Source: http://lawreporters.com/NewFiles/BCGLRhlx.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 16:16:13+00:00

Document:
In SRM Global Master Fund Ltd. P’ship v. Bear Stearns Cos., No. 14-507-cv (2d Cir. 2016) (Lohier, J.), the Second Circuit determined “American Pipe tolling does not apply to” 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b)(2), which establishes a five-year statute of repose for securities fraud claims brought under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. SRM Global Master Fund Ltd. P’ship v. Bear Stearns Cos., 2016 WL 3769735 (2d Cir. 2016) (Lohier, J.).
In The Williams Cos. v. Energy Transfer Equity, C.A. No. 12168-VCG (Del. Ch. 2016) (Glasscock, V.C.), the Delaware Chancery Court considered the requirement in a merger agreement that the parties use “commercially reasonable” efforts to obtain a tax opinion as a condition precedent to the consummation of the merger. The Williams Cos. v. Energy Transfer Equity, 2016 WL 3576682 (Del. Ch. 2016) (Glasscock, V.C.). In the case before the court, intervening economic circumstances allegedly changed both the buyer’s desire to consummate the merger and the designated law firm’s willingness to issue the favorable tax opinion mandated by the merger agreement. The court found the buyer had not breached the requirement to use “commercial reasonable” efforts to obtain the tax opinion because there was no evidence that the buyer’s “activity or lack thereof caused, or had a material effect upon” the law firm’s “inability” to issue the necessary tax opinion.
In Aleynikov v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., C.A. No. 10636-VCL (Del. Ch. July 13, 2016), the decision is notable partly because it falls within the minority of advancement cases that deny advancement of fees to a former employee who was given the title of vice president. Its application may be limited due to procedural quirks and its reliance on New Jersey law, the Court of Chancery’s post-trial decision features an unusual result in that a vice president was denied advancement, but the 17-page Order of the court was based primarily on the doctrine of “issue preclusion”, and in particular how that concept was construed under New Jersey case law. Thus, it may not be of widespread usefulness in other Delaware corporate litigation regarding advancement.
In Smollar v. Potarazu, C.A. No. 10287-VCS (Del. Ch. June 29, 2016), in a pair of related decisions issued on the same day the Court of Chancery in Smollar v. Potarazu made the unusual move of disqualifying a derivative plaintiff and his counsel, and granting a motion to intervene brought by another stockholder who sought to become the representative plaintiff.

References: v. 
 § 1658
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.