Tag:Choice of Law

1
CHANCERY COURT APPLIES INTERNAL AFFAIRS DOCTRINE TO DECLARATORY ACTION FOR INSPECTION RIGHTS SOUGHT UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW
2
Court of Chancery, Applying Arkansas Law, Precludes Re-Litigation of Demand Futility Issue in the Context of a Derivative Suit Brought by Different Stockholder Plaintiffs

CHANCERY COURT APPLIES INTERNAL AFFAIRS DOCTRINE TO DECLARATORY ACTION FOR INSPECTION RIGHTS SOUGHT UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW

By: Annette E. Becker and Claire Suni

In Juul Labs, Inc. v. Daniel Grove, C.A. No. 2020-0005-JTL (Del. Ch. August 13, 2020), defendant and e-cigarette maker Juul Labs, Inc. (“Juul”) is a privately held Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California. The Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court”) granted in part Juul’s motion for declaratory judgment, which sought confirmation that a stockholder seeking inspection rights was limited to rights and remedies under the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”), and could not apply California law, among other things. The Court held that inspection rights are a matter of internal affairs under the internal affairs doctrine articulated by the Supreme Court, and thus Delaware law applies.

Read More

Court of Chancery, Applying Arkansas Law, Precludes Re-Litigation of Demand Futility Issue in the Context of a Derivative Suit Brought by Different Stockholder Plaintiffs

By Josh Gaul and H. Corinne Smith

In In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., C.A. No. 7455-CB (Del Ch. May 13, 2016), the Court of Chancery, applying Arkansas law, held that issue preclusion applies to different stockholder plaintiffs in the context of a derivative suit and, therefore, that the Arkansas district court’s holding that demand was not futile precludes re-litigation of the issue in the Delaware court system.

Read More

Copyright © 2024, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.