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.

Vice Chancellor Does Not Follow Prior Section 220 Decisions

By Francis Pileggi

January 23, 2020

A recently published Delaware Court of Chancery decision must be read by anyone who seeks to understand the latest iteration of Delaware law involving Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law in connection with demands by stockholders for corporate books and records. Lebanon County Employees’ Retirement Fund v. AmerisourceBergen Corporation, No. 2019-0527-JTL (Del. Ch. Jan. 13, 2020), is the name of this seminal opinion that will be often-cited as one of the more consequential…

Delaware Corporate & Commercial Litigation Blog

Candor to the Court

By Francis Pileggi

January 20, 2020

In my recent ethics column for The Bencher, the publication of the American Inn of Courts (that I have been writing for over 20 years), I discuss the duty of candor to the court that lawyers have, and how that interfaces with the duty of confidentiality owed to clients.…

Delaware Corporate & Commercial Litigation Blog

Motion to Disqualify Granted Under Rule 1.9

By Francis Pileggi

January 20, 2020

A recent decision of the Delaware Superior Court featured an unusual ruling in Delaware: A motion to disqualify counsel was granted based on a conflict of interest under Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9, relating to prior representation of a client. Why the Decision is Notable: Although the facts in the 21-page decision styled Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, C.A. No. N18C-08-074 PRW-CCLD (Del. Super. Dec. 19, 2019), are…

Delaware Corporate & Commercial Litigation Blog

Delaware Supreme Court won’t restart Uber investor suit over self-driving car company deal

By Francis Pileggi

January 19, 2020

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 has affirmed the dismissal of a shareholder’s suit against Uber Technologies Inc.’s directors who approved their CEO’s “flawed” purchase of a self-driving car developer run by ex-Google employees, because the plaintiff failed to first give his board an opportunity to take up the charges, or…

Delaware Corporate & Commercial Litigation Blog

15th Annual Review of Key Delaware Corporate and Commercial Decisions

By Francis Pileggi

January 16, 2020

The following article is reprinted with permission from the Jan. 15, 2020 edition of “The Delaware Business Court Insider”, (c) 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. By: Francis G.X. Pileggi and Chauna A. Abner This is the 15th year that Francis Pileggi and various co-authors have created an annual list of important corporate and commercial decisions of the Delaware Supreme Court and the Delaware Court of Chancery. This list does not attempt to…

Delaware Corporate & Commercial Litigation Blog

Investors can’t support claim they were short-changed when directors changed merger partners

By Francis Pileggi

January 3, 2020

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 Court of Chancery has tossed out a shareholder class action that accused Essendant Inc.’s directors and CEO of disloyally jilting merger mate Genuine Parts Co. in favor of a less lucrative union with private equity firm Sycamore Partners’ office supply subsidiary, Staples Inc., in the case styled In …

Delaware Corporate & Commercial Litigation Blog

Chancery Applies SCOTUS Decision to Delaware Law of Arbitrability

By Francis Pileggi

January 3, 2020

A recent Delaware Court of Chancery opinion is noteworthy because it describes the impact of a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court on the Delaware law of arbitrability. In Gulf LNG Energy, LLC v. ENI USA Gas Marketing LLC, C.A. No. 2019-0460-AGB (Del. Ch. Dec. 30, 2019), the court also addressed two important lines of authority: (1) When a court should intervene to prevent collateral attacks on an arbitration award; and (2)…

PA Right to Know Law Blog

OOR Clarifies Exemption Under RTKL for Investigative Records

By Francis Pileggi

January 3, 2020

A recent Final Determination from the Office of Open Records clarified the RTKL’s statutory exemption that allows a state agency to deny a request to produce records related to a noncriminal investigation. In Aponte v. Pottstown School District, OOR Dkt. AP 2019-2055 (Dec. 30, 2019), the Requester sought records related to investigative complaints, findings and reports into alleged discrimination by the Requester against a named person. The District denied the request and the Requester…

Delaware Corporate & Commercial Litigation Blog

Moving records action to New York would not be more efficient for plaintiff, Chancery says

By Francis Pileggi

December 29, 2019

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. Rallye Motors Holding, LLC cannot use Delaware’s McWanedoctrine to force its ex-CEO to move his books-and-records action to New York, where a fellow member and ex-employee of that limited liability company is litigating related claims including records inspection demands, the Chancery Court has ruled in Stanco v. Rallye Motors …

Delaware Corporate & Commercial Litigation Blog

Chancery Analyzes Standard of “Commercially Reasonable Efforts”

By Francis Pileggi

December 28, 2019

A recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision discussed many issues of great interest to commercial and corporate litigators in connection with a finding that Boston Scientific Corporation could not justifiably terminate an acquisition agreement with the target company, including an analysis of the familiar contractual standard of “commercially reasonable efforts,” which has been held to be synonymous with the similar phrase “reasonably best efforts.” In Channel Medsystems, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corporation, C.A. No. 2018-0673-AGB (Del. Ch.…

Francis G.X. Pileggi

Francis G.X. Pileggi Blogs

Blog Authors

Vice Chancellor Does Not Follow Prior Section 220 Decisions

Candor to the Court

Motion to Disqualify Granted Under Rule 1.9

Delaware Supreme Court won’t restart Uber investor suit over self-driving car company deal

15th Annual Review of Key Delaware Corporate and Commercial Decisions

Investors can’t support claim they were short-changed when directors changed merger partners

Chancery Applies SCOTUS Decision to Delaware Law of Arbitrability

OOR Clarifies Exemption Under RTKL for Investigative Records

Moving records action to New York would not be more efficient for plaintiff, Chancery says

Chancery Analyzes Standard of “Commercially Reasonable Efforts”

Stay Connected

Company

Support

New to the Network

Francis G.X. Pileggi Blogs

Blog Authors

Latest from Francis G.X. Pileggi