On March 6, 2026, Magistrate Wright of the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a report which underscored Delaware courts’ well-established preference for the enforcement of advancement rights, especially in cases involving broadly drafted provisions. In doing so, the Magistrate addressed the question of whether advancement may be denied in circumstances where the indemnitee affirmatively contacts an investigating authority.
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/05/MN-18360_Updated-Enhanced-Scrutiny-Blog-imagery_833x606_32.jpg606833James Heyworthhttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngJames Heyworth2026-05-05 11:34:162026-05-05 11:34:16Who Started It? Delaware Court of Chancery to Address Whether Contacting DOJ Is ‘Initiating’ a Proceeding in Advancement Case
Securities class actions against life sciences companies are mostly second-order problems. The first-order problem is a business or regulatory setback that, when disclosed by the company or a third party, triggers a stock price decline. Following the decline, plaintiffs’ class action attorneys search the company’s previous public statements and seek to identify inconsistencies between past positive comments and the current negative development. In most cases, plaintiffs’ attorneys then seek to show that any arguable inconsistency amounts to fraud — that is, they will claim that the earlier statement was knowingly or recklessly false or misleading. When the challenged statement appears in a public offering document (that is, a registration statement or prospectus), plaintiffs need only show that the statement was materially false or misleading, not that it was made with scienter or caused their losses.
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Robin E. Wechkinhttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngRobin E. Wechkin2026-05-01 09:09:392026-05-06 17:16:00Securities Litigation Against Life Sciences Companies: 2025
In its recent decision in Marchner v. B. Riley Financial, Inc., the Delaware Court of Chancery reaffirmed the principle that Caremark cannot be used to repackage hindsight attacks on failed investments as fiduciary breaches. The court explained that directors’ oversight duties are focused on internal compliance, not on detecting misconduct by third parties—even where the company has significant financial exposure. The message is clear: robust process, not perfect outcomes, remains the key to meeting fiduciary obligations.
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/07/MN-18360_Updated-Enhanced-Scrutiny-Blog-imagery_833x606_19.jpg606833Heather Benzmiller Sultanianhttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngHeather Benzmiller Sultanian2026-04-21 09:04:392026-04-21 09:59:19Bad Investments, Not Bad Faith: Caremark Claims Have Limits
In Fortis Advisors, LLC v. Stillfront Midco AB, No. 162, 2025 (Del. Feb. 13, 2026), the Delaware Supreme Court reaffirmed that Delaware courts will strictly enforce the dispute resolution framework chosen by the parties. The decision highlights the need to draft ADR provisions with precision—clearly identifying the decision-maker, the types of disputes to be delegated, and the scope of that delegation.
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Jaime A. Bartletthttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngJaime A. Bartlett2026-04-14 09:03:172026-04-13 17:29:17Delaware Supreme Court Reinforces the Importance of Precision in Drafting ADR Provisions in Merger Agreements
Earnout remedies are not limited to damages. In Fortis Advisors v. Krafton, the Delaware Court of Chancery awarded specific performance to reinstate a target company’s CEO and extend the earnout by the time that elapsed between the CEO’s wrongful, ChatGPT-informed termination and his restoration. The decision also highlights a growing business risk: executives’ direct use of AI tools may not be privileged if it does not involve legal advice from counsel, and AI prompts may become discoverable evidence.
On April 30, 2025, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a memorandum opinion dismissing with prejudice a postclosing challenge to the VillageMD acquisition of CityMD. The Delaware Supreme Court later summarily affirmed.
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Alex J. Kaplanhttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngAlex J. Kaplan2026-03-27 10:45:502026-03-27 10:45:50Parties to Delaware LLC Agreements Cannot Circumvent Fiduciary Duty Waivers via Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
The Delaware Court of Chancery’s recent decision in HoldCo Opportunities Fund V, L.P. v. Arthur G. Angulo, No. 2025-1360-MTZ (Del. Ch.), underscores Delaware courts’ rightful hesitancy to entertain M&A injunctions when stockholders are able to choose for themselves, particularly where no topping bidder exists.
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/10/MN-24015-Enhanced-Scrutiny-Blog-Imagery-Refresh_11.jpg606833Jaime A. Bartletthttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngJaime A. Bartlett2026-03-18 10:05:152026-03-18 10:05:15Activist That Encouraged Merger Only To Change Its Mind Denied “Extraordinary Remedy” Of A Deal Injunction
Who Started It? Delaware Court of Chancery to Address Whether Contacting DOJ Is ‘Initiating’ a Proceeding in Advancement Case
On March 6, 2026, Magistrate Wright of the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a report which underscored Delaware courts’ well-established preference for the enforcement of advancement rights, especially in cases involving broadly drafted provisions. In doing so, the Magistrate addressed the question of whether advancement may be denied in circumstances where the indemnitee affirmatively contacts an investigating authority.
