Publication Date: 2022-02-08
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Consumer Products | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rudolf Koch, Matthew D. Perri, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Greg Shinall, Michael G. Dickler, Sperling & Slater, P.C., Chicago, IL for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Robert S. Saunders, Sarah R. Martin, Michelle L. Davis, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ryan D. Stottmann, Miranda N. Gilbert, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Tamir Young, Studin Young PC, Hauppauge, NY; Peter B. Ladig, Elizabeth A. Powers, Sarah T. Andrade, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69703
The court held that because there were two competing and reasonable interpretations of certain contract language, the contract was ambiguous, and the ambiguity barred a motion to dismiss as a matter of law or on the pleadings.