Delaware Business Litigation Report

Brown v. T-Ink, LLC ,C.A. No. 3190-VCP (December 18, 2007).

Delaware courts have recently issued several decisions dealing with the scope of an agreement to arbitrate. This is yet another. The opinion is interesting for its explaination of the Delaware approach to determining whether it is for the arbitrator or the court to decide if an issue is subject to arbitration. Generally, that issue will be decided by the court unless there is a clear indication in the agreement that the arbitrator is to decide such questions. As this decision points out, references to the AAA rules and language including "all controversies" arising out of the parties' relationship indicate that an arbitrator should decide such issues.

Ornero v. Country Grove Investment Group LLC, C.A. No. 2245-VCS (October 12, 2007).

In this case the contract required arbitration of any dispute between the parties arising from "any other cause", not just from a cause related to their contract. The Court upheld the claim that even a suit on a dispute unrelated to the contract containing the arbitration clause was within this broad arbitration agreement.

Baypo Limited Partnership v. Technology JV, C.A. No. 2693-VCL (October 10, 2007).

Many arbitration clauses contain provisions that permit a court to grant injunctive relief.  These are used because of a fear that the arbitration panel may not have that power and that sort of relief may be needed, such as to enforce a noncompetition clause. Notwithstanding the presence of such clause, this decision upholds the usual Delaware rule that it is up to the arbitrators to decide if an issue is subject to the arbitration provision. Of course, that does not mean they decide if a court may hear an application for an injunction.

Friendly Ghost Enterprises LLC v. McWilliams, C.A. No. 2935-VCN (July 27, 2007).Sometimes fiduciary duty claims are mixed in with claims that are subject to an arbitration provision. The issue then is whether the nonarbitration claims for breach of fiduciary duty are to be stayed in favor of arbitrating the other claims first. Here, the Court granted a stay because the resolution of the fiduciary duty claims and the claims for dissolution and a receiver would be illuminated by the resolution of the claims to be arbitrated.

Wilmington Paper Corp. v. ANDA Management LLC, C.A. No. 2568-VCN (May 14, 2007).

When a dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement, it is often the case that immediate relief is needed to protect the parties in the period before the arbitration is decided. While sometimes an arbitration panel may have the power to issue orders that provide that relief, that is not always the case. Here, the Court of Chancery issued a status quo order that limited  management powers while an arbitration panel was being formed and was to review the disputes.

Status quo orders are thus a way to deal with problems that occur before the arbitrators can decide what to do. Note, however, that the Court limited the status quo order to the period before the arbitrators could act.

NAMA Holdings, LLC v. Related World Market Center LLC, C.A. No. 2755 (Del. Ch. April 27, 2007).

The rights and obligations of a third party beneficiary to a contract are not clear. This decision illustrates that uncertainty and resolves the issues of when a third party beneficiary may be compelled to arbitrate a dispute.

The Court held that a third party beneficiary may be compelled to arbitrate a dispute when the agreement provides that the right the third party seeks to enforce is subject to the arbitration provisions of the agreement. In addition, the theory of equitable estoppel will compel a third party to arbitrate if it has received a direct benefit from the contracts' performance such that it would be inequitable to refuse to comply with the general intent of the agreement that disputes are to be arbitrated.

Mehiel v. Solo Cup Company, No. 06C-01-169-JEB, 2007 WL 901637 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 26, 2007).

This case arose from defendant’s acquisition of SF Holdings and relates to disagreements over the amount of SF Holdings’ working capital adjustments and, by extension, its purchase price. The plaintiff, chairman and CEO of SF Holdings, brought this action in his capacity as the shareholders’ representative for fraud in the inducement, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. 

Shortly after the parties entered into the merger agreement—and days before closing—they found themselves deadlocked and unable to reach an agreement on the working capital adjustments. To resolve their differences, the parties appointed a neutral auditor as provided in the merger agreement, which further stated that the auditor’s decision would be final, binding, and conclusive, making no mention of appeal or reconsideration. The auditor resolved several issues in favor of the purchasing company (defendant), and plaintiffs’ action followed.

Country Life Homes Inc. v. Shaffer, C.A. No. 2288-S (Del. Ch. January 31, 2007).

It is sometimes asked if an arbitration award really has the finality of res judicata. This decision holds that the first arbitration award in a dispute is a final award that bars any later arbitration award by another tribunal.  The Court did permit the party opposing the first award to contest the jurisdiction of that arbitrator. When that challenge failed, so did that party's case.

State of Delaware v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. C.A. No. 2088-N (December 12, 2006).

By this decision Delaware joins the vast majority of other states in ordering arbitration over the disputes arising out of the State's agreement with tobacco companies.