(more…)
James Heyworth
New York
jheyworth@sidley.com
Securities Litigation Against Life Sciences Companies: 2025
Securities class actions against life sciences companies are mostly second-order problems. The first-order problem is a business or regulatory setback that, when disclosed by the company or a third party, triggers a stock price decline. Following the decline, plaintiffs’ class action attorneys search the company’s previous public statements and seek to identify inconsistencies between past positive comments and the current negative development. In most cases, plaintiffs’ attorneys then seek to show that any arguable inconsistency amounts to fraud — that is, they will claim that the earlier statement was knowingly or recklessly false or misleading. When the challenged statement appears in a public offering document (that is, a registration statement or prospectus), plaintiffs need only show that the statement was materially false or misleading, not that it was made with scienter or caused their losses.
(more…)
Robin E. Wechkin
Seattle
rwechkin@sidley.com
Sarah A. Hemmendinger
San Francisco
shemmendinger@sidley.com
Sara B. Brody
San Francisco, Palo Alto
sbrody@sidley.com
Bad Investments, Not Bad Faith: Caremark Claims Have Limits
In its recent decision in Marchner v. B. Riley Financial, Inc., the Delaware Court of Chancery reaffirmed the principle that Caremark cannot be used to repackage hindsight attacks on failed investments as fiduciary breaches. The court explained that directors’ oversight duties are focused on internal compliance, not on detecting misconduct by third parties—even where the company has significant financial exposure. The message is clear: robust process, not perfect outcomes, remains the key to meeting fiduciary obligations.
(more…)
Heather Benzmiller Sultanian
Chicago
hsultanian@sidley.com
Delaware Supreme Court Reinforces the Importance of Precision in Drafting ADR Provisions in Merger Agreements
In Fortis Advisors, LLC v. Stillfront Midco AB, No. 162, 2025 (Del. Feb. 13, 2026), the Delaware Supreme Court reaffirmed that Delaware courts will strictly enforce the dispute resolution framework chosen by the parties. The decision highlights the need to draft ADR provisions with precision—clearly identifying the decision-maker, the types of disputes to be delegated, and the scope of that delegation.
(more…)
Jaime A. Bartlett
San Francisco
jbartlett@sidley.com
Eric Jung
San Francisco
eric.jung@sidley.com
Earnouts, AI, and Equitable Remedies: Delaware Court Reinstates CEO and Extends Payout Clock
Earnout remedies are not limited to damages. In Fortis Advisors v. Krafton, the Delaware Court of Chancery awarded specific performance to reinstate a target company’s CEO and extend the earnout by the time that elapsed between the CEO’s wrongful, ChatGPT-informed termination and his restoration. The decision also highlights a growing business risk: executives’ direct use of AI tools may not be privileged if it does not involve legal advice from counsel, and AI prompts may become discoverable evidence.
(more…)
Sharon Flanagan
San Francisco, Palo Alto
sflanagan@sidley.com
Sally Wagner Partin
San Francisco, Palo Alto
swagnerpartin@sidley.com
Sacha Jamal
Knowledge Management Lawyer
sjamal@sidley.com
Parties to Delaware LLC Agreements Cannot Circumvent Fiduciary Duty Waivers via Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
On April 30, 2025, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a memorandum opinion dismissing with prejudice a postclosing challenge to the VillageMD acquisition of CityMD. The Delaware Supreme Court later summarily affirmed.
(more…)
Alex J. Kaplan
New York
akaplan@sidley.com
Activist That Encouraged Merger Only To Change Its Mind Denied “Extraordinary Remedy” Of A Deal Injunction
The Delaware Court of Chancery’s recent decision in HoldCo Opportunities Fund V, L.P. v. Arthur G. Angulo, No. 2025-1360-MTZ (Del. Ch.), underscores Delaware courts’ rightful hesitancy to entertain M&A injunctions when stockholders are able to choose for themselves, particularly where no topping bidder exists.
(more…)
Jaime A. Bartlett
San Francisco
jbartlett@sidley.com
Katherine M. Surma
Chicago
ksurma@sidley.com
Categories
Archives
Meet the Team
Charlotte K. Newell
cnewell@sidley.com
Jaime A. Bartlett
jbartlett@sidley.com
Elizabeth Y. Austin
laustin@sidley.com
Adam Cromie
adam.cromie@sidley.com
Matthew J. Dolan
mdolan@sidley.com
Jim Ducayet
jducayet@sidley.com
Yolanda C. Garcia
ygarcia@sidley.com
James Heyworth
jheyworth@sidley.com
Alex J. Kaplan
ajkaplan@sidley.com
Peter J. Mardian
pmardian@sidley.com
Jon Muenz
jmuenz@sidley.com
Ian M. Ross
iross@sidley.com
Hille R. Sheppard
hsheppard@sidley.com
Heather Benzmiller Sultanian
hsultanian@sidley.com
Robert S. Velevis
rvelevis@sidley.com
Robin E. Wechkin
rwechkin@sidley.com
Caroline A. Wong
caroline.wong@sidley.com