This Week's Cases

Courts of Common Pleas

Bried v. Ferro Fuel Oil, Inc., DEFAX Case No. D67696 (Del. C.P. Oct. 24, 2016), Surles, J. (10 pages).

Plaintiffs' complaint alleged sufficient facts with regard to tolling the statute of limitations due to lack of inquiry notice, and any contradictory allegations in the complaint were more properly dealt with in the discovery phase. Motion to dismiss denied.

D67696

U.S. District Court of Delaware

Fresh Direct, Inc. v. Harvin Foods, Inc., DEFAX Case No. D67697 (D.Del. Mar. 30, 2017), Sleet, J. (17 pages).

Owner of a business that purchased fresh produce could be individually liable to produce suppliers under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. Suppliers were entitled to recover unpaid interest and attorney fees. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment granted.

D67697

U.S. Bankruptcy Court of Delaware

In re Affirmative Ins. Holdings, LLC, DEFAX Case No. D67698 (Del. Bank. Mar.29, 2017), Sontchi, J. (33 pages).

Bankruptcy court determined that: 1) it had jurisdiction over the issue of whether a bank account was the property of the debtors' estate, and the court would not abstain, and 2) counterclaims alleged by liquidator presented inconsistent positions, but were sufficiently stated to create a material dispute of fact. Motion to dismiss denied.

D67698

Delaware Court of Chancery

In Re Investors Bancorp, Inc. Stockholder Litig., DEFAX Case No. D67694 (Del.Ch. April 5, 2017), Slights, V.C. (37 pages).

Stockholders' approval of an equity compensation plan included approval of award grants when they fell within the limits set by the plan, requiring review of the grants under the waste standard, such that plaintiffs' challenge to the grants were dismissed for failure to plead waste.

D67694

U.S. Bankruptcy Court of Delaware

In re AmCad Holdings, LLC, DEFAX Case No. D67699 (Del. Bank. Apr. 7, 2017), Walrath, J. (18 pages).

Claims for preferential transfer that were sufficiently detailed in an exhibit to the complaint were adequate, but claims not relating to an antecedent debt were dismissed. A conclusory allegation regarding debtor's insolvency was not sufficient. Motion to dismiss granted in part, denied in part.

D67699