Barry M Klayman

May 11, 2016 | Delaware Business Court Insider

We previously wrote about the decision by former Vice Chancellor Donald F. Parsons concerning several of its substantive holdings relating to breach of fiduciary duty claims.

By Barry M. Klayman and Mark E. Felger

10 minute read

April 06, 2016 | Delaware Business Court Insider

A particularized showing of need is required before the court will compel the production of documents in native file format with metadata. This requirement was met by the plaintiffs in Delaware Acceptance v. Estate of Metzner, C.A. No. 8861-MA (Del. Ch. Feb. 17, 2016), a recent report by Master in Chancery Kim Ayvazian.

By Barry M. Klayman and Mark E. Felger

10 minute read

March 09, 2016 | Delaware Business Court Insider

In two recent decisions, judges of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware declined to approve retention applications that included provisions entitling counsel to reimbursement of fees, costs and expenses arising from the successful defense of their fee applications (so-called fee defense provisions).

By Barry M. Klayman and Mark E. Felger

5 minute read

February 17, 2016 | Delaware Business Court Insider

In Martinez v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., the Delaware Supreme Court, in granting a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens under the traditional Cryo-Maid factors, held that important and novel issues of other sovereigns are best determined by their own courts where practicable.

By Barry M. Klayman and Mark E. Felger

7 minute read

January 13, 2016 | Delaware Business Court Insider

Mandatory arbitration provisions have been much in the news lately. The New York Times recently ran a three-part series on arbitration provisions in consumer contracts titled "Beware the Fine Print."

By Barry M. Klayman and Mark E. Felger

6 minute read

January 12, 2016 | Delaware Business Court Insider

Mandatory arbitration provisions have been much in the news lately. The New York Times recently ran a three-part series on arbitration provisions in consumer contracts titled "Beware the Fine Print."

By Barry M. Klayman and Mark E. Felger

6 minute read

December 09, 2015 | Delaware Business Court Insider

In Stanziale v. MILK072011 (In re Golden Guernsey Dairy LLC), Adv. Pro. No. 14-50953 (KG) (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 21, 2015), U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross of the District of Delaware held that a Chapter 7 trustee stated a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against the parent company and manager of a debtor for causing the debtor to violate a state Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act statute and thereby incur liability. Gross rejected the defendants' arguments that the trustee lacked standing since the debtor suffered no harm because it was already insolvent prior to the WARN Act violations and that the trustee was actually suing on behalf of the general unsecured creditors of the debtor who themselves lacked standing to maintain derivative claims against the debtor.

By Barry M. Klayman and Mark E. Felger

6 minute read

December 09, 2015 | Delaware Business Court Insider

In Stanziale v. MILK072011 (In re Golden Guernsey Dairy LLC), Adv. Pro. No. 14-50953 (KG) (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 21, 2015), U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross of the District of Delaware held that a Chapter 7 trustee stated a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against the parent company and manager of a debtor for causing the debtor to violate a state Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act statute and thereby incur liability. Gross rejected the defendants' arguments that the trustee lacked standing since the debtor suffered no harm because it was already insolvent prior to the WARN Act violations and that the trustee was actually suing on behalf of the general unsecured creditors of the debtor who themselves lacked standing to maintain derivative claims against the debtor.

By Barry M. Klayman and Mark E. Felger

6 minute read

November 11, 2015 | Delaware Business Court Insider

Vice Chancellor Donald F. Parsons Jr. recently held in Genelux v. Roeder (In re Genelux), C.A. No. 10042-VCP (Del. Ch. Oct. 22, 2015), that Section 205 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, 8 Del. C. Section 205, does not permit a corporation to petition the Delaware Court of Chancery to declare invalid any corporate act or stock. It is instructive to see how Parsons reached this conclusion, a self-described "exercise of statutory interpretation."

By Barry M. Klayman and Mark E. Felger

5 minute read

November 11, 2015 | Delaware Business Court Insider

Vice Chancellor Donald F. Parsons Jr. recently held in Genelux v. Roeder (In re Genelux), C.A. No. 10042-VCP (Del. Ch. Oct. 22, 2015), that Section 205 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, 8 Del. C. Section 205, does not permit a corporation to petition the Delaware Court of Chancery to declare invalid any corporate act or stock. It is instructive to see how Parsons reached this conclusion, a self-described "exercise of statutory interpretation."

By Barry M. Klayman and Mark E. Felger

5 minute read