Remote Solutions Co., Ltd. v. FGH Liquidating Corp., Civil Action No. 06-004-KAJ, 2006 WL 3498657 (D. Del. Dec. 5, 2006).

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration and to Amend the Court’s earlier Memorandum Order in which it denied the plaintiff’s motion to vacate or modify an arbitration award for failing to demonstrate a proper basis for subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff now sought to have the Court amend its order so it could cure the jurisdictional defect. The Court granted the motion to the extent that the plaintiff could renew its prior motion to vacate or modify the arbitration award by demonstrating proper subject matter jurisdiction.

The Court also permitted the motion to relate back to the date of the original filing. It further permitted the defendant to move independently for confirmation of the arbitration award regardless of the course of action chosen by plaintiff.

Majkowski v. American Imaging Management Services LLC, C.A. No. 1797-N (Del. Ch. December 6, 2006).

The right to have attorneys fees paid in advance of the final result in litigation is illustrated by this recent decision. The Court held that an agreement to "hold harmless" does not give the right to advancement of legal fees. Instead, "hold harmless" language only confers the right to be indemnified at the end of the litigation.

Millennium Validation Services, Inc. v. Thompson, C.A. No. 02-1430 (GMS), 2006 WL 3159821 (D. Del. Nov. 3, 2006).

Plaintiff, a Delaware corporation, and defendant filed motions to vacate/modify and confirm the arbitration award respectively. The Court granted the defendant’s motion to confirm the award. Defendant Thompson and two others founded Millennium Validation Services, Inc. (“Millennium”) with equal shareholding. Due to some differences, the two other members sought to compel defendant Thompson to withdraw from Millennium, by triggering some clauses under their Shareholder Agreement (“Agreement”). Subsequently, plaintiff sought to buy-out the defendant’s shareholding, with its valuation computed under the Agreement. In the interim, the plaintiff discovered through its agents that defendant was allegedly violating the terms of his non compete provisions of the Agreement because he was employed by a competitor. Plaintiff therefore suspended its buy-out of his shares.

Plaintiff then filed suit for breach of contract and interference with prospective contractual relations and the defendant cross-claimed for breach of fiduciary duty. Thereafter, the parties stipulated to binding arbitration. The independent arbitrator denied the plaintiff’s claims for lost profits, breach of contract and tortious interference and ordered it to pay defendant a far greater amount representing the buy-out value of his shares and accumulated interest, in addition to a loan that the defendant had advanced the plaintiff company. The arbitrator declined to amend or modify the award and the above cross-motions ensued.

The Court held that the limited grounds on which the arbitration award could have been vacated were absent in the present matter. Here, the plaintiff alleged that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers by revaluing the shares of the defendant, a matter solely governed by the Agreement. This argument was dismissed because the parties had agreed to arbitration of the entire dispute – a term that included the valuation of the shares too. Similarly, the Court found that plaintiff’s non-compete violation and other claims failed to assert any grounds for vacating the arbitration award. Finally, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s argument that it was impermissible for the arbitrator to order a subsequent hearing to determine attorney fees and costs because there was no authoritative support for that contention.

Zeleny v. Thompson Homes At Centreville, Inc. C.A. No. 05-12-224 SCD (Del. Super. Ct. July 10, 2006).

Buyers of a newly constructed home sued the builder for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligence arising out of water leaks and other defects in their home. The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss on the ground that the parties' contract required the dispute to be submitted to binding arbitration.

Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Monsanto Co., C.A. No. 1970-N, 2006 WL 1510417 (Del. Ch. May 24, 2006).

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on its claim for arbitration of a dispute with Defendant.

Delaware TCMP3 Partners LLP v. Centerpoint Corp., C.A. No. 170-N, 2006 WL 1388751 (Del. Ch. May 10, 2006).

Parties to a mediation agreement moved to enforce the confidentiality provisions of Court of Chancery Rule 174.

OSI Systems, Inc. v. Instrumentarium Corp., C.A. No. 1374-N, 2006 WL 656993 (Del. Ch. Mar. 14, 2006).

In this case, plaintiff buyer and defendant seller in the sale of a business argued over the type of contractual arbitration that should be used to solve a disagreement over the form of arbitration each preferred. The Court of Chancery granted seller's motion on the pleadings because buyer's claims were for breaches of representations and warranties, which fell under the indemnity provisions of the contract and the form of arbitration set forth in those provisions must be used by buyer.

Douzinas, et al. v. American Bureau of Shipping, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1496-N (Del. Ch. Jan. 24, 2006) (published at 888 A.2d 1146 (Del. Ch. 2006).

