Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

In 2011, the Board of Cosmetology and Barbering suspended Petitioner Randall Richardson's license due to his leasing work space to his wife who Petitioner knew did not have a valid license. A Hearing Officer recommended a fine and a 90-day suspension of Petitioner's license. The Board voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s recommendations. The Superior Court affirmed the Board’s decision. On appeal, Petitioner argued: (1) the Board failed to create a complete record for the Supreme Court to review on appeal; (2) the Board failed to properly appoint the Hearing Officer to his case; (3) the Board failed to consider exceptions to the Hearing Officer’s recommendation; (4) the Board erred in suspending Petitioner's license because he only violated the requirements of his Shop License; and (5) the Hearing Officer lacked statutory authority to conduct hearings involving potential license suspensions. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Hearing Officer had the authority to act and that the Board had the authority to suspend Petitioner's License. However, the Court agreed that the Board created an insufficient record for appellate review. Accordingly, the Superior Court's judgment was vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Richardson v. Board of Cosmetology & Barbering" on Justia Law

Tenant-Defendant Bhole, Inc. terminated its commercial lease before the lease expired. Before the end of the lease, Plaintiff-landlord Shore Investments, Inc. filed suit to recover the entire unpaid rent for the balance of the term. The lease agreement did not contain an acceleration clause. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court found that though defendants breached the lease, the trial court erred by not considering the lease did not have an acceleration clause. The trial court's award of damages and attorney's fees was inappropriate, and its decision regarding the landlord's claim for tortious interference with the lease (with a punitive damages award) was also made in error. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bhole, Inc., at al. v. Shore Investments, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Joel Gerber held limited partnership (LP) units in Enterprise GP Holdings, L.P. He sued on behalf of two classes of former public holders of LP units in Enterprise, challenging the sale of a subsidiary and a merger with another. Defendants successfully moved the trial court to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint, and Plaintiff appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint. The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Gerber v. Enterprise Products Holdings,LLC " on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the Court of Chancery erred in dismissing a derivative and class action complaint against the general partner and other managers of a limited partnership. The governing limited partnership agreement provided that appellees had no liability for money damages as long as they acted in good faith. The Court of Chancery dismissed the complaint because it failed to allege facts that would support a finding of bad faith. After remand, the Court of Chancery held that appellants waived their alternative claims for reformation or rescission. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Brinckerhoff v. Enbridge Energy Company, Inc." on Justia Law

Carlyle Investment Management L.L.C. (CIM) and TC Group, L.L.C. (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against defendant-appellant National Industries Group (NIG). Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment to enforce the terms of a forum selection clause contained in a Subscription Agreement between Carlyle Capital Corporation, Ltd. (CCC) and NIG. Specifically, they sought an injunction against NIG from proceeding with litigation that it filed against CCC in Kuwait in December, 2009. The Court of Chancery entered a Default Judgment against NIG. As part of the Default Judgment, the Court of Chancery issued an anti-suit injunction. NIG filed a Motion to Vacate the Default Judgment and to Dismiss the Complaint approximately one year later. The Court of Chancery denied the motion. NIG raised several related issues on appeal to the Supreme Court: (1) that the Court of Chancery erred in refusing to vacate the Default Judgment because the Default Judgment was void due to lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction; (2) that the Court of Chancery's limited subject matter jurisdiction did not encompass actions for which a remedy at law is available or from which no irreparable harm could result; and (3) that the Court of Chancery erred in refusing to vacate the Default Judgment because, in so doing, the court effectively denied NIG the opportunity to litigate its claims against Carlyle. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that all of NIG's claims of error were all without merit, and affirmed the Court of Chancery's judgment. View "National Industries Group v. Carlyle Investment Management, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on a general partner's obligations under a limited partnership agreement. The plaintiffs alleged that the general partner obtained excessive consideration for its incentive distribution rights when an unaffiliated third party purchased the partnership. Notably, the plaintiffs did not allege that the general partner breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that the limited partnership agreement's conflict of interest provision created a contractual safe harbor, not an affirmative obligation. Therefore, the general partner needed only to exercise its discretion in good faith, as the parties intended that term to be construed, to satisfy its duties under the agreement. The general partner obtained an appropriate fairness opinion, which, under the agreement, created a conclusive presumption that the general partner made its decision in good faith. Therefore we the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery's dismissal of the complaint. View "Norton v. K-Sea Transportation Partners, L.P., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff–Appellee PharmAthene, Inc., and Defendant–Appellant SIGA Technologies, Inc., are both Delaware corporations engaged in biodefense research and development. SIGA appealed the Vice Chancellor's finding that it breached a contractual obligation to negotiate in good faith and was liable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that where parties agree to negotiate in good faith in accordance with a term sheet, that obligation to negotiate in good faith is enforceable. Where a trial judge makes a factual finding that the parties would have reached an agreement but for the defendant's bad faith negotiation, the Court held that a trial judge may award expectation damages. In regard to the facts of this case, the Court reversed the Vice Chancellor's promissory estoppel holding because a promise expressed in a fully enforceable contract cannot give rise to a promissory estoppel claim. The Court also reversed the Vice Chancellor's equitable damages award based on his factual conclusion that the parties would have reached an agreement. The case was remanded for further proceedings in light of the Court's decision in this opinion. View "Siga Technologies, Inc. v. Pharmathene, Inc." on Justia Law

