability to raise the forum selection clause issue in Texas provided them with an adequate remedy at law, undermining the basis for equity jurisdiction, and if not, whether the terms of the forum selection clause were broad enough to reach the Texas claims. The court held that the forum selection clause did not provide purchasers an adequate remedy at law, and therefore, the court had subject matter jurisdiction over their claims. The court also held that the forum selection clause here, which applied to any claims arising under or relating to the transaction, was sufficiently broad in scope that the purchasers were likely to succeed in showing that it provided exclusive jurisdiction in Delaware over the claims brought by the sellers in Texas. Accordingly, the court granted purchasers' motion for preliminary injunction.

In this action brought pursuant to 8 Del. C. 225, plaintiffs sought a determination that certain written consents validly removed defendant directors and replaced them with a new slate. Defendant directors contended that they could not be removed or a new slate elected without the consent of a majority of the Series B Preferred Stock. Applying enhanced scrutiny, the court held that defendant directors breached their fiduciary duties when issuing the Series B Preferred Stock where, although they honestly believed they were acting in the best interests of the company, they breached their duty of loyalty by structuring the stock issuance to prevent an insurgent group from waging a successful proxy contest. Therefore, the class provision could not be given effect and the written consents validly elected a new board.

This post-trial opinion determined the voting membership of GnB, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The parties disputed whether Firehouse Gallery, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, was a voting member of GnB. The parties also disputed whether GnB possessed an exclusive license to use the first-tier, generic domain name candles.com; held an option to purchase candles.com; and owned other assorted domain names relating to the candles business. The court held that Firehouse and plaintiff, who controlled GnB, each held a 50% voting membership interest; GnB owned the exclusive license and option to purchase candles.com and the other domain names; and plaintiff and defendant, the current principal of Firehouse, each breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty to GnB and must account for the profits and personal benefits they received. The court held that defendant was not otherwise liable to GnB or plaintiff. Because all of the litigants engaged in misconduct that could support fee-shifting, the doctrine of unclean hands applied with particular salience. Accordingly, the court held that all parties would bear their own fees and costs.

This matter involved the interpretation of a limited liability company operating agreement. Petitioner (Showell) was a member of an accounting firm (Hoyt) and respondents (Pusey and Hatter) were the remaining members of the LLC at the time. In early 2007, Showell "retired" from Hoyt. Showell subsequently asked the court to construe the provisions of the Hoyt Operating Agreement to determine what value, if any, Showell was due for his interest in Hoyt as a consequence of his departure from the company. The court held that Showell was entitled to receive his share of the liquidation value of Hoyt as of the date of his "retirement" from the company.