Minority shareholders brought a breach of fiduciary duty action against the managing member of the LLC. Additionally, they plead aiding and abetting conspiracy and unjust enrichment claims against defendants' affiliate entities. Relying on Delaware Supreme Court precedent, the defendants insist all claims require mandatory arbitration under the LLC agreement. The court agreed.

Willie Gary LLC. v. James & Jackson LLC., C.A. No. 1781, 2006 WL 75309 (Del. Ch. Jan. 10, 2006), aff'd, (Del. Mar. 14, 2006)(Berger, J.)

Plaintiff sought to enjoin defendant to remedy an alleged breach of the LLC Agreement and to specifically enforce the defendant's alleged promise to guarantee a debt of the LLC. Alternatively, plaintiff sought to dissolve the entity in which he owned 80% of stock because of an alleged decisional deadlock.

Mehiel v. Solo Cup Co., C.A. No. 1596-N, 2005 WL 3074723 (Del. Ch. Nov. 3, 2005).

Following the closing on a merger, several disputes developed between the shareholder representative of an acquired company and the acquirer involving working-capital-adjustment issues and the accuracy of seller's representations and warranties. The merger agreement contained two separate arbitration provisions for working capital adjustment disputes and disputes regarding the parties' respective representations and warranties. The acquirer first attempted to submit its disputes with the shareholder representative to arbitration as working-capital claims. The arbitrator refused to consider those claims, however, based on the acquirer's failure to comply with certain procedural requirements. In response, the acquirer submitted the same claims to the separate arbitrator for representation-and-warranty claims. The shareholder representative subsequently filed a complaint asking the court to issue an injunction barring the second arbitrator from hearing the disputed claims.

Travelers Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Co., C.A. No. 20418, 2005 WL 2896713 (Del. Ch. Oct. 25, 2005).

Plaintiff, insurer of motorist, sued Defendant, insurer of tortfeasor, to enforce arbitration award. Defendant moved for summary judgment.

Flight Options Int'l, Inc. v. Flight Options, LLC, C.A. No. 1459-N, 2005 WL 2335353 (Del. Ch. Sept. 20, 2005).

Plaintiff sought preliminary injunction against consummation of Purchase Agreement pending arbitration of its substantive disputes with Defendant.

China Three Gorges Project Corp. v. Rotec Industries, Inc., No. Civ. A. 04-1510 JJF, 2005 WL 1813025 (D.Del. Aug. 2, 2005).

This action involves a Petition to Confirm a Foreign Arbitral Award filed by Petitioner China Three Gorges Project Corporation ("China Gorges") and respondent's Motion to Dismiss or in The Alternative, To Modify The Foreign Arbitral Award. The Court granted the petition to confirm the award and denied the respondent's motions.

Tekmen & Co. v. Southern Builders, Inc., C.A. No. 04C-03-007 RFS, 2005 WL 1249035 (Del. Super. Ct. May 25, 2005).

The defendant contracted to build a hotel on the plaintiff's property. Following completion of the structure, the defendant had to return on numerous occasions to repair leaks. Eventually, the plaintiff filed a complaint, arguing that it was entitled to compensatory and punitive damages for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of warranty. The defendant moved to dismiss, claiming that under the terms of the contract all disputes must first be submitted to the architect and any remaining claims must be heard in binding arbitration. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss.

CAPROC Manager, Inc. v. The Policemen's & Firemen's Retirement System of the City of Pontiac, 2005 WL 937613 (Del. Ch. April 18, 2005).

This case stemmed from a dispute between shareholders of the Delaware limited liability company, CAPROC LLC, which is governed by a Limited Liability Company Agreement. Defendants sought to remove CAPROC Manager as the Managing Shareholder of CAPROC and purport to have done so by a majority shareholder vote. In response to Defendants' actions, CAPROC Manager and CAPROC brought this suit for, among other things, entry of a status quo order and a declaration under 6 Del. C. - 18-110 that CAPROC Manager remain the Managing Shareholder of CAPROC. The court granted Defendants motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration because Plaintiffs' claims were subject to arbitration under the LLC Agreement.

Little Switzerland, Inc. v. Patrick J. Hopper, C.A. No. 590 (Del. Ch. Jan. 24, 2005)(published at 867 A.2d 955).

This case involved a request for an injunction filed by the employer-corporation seeking to stop an arbitration of a contractual claim by a plaintiff-employee. The employee sought significant payments under a Change in Control transaction that allegedly triggered a clause vesting the right to payment in the employee. The court held the claim was time-barred under 10 Del. C. §8111 and not 10 Del. C. §8106.