Barry M. Klayman, left, and Mark E. Felger, right. Courtesy photos Chancery Holds Section 3104(d)(4) Provides Standalone Authority for Alternative Means for Service of Process
Chancery Rule 4(d) specifies how service of a summons and complaint shall be made and specifies the manner of personal service upon various classes of defendants. Rule 4(d)(7) allows for an order directing a different or an additional mode of service of a summons in a special case.
September 01, 2021 at 09:00 AM
7 minute read
Commentary
Chancery Rule 4(d) specifies how service of a summons and complaint shall be made and specifies the manner of personal service upon various classes of defendants. Rule 4(d)(7) allows for an order directing a different or an additional mode of service of a summons in a special case. In Skye Mineral Investors v. DXS Capital (U.S.) Limited, 2021 WL 2983182 (Del. Ch. July 15, 2021), Vice Chancellor Joseph Slights was called upon to decide whether the alternative means of service he had approved were reasonable and fair and consistent with due process.
The case involved a dispute among members of a Delaware limited liability company, Skye Mineral Partners, LLC. SMP's majority members alleged that its minority members orchestrated a scheme wrongfully to divest SMP of its lone asset, a wholly owned operating subsidiary, CS Mining, LLC, by driving CSM into bankruptcy and then buying its assets at a steep discount in an auction sale conducted under Section 363 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Plaintiffs also pled that entities and individuals within the minority members' ownership group aided and abetted the fiduciary breaches.
This content has been archived.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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
The Importance of Contractual Language in Analyzing Post-Closing Earnout Disputes
6 minute read
Delaware Supreme Court Upholds Court of Chancery’s Refusal to Blue Pencil an Unreasonable Covenant Not to Compete
4 minute read
How New Jersey’s Pragmatic Bankruptcy Approach Sets It Apart Post-'Purdue Pharma'
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Florida Judge Tosses Antitrust Case Over Yacht Broker Commissions
- 2Critical Mass With Law.com’s Amanda Bronstad: LA Judge Orders Edison to Preserve Wildfire Evidence, Is Kline & Specter Fight With Thomas Bosworth Finally Over?
- 3What Businesses Need to Know About Anticipated FTC Leadership Changes
- 4Federal Court Considers Blurry Lines Between Artist's Consultant and Business Manager
- 5US Judge Cannon Blocks DOJ From Releasing Final Report in Trump Documents Probe
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
