Opinion ID: 2165124
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Waiver of the Section 102(b)(7) Shield

Text: Plaintiff argues that the individual defendants can, and did, waive their Section 102(b)(7) contractual protection. The individual defendants are prepared to assume that the shield provided by Section 102(b)(7) can be waived, but argue that such waiver must be clear and unambiguous, which they contend is absent here. [38] We agree. The individual defendants did not waive their Section 102(b)(7) protection. The standard for finding waiver in Delaware is quite exacting. `Waiver is the voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right.... It implies knowledge of all material facts and intent to waive.' Moreover, `the facts relied upon must be unequivocal in nature.' American Family Mortgage Corp. v. Acierno, Del.Supr., No. 290, 1993, slip op. at 12, 1994 WL 144591 , Moore, J. (Mar. 28, 1994) (ORDER) (quoting Realty Growth Inv. v. Council of Unit Owners, Del.Supr., 453 A.2d 450, 456 (1982)) (internal citations omitted). In the instant case, the following colloquy occurred in the Court of Chancery during argument on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction: MR. ZIEGLER [defense counsel]: ... [T]here are remedies available to this plaintiff if in the end, after a trial, it should turn out  if there needs to be a trial  that any of these added bits of information could be determined, in fact, to have been material and not confusing, so that the balance of equities clearly favors letting this transaction proceed to a closing. If the Court has no questions  THE COURT: Finish that thought for me. I didn't really  if there were ... misleading disclosures, how would I remedy those if they weren't corrected at this stage, after a trial? MR. ZIEGLER: Your Honor, it has  I believe this Court has fashioned remedies in such circumstances. In addition, in the Ocean Drilling case, the Court concluded in fact  denied an injunction in much more colorable circumstances than we have here on the ground that because it was a stock-for-stock exchange, a quasi-appraisal remedy could be fashioned. I believe the Court could attempt to determine the value of non-disclosures, so to speak, or determine a quasi-appraisal remedy. (Emphasis added). Plaintiff's interpretation of the reference to the value of non-disclosures hardly constitutes the unequivocal facts necessary to find a voluntary, intentional relinquishment of the protection of Section 102(b)(7). Thus, plaintiff's waiver argument lacks merit.