Opinions Digested in Delaware Law Weekly for the Issue of
BUSINESS LAW Stock Transactions l Cancellation of Shares l Certificates of Incorporation l Amendment Reddy v. MBKS Co., Ltd. DeFAX Case No. D63162 (Del. Supr. March 3, 2008).
The cancellation of shares of stock was invalid where there was no amendment to the companies’ certificates of incorporation. Affirmed.
CIVIL PRACTICE Default Judgment l Fraud Claim l Court of Chancery Rule 9(b) l Specificity Requirement Hauspie v. Stonington Partners, Inc. DeFAX Case No. D63168 (Del. Supr. March 7, 2008).
Plaintiffs were not entitled to a default judgment against defendant where the fraud claim in plaintiffs’ complaint did not satisfy the specificity requirement of Court of Chancery Rule 9(b). Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
EVIDENCE Character Evidence l D.R.E. 404(a)(1) l Pertinent Trait of Character l D.R.E. 608(a)(2) Manna v. State DeFAX Case No. D63166 (Del. Supr. Feb. 29, 2008).
Pursuant to D.R.E. 404(a)(1), defendant was entitled to present character witnesses who would have testified that defendant had a reputation for being an honest and truthful person, and the trial court erred in excluding such testimony through application of D.R.E. 608(a)(2). Reversed and remanded.
GOVERNMENT Public Employees l Police Chief l Termination l ‘Just Cause’ l 11 Del. C. § 9301(a) Vann v. Town of Cheswold DeFAX Case No. D63165 (Del. Supr. en banc Feb. 27, 2008).
In an opinion clarifying the definition of “just cause” in the context of the termination of a police chief’s employment under 11 Del. C. § 9301(a), the Supreme Court found that there was indeed just cause to terminate plaintiff from his position as chief of police. Affirmed.
CIVIL PRACTICE Equity l Preliminary Injunction l Irreparable Harm Cox v. Crawford-Emery DeFAX Case No. D63167 (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2007).
The Court of Chancery denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction where plaintiff failed to demonstrate a sufficient threat of irreparable harm. Motion for preliminary injunction denied.
CIVIL PRACTICE Limitation of Action l Tolling l Fraudulent Concealment l Equitable Tolling General Video Corp. v. Kertesz DeFAX Case No. D63170 (Del. Ch. Feb. 25, 2008).
Plaintiffs were not entitled to rely on the doctrines of fraudulent concealment and equitable tolling to preserve claims that were otherwise time-barred because plaintiffs could have discovered the expiration of the patent at issue through the exercise of reasonable diligence. Motion to dismiss counts granted.
CIVIL PRACTICE Post-judgment Practice l Enforcement of Foreign Judgment l Supplementation of Record In re Transamerica Airlines, Inc. DeFAX Case No. D63171 (Del. Ch. Feb. 25, 2008).
In this litigation to enforce a foreign judgment, plaintiff was not entitled to supplement the record with an enrolled order from a Nigerian court because such evidence was not material to the issues presently before the Delaware court, such evidence could have been obtained and presented before or at trial, and such evidence resulted from an ex parte proceeding. Motions decided.
CIVIL PRACTICE Trial Administration l Stay l California Action l McWane Factors EuroCapital Advisors, LLC v. Colburn DeFAX Case No. D63169 (Del. Ch. Feb. 14, 2008).
Defendant was entitled to a stay of this Delaware action in favor of an action pending in California state court where the California action had the status of a first-filed action and where defendant demonstrated that the proposed stay met the McWane requirements. Stay granted.
|