Francis G.X. Pileggi

For over 30 years, I have practiced in the areas of corporate and commercial litigation as well as other complex litigation and administrative proceedings. My practice includes representation in high-stakes disputes for a wide range of clients in many industries as well as for utility companies, government entities and non-profits in multiple states. I have also litigated successfully, in both federal and state appellate courts, groundbreaking Second Amendment cases and related constitutional issues on behalf of civil rights organizations.

This is a short compilation of several sources that are useful references for new protocols that are either recommended or required for remote court proceedings, including remote depositions. The links below include reminders of professionalism standards and other norms that still apply in the context of these new technological developments. Procedures for hearings via Zoom in the Court of Chancery available at this hyperlink. Sample protocols for trials held via Zoom, or related remote methods,
This post was prepared by Frank Reynolds, who has been following Delaware corporate law, and writing about it for various legal publications, for over 30 years. The Delaware Chancery Court recently allowed a Facebook Inc. shareholder plaintiff to inspect the directors’ electronic communications concerning how the company ended up paying $5 billion for a 2019 board settlement with government regulators that would cover founder/CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s liability in Employees Retirement System of Rhode Island v.
A recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision provided an exemplary analysis of when a deadlock in an LLC might be the basis for a dissolution. In Mehra v. Teller, C.A. No. 2019-0812-KSJM (Del. Ch. Jan. 29, 2021), the court applied case law, statutes, and learned commentary that it synthesized in a careful application of those applicable principles that were distilled based on the facts of this case. Two central issues were addressed by the…
A recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision recited the standards applied in Delaware to determine when to stay a case or allow it to proceed when similar litigation between the same parties is proceeding in another state. In AG Resources Holdings, LLC v. Terral, C.A. No. 2020-0850-JRS (Del. Ch. Feb. 10, 2021), the court addressed the titular topic in a 24-page decision that  provided a careful chronology of the litigation between the parties in Louisiana…
This post was prepared by Frank Reynolds, who has been following Delaware corporate law, and writing about it for various legal publications, for over 30 years. The Delaware Supreme Court recently revived an investor’s derivative challenge to a merger of energy companies, finding he retained standing because he sufficiently pled a direct claim attacking the fairness of the deal itself for undervaluing his claim against the controlling partner of one of the merger mates in…
I have been writing an ethics column for the national publication of The American Inns of Court, called The Bencher, for about 24 years or so. My latest column appears in the current edition and is reproduced below, courtesy of The Bencher and The American Inns of Court. Company’s Privileged Communications Must Be Provided to Board Members By: Francis G.X. Pileggi* A recent decision from the Delaware Court of Chancery decided an issue of first…
16th Annual Review of Key Delaware Corporate and Commercial Decisions By: Francis G.X. Pileggi and Chauna A. Abner This is the 16th year that Francis Pileggi has published an annual list of key corporate and commercial decisions of the Delaware Supreme Court and the Delaware Court of Chancery. This list does not attempt to include all important decisions of those two courts that were rendered in 2020. Instead, this list highlights notable decisions that should…
This post was prepared by Frank Reynolds, who has been following Delaware corporate law, and writing about it for various legal publications, for over 30 years. The Delaware Supreme Court recently endorsed a ruling that invalidated a fired QLess Inc. CEO’s “boardroom coup” because he violated his fiduciary duty by using affirmative deception to regain his position and corporate control–even though he did nothing technically illegal in an “ambush” directors’ meeting, in Bäcker, et al.