Last of two parts.
In the last column I discussed how Delaware’s Chancery Court relied upon unjustifiable technical conclusions in finding the defendant in TR Investors LLC v. Genger in contempt for violating a status quo agreement when he wiped the hard drives of his business’s computers to keep sensitive data regarding national security work for the Israeli government and his pending divorce from falling into the wrong hands. This week, I will examine the court’s legal conclusions and the implications of its ruling.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
