LATEST SUMMARIES

BANKING LAW, BANKRUPTCY LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, M&A, SECURITIES LAW
• Hauspie v. Stonington Partners, Inc.

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CLASS ACTIONS, REMEDIES, SECURITIES LAW
• In the Matter of the Philadelphia Stock Exch., Inc.

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW, M&A, SECURITIES LAW
• MBKS Co. Ltd. v. Reddy

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
• McKinley v. State of Delaware
• Czech v. State of Delaware
• Dabney v. State of Delaware

LATEST SUMMARIES

BANKING LAW, BANKRUPTCY LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, M&A, SECURITIES LAW
Hauspie v. Stonington Partners, Inc., No. 527, 2003
In an action challenging a default judgment in excess of $750 million, judgment is reversed in part where the complaint on which the default judgment was predicated failed to allege fraud with particularity, as required by the Court of Chancery Rule 9(b). Read more...

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CLASS ACTIONS, REMEDIES, SECURITIES LAW
In the Matter of the Philadelphia Stock Exch., Inc. , No. 613, 2007, 615, 2007
In an action challenging the lower court's approval of a settlement to a shareholder class action, the Court of Chancery's judgment is affirmed where it committed no legal error or abuse of discretion in: 1) approving the settlement, including its definition of the settlement class; or 2) bifurcating its review of the settlement from its future consideration of issues relating to how the settlement proceeds should be allocated. Read more...

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW, M&A, SECURITIES LAW
MBKS Co. Ltd. v. Reddy, No. 300, 2007
In an action challenging whether certain actions by defendant constituted a cancellation of shares, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that a 1996 distribution agreement was a preexisting valid and enforceable agreement to transfer plaintiffs-companies' shares; and 2) the Court of Chancery correctly concluded that defendant's action amounted to a cancellation of stock followed by the issuance of new shares to different shareholders. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
McKinley v. State of Delaware, No. 264, 2007
Conviction for second-degree murder is affirmed where: 1) the state's evidence was sufficient; and 2) the trial judge's decision was supported by the record. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
Czech v. State of Delaware, No. 269, 2007
Conviction for rape offenses is affirmed over claims that: 1) the trial judge abused its discretion by allowing the child complainant's mother to sit on the witness stand behind the child while the child testified before the jury; 2) the trial judge committed plain error by allowing evidence of a similar uncharged offense to be introduced into evidence; and 3) the prosecutor's statements during closing arguments amounted to improper vouching. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
Dabney v. State of Delaware, No. 120, 2007
Conviction for second-degree rape is reversed and remanded where: 1) the state alone caused unnecessary and prejudicial delay in the case going to trial by its preference to have DNA analysis available when it may have been unnecessary for all but one of the pending charges, which did not outweigh the prejudice to a defendant imprisoned for over a year because he lacked the wherewithal to post bail; and 2) thus, the state impermissibly violated defendant's right to a speedy trial. Read more...