Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

This action arose out of the sale of Giant Cement Holding, Inc. (Giant) by defendant Cementos Portland Valderrivas (CPV) to defendant Corporacion Uniland S.A. Sagarra Inversiones, S.L. (Sagarra) challenged the transaction on the basis of CPV's self-dealing because of its position as the majority shareholder on both sides of the transaction. Sagarra purported to bring this action individually and derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Uniland Acquisition Corp. (Uniland Delaware). The court held that to the extent the Complaint asserted a multiple derivative action on behalf of Uniland Delaware, it must be dismissed because Sagarra did not have standing to raise those claims based on the court's review of Spanish law. The court held that for the same reasons, Counts I and II, which assert multiple derivative claims on behalf of Uniland Delaware, were dismissed. The court's determination with respect to Sagarra's lack of standing as to Counts I and II was equally applicable to Count III. The court finally held that because Count IV raised fiduciary duty claims under Spanish law, the better course of action was for the court to exercise its discretion and dismiss Count IV. Therefore, defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint was granted and an implementing order would be entered.

This case stemmed from a dispute between a hedge fund manager and the hedge fund's seed investor. The central issue was contractual and involved whether the hedge fund manager could use the Gate Provision in the Partnership Agreement to lock up the seed investor. The court held that the hedge fund manager's refusal to honor the withdrawal request and return the seed investor's capital in full was a violation of the Seeder Agreement and a breach of contract. The court held that, in the alternative, even if the Gates were potentially applicable, it was a breach of fiduciary duty for the hedge fund manager to use the Gates solely for a selfish reason. Therefore, the court ordered the immediate return to the seed investor of all of its capital and awarded interest to compensate it for the delay. The court also disposed of several other claims raised by the hedge fund manager and the seed investor.

This action arose from a final arbitration award made in favor of defendant where plaintiff sought to vacate the award. At issue was whether the Arbitration Award should be filed under seal. Also at issue was whether the arbitrator concealed material information about past adversarial relationships with plaintiff-related entities amounting to evident partiality requiring the court to vacate the Arbitration Award. The court held that the existence of a confidentiality order did not necessarily require, without regard for whether it applied to the Arbitration Award or not, the sealing of the award. Rather, Court of Chancery Rule 5(g) controlled the treatment of that award and mandated that plaintiff show good cause as to why the Arbitration Award should be sealed. The court also held that because plaintiff was entitled to limited discovery into the arbitrator's alleged adversarial relationship with it, the court denied defendant's motion for a protective order and held in abeyance the entry of a scheduling order on motions for summary judgment.

This case arose out of a sale-leaseback transaction that occurred in 2001. On July 10, 2011, the seller-lessees' parent company announced plans for a proposed transaction whereby it would seek a new credit facility and undergo an internal reorganization. As part of a subsequent reorganization, substantially all of its profitable power generating facilities would be transferred from existing subsidiaries to new "bankruptcy remote" subsidiaries, except for two financially weakened power plants. On July, 22, 2011, plaintiffs brought this action seeking to temporarily restrain the closing of the proposed transaction on the grounds that it violated the successor obligor provisions of the guaranties and would constitute a fraudulent transfer. The court found it more appropriate to analyze plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order under the heightened standard for a preliminary injunction. Having considered the record, the court held that plaintiffs have failed to show either a probability of success on the merits of their breach of contract and fraudulent transfer claims or the existence of imminent irreparable harm if the transaction was not enjoined. Therefore, the court denied plaintiffs' application for injunctive relief.

Defendant moved to dismiss this action under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(3). Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment regarding the validity of, and specific performance of, a putative settlement agreement, which, if enforced, would end its arbitration of a dispute with defendant that arose out of a commercial contract, the Professional Services and Procurement Agreement (PSPA). The court held that, to the extent that defendant argued that plaintiff's claims should be dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens, defendant's motion was denied. The court also held that the action was dismissed without prejudice pending resolution of the arbitration process.

This case arose when plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendant under which he was entitled to advancement of expenses incurred in defending several actions arising out of his employment with defendant (Indemnification Agreement). At issue was whether the Special Master's fees fell within the definition of "Expenses" under the Indemnification Agreement. The court held that, in accordance with the terms of the Indemnification Agreement, defendant was solely responsible for any fees arising from a reasonableness review conducted by a special master. Therefore, the Special Master's fees were to be paid by defendant, along with any future amounts arising from similar proceedings before the Special Master.

This action arose from a technology-sharing relationship between plaintiffs and defendant where plaintiffs brought suit against defendant in January 2009 for, among other things, breach of contract based on defendant's alleged failure to perform its end of a bargain the parties had struck. Both parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. Having considered the parties' extensive submissions and their presentations at the argument held on March 1, 2011, the court decided to deny both motions because numerous issues of material fact remained in dispute. Nonetheless, the court made several summary judgment findings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) regarding certain discrete issues where the facts were without substantial controversy.

Plaintiffs, former shareholders and the representative and attorney-in-fact for all shareholders of Kinexus Corporation (Kinexus), commenced this action asserting claims against Advent Software, Inc. (Advent) for breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising out of a December 31, 2001 agreement entered into by Advent to acquire Kinexus. Advent subsequently moved to dismiss the action because of Kinexus' failure to prosecute and Advent argued that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate under Court of Chancery Rules 41(b) and 41(e). The court held that Advent's motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute was denied where the court was not convinced that these circumstances necessitated dismissal because of the court's preference for resolving cases on the merits and because Kinexus appeared to have renewed their efforts to diligently prosecute the matter. Accordingly, counsel were requested to confer and to promptly submit a case scheduling order so that discovery could be completed and a trial date could be established.

Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation d/b/a Lockheed Martin STS-Orlando (LMSTS) moved to bifurcate this action into a "Contract Interpretation Phase" and a "Damages Phase," and both LMSTS and plaintiff BAE Systems Information and Electronic System Integration Inc. (BAE) filed motions to compel. The court endorsed bifurcation where the litigation was indisputably complex and where both parties agreed, in principle, that bifurcation would be appropriate and have reached a substantial agreement regarding the issues to be determined during each phase of the action. Accordingly, the action was bifurcated into a "Contract Interpretation Phase" and a "Damages Phase." The court noted that bifurcation of the action effectively postponed the parties' need for much of the discovery they have requested. Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part BAE's and LMSTS' motions to compel. Finally, the court denied each party's request for attorneys fees because both BAE and LMST had good faith grounds for the positions taken.

This case arose when Del Monte Foods Company announced that it had agreed to be acquired by a consortium of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., Vestar Capital Partners, and Centerview Partners (collectively, Sponsors). A number of familiar entrepreneurial plaintiffs' firms filed putative class actions challenging the merger. Plaintiffs subsequently sought an interim award of attorneys' fees and expenses for causing defendants to issue supplemental disclosures and obtaining a preliminary injunction. The court held that the application for an interim fee award was granted with respect to benefits conferred by the Proxy Supplement. For those benefits, Lead Counsel was awarded fees and expenses of $2.75 million. Therefore, the court held that the application was otherwise denied without prejudice and could be renewed at a later time.