Kaan Ekiner

Kaan Ekiner

November 06, 2024 | Delaware Business Court Insider

Chancery Stays Action Pending Resolution of a Motion to Dismiss in a First-Filed Action to Which the Defendant Is Not a Party

Prior to initiating the Delaware Chancery Court action, Eastern Wholesale sued one of Hudson's affiliates—but not Hudson—in North Carolina. Shortly after the filing of the Chancery action, Hudson moved to dismiss or stay. And due to potential overlapping legal and factual issues, Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick entered a stay.

By Kaan Ekiner and Mark E. Felger

5 minute read

October 30, 2024 | Delaware Business Court Insider

Chancery Court Exercises Discretion in Setting Bond in a Case Involving Share Transfer Restriction

The Vice Chancellor's decision illustrates the court's discretion and, in this instance, common-sense approach to requiring a bond in the context of provisional relief.

By Kaan Ekiner and Mark E. Felger

6 minute read

July 03, 2024 | Delaware Business Court Insider

Court of Chancery Dismisses Fiduciary Duty Claims Related to Self-Tender Offer

In August 2022, Giant/Alpha allegedly used its controlling position in Playtika to cause the Playtika board to engage in a self-tender. In a previous ruling, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock found that the transaction conferred Giant/Alpha a nonratable benefit and denied Giant/Alpha's motion to dismiss claims against it arising from the transaction.

By Kaan Ekiner and Mark E. Felger

8 minute read

May 01, 2024 | Delaware Business Court Insider

Chancery Court Emphasizes Nexus Between Unclean Hands Defense and Asserted Claims

In Pilot v. Greg Abel, Vice Chancellor Morgan T. Zurn granted a motion to strike the defenses of unclean hands and in pari delicto because the defenses lacked a sufficient nexus to the contractual claims asserted by the plaintiff.

By Kaan Ekiner and Mark E. Felger

8 minute read

March 06, 2024 | Delaware Business Court Insider

Chancery Declines Jurisdiction Over Contract and Tort Claims Not Arising Out of LLC Agreement

In Ramco Asset Management v. USA Rare Earth, 2023 WL 6939263 (Del. Ch. Oct. 20, 2023), Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III considered jurisdictional…

By Kaan Ekiner and Mark E. Felger

8 minute read

December 27, 2023 | Delaware Business Court Insider

Chancery Permits Limited Stockholder Inspection of Nonpublic Books and Records for Better Valuation of Shares

The Delaware Court of Chancery considered whether a stockholder of a publicly traded company was entitled to inspect the books and records of the public company's nonpublic subsidiary for the stated purpose of "more accurately" valuing the public corporation's publicly traded shares.

By Mark E. Felger and Kaan Ekiner

8 minute read

November 01, 2023 | Delaware Business Court Insider

Court of Chancery Describes Limitations for Vacating Arbitration Awards

The court's confirmation of the award demonstrates the extent to which a court will go to confirm an arbitration award even where, as the vice chancellor found, the arbitration proceeding and the resulting award were flawed.

By Kaan Ekiner and Mark E. Felger

9 minute read

September 06, 2023 | Delaware Business Court Insider

Court of Chancery Examines Director's Personal Relationship in Dismissing Duty of Loyalty Claim

Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III considered whether a personal relationship between an independent director and a conflicted director was sufficient to corrupt the independent director's loyalty in approving a cash only freeze-out merger.

By Kaan Ekiner and Mark E. Felger

7 minute read

July 05, 2023 | Delaware Business Court Insider

Court of Chancery Address Scope of Privilege Concerning Third-Parties

In this stockholder derivative action, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants—members of Tesla's board of directors—breached their fiduciary duties by awarding themselves excessive and unfair compensation between 2017 and 2020.

By Kaan Ekiner and Mark E. Felger

8 minute read

June 07, 2023 | Delaware Business Court Insider

Delaware Supreme Court Addresses Forum Selection Disputes

Against a lengthy procedural backdrop, the Supreme Court held that unused leave to transfer a case does not divest the original court of jurisdiction, reaffirmed the trial courts' broad discretion in deciding motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), and confirmed that forum non conveniens does not apply when parties have contracted for a specific forum to resolve their disputes.

By Kaan Ekiner and Mark E. Felger

12 minute read