Complex Commercial Litigation Update

October 31, 2018


In the third quarter of 2018, the Delaware Superior Court’s Complex Commercial Litigation Division (“CCLD”) presided over a jury trial for a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, approved an application for attorneys’ fees, and resolved a number of motions to dismiss. Of particular note was Judge Carpenter’s willingness to try an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim stemming from the alleged improper disclaimer of a patent. Although Judge Abigail M. LeGrow has replaced Judge Carpenter on the CCLD panel, Judge Carpenter continues to manage his existing CCLD cases to ensure—consistent with the CCLD’s guiding principles—that the same judge presides over a case from start to finish. For more information about the CCLD or past issues of this mailing, please visit our website.

Judge Carpenter Presides over Multi-Day Jury Trial in which the Jury Finds in Favor of the Plaintiff
Following a trial that took place from September 10, 2018 to September 18, 2018, a jury in DRIT LP v. Glaxo Group Ltd., C.A. No. N16C-07-218 WCC CCLD, returned with a unanimous verdict in favor of the plaintiff on an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim.  The trial was based on a complaint filed by plaintiff DRIT LP against defendants Glaxo Group Limited and Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (collectively, “GSK”) on July 28, 2016, alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  

Judge Davis Denies Motion to Dismiss on Grounds that Factual Record Needs Further Development
In two consolidated actions, Wilmington – 5190 Brandywine Parkway, LLC v. Acadia Brandywine Holdings, LLC, C.A. No.: N17C-04-60 EMD CCLD, and Wilmington – 5190 Brandywine Parkway, LLC v. Acadia Realty Limited Partnership, C.A. No.: N17C-04-061 EMD CCLD, Judge Davis denied a motion to dismiss after concluding that the record was in need of further development.  Defendant Acadia Brandywine Holdings (“Holdings”) executed a loan agreement and promissory note (collectively, the “Loan Documents”) for $26,250,000 with Bear Stearns.  

Judge Davis Denies Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss
In KT4 Partners LLC v. Palantir Technologies, Inc., 2018 WL 4033767 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 22, 2018), Judge Davis denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs alleged viable claims for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and civil conspiracy.   

Judge Wallace Grants in Part and Denies in Part Motions to Dismiss
In Coit Capital Securities, LLC v. Turbine Asset Holdings, LLC, et. al., C.A. No. N17C-05-020 PRW CCLD, Judge Wallace considered several motions to dismiss the claims brought by plaintiff Coit Capital Securities, LLC (“Coit”). 

Judge Wallace Grants Request for Attorneys’ Fees and Refuses to Second-Guess Attorneys’ Hours
In Bellmoff v. Integra Services Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. N17C-10-312 PRW CCLD, Judge Wallace granted the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees.  The issue arose from an underlying contract dispute previously resolved by Judge Wallace involving a share purchase agreement.  In the underlying dispute, Judge Wallace granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of plaintiffs Dean P. Bellmoff and Beatrice E. Salazar and against defendant Integra Services Technologies, Inc.  The issue of attorneys’ fees was left for another day. 

  • sign up for our newsletter

    To keep our clients and friends updated on the latest legal news, Richards Layton distributes practice area e-alerts and newsletters. If you are interested in receiving these publications, please subscribe below.