In a reformation action concerning cash flow distributions in three real estate joint venture agreements, the Supreme Court held that the Vice Chancellor properly reformed the agreements on the basis of unilateral mistake and knowing silence by the other party. "Negligence in discovering an alleged mistake does not bar a reformation claim unless the negligence is so significant that it amounts to a failure to act in good faith and in accordance with reasonable standards of fair dealing. Ratifying a contract does not create an equitable bar to reformation unless the ratifying party had actual knowledge of the mistake giving rise to the reformation claim." In this matter, the Court reversed the Vice Chancellor's fee award because a contractual fee-shifting provision incorporating the words "incurred" and "reimburse" did not apply where counsel for the party seeking fees represented the party free of charge to avoid a malpractice claim. View "Scion Breckenridge Managing Member, LLC, et al. v. ASB Allegiance Real Estate Fund, et al." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this matter was whether the Chancery Court was required to dismiss a Delaware derivative complaint after a California federal court entered final judgment dismissing the same complaint brought by different stockholders. The Chancery Court determined it was not required to give preclusive effect to the California judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the Chancery Court erred in its determination: (1) the lower court held as a matter of Delaware law that the stockholder plaintiffs in the two jurisdictions were not in privity with one another; (2) that the California stockholders were not adequate representatives of the defendant corporation; (3) California law controlled the issue, and derivative stockholders were in privity with one another because they acted on behalf of the corporation; and (4) the Chancery Court adopted a presumption of inadequacy without the record to support it. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. View "Pyott v. Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System" on Justia Law

In 2006, a German bank organized two affiliated entities under Delaware law. One sold a class of securities (Trust Preferred Securities) as part of the bank's effort to raise capital. In 2009, the bank acquired a second German bank by merger, whereby the bank assumed an obligation of the acquired bank to make certain payments with respect to a class of the acquired bank's securities. The bank made those payments in 2009 and 2010. In 2010, Plaintiff, who is the Property Trustee for the holders of the acquiror bank's Trust Preferred Securities sued claiming the 2009 and 2010 payments on the acquired bank's securities (which was a "Parity Security") triggered a contractual obligation by the bank to make comparable payments on the Trust Preferred Securities. The bank argued that it had no such contractual obligation. On cross motions for summary judgment, the Court of Chancery rejected the Trustee's claim on the basis that, because the 2009 and 2010 payments were not made on "Parity Securities," the bank had no obligation to make payments on the Trust Preferred Securities. Because the Supreme Court disagreed and concluded that the Court of Chancery erred, the Court reversed and remanded with instructions to enter final judgment for the Trustee. View "Bank of New York Mellon v. Commerzbank Capital Funding Trust II" on Justia Law