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.

A recent Delaware Supreme Court opinion addressed the titular topic in the matter styled In Re Solera Insurance Coverage Appeals, Nos. 413, 418, 2019 (Del. Oct. 23, 2020).  I’m too busy to provide even pithy highlights, but it’s a consequential decision, so I refer you to the overview provided on the Harvard Corporate Law Blog.  Kevin LaCroix also provides an insightful and comprehensive analysis of the case on his excellent blog called The D&O Diary.
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 Court of Chancery recently decided it was not “reasonably conceivable” that General Electric Corp. aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by oil field services provider Baker Hughes Inc.’s directors who allegedly ignored bad fiscal news about GE’s oil and gas unit in approving a bad merger…
Regular readers are familiar with nationally-prominent corporate law scholar and friend of this blog, Professor Stephen Bainbridge, whose prolific scholarship is cited in Delaware corporate law decisions. His encyclopedic grasp of Delaware cases on corporate law rivals that of many experienced Delaware corporate law practitioners. The good professor has penned a scholarly and insightful analysis of the well-known Delaware Blasius decision, as a supplement to commentary by Prof. Ann Lipton. He cites to many
Yours truly and my colleague Chauna Abner have published an article for the recent issue of The Delaware Business Court Insider on the titular topic. The analysis that determines when dual claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty based on substantially the same operative facts might survive a motion to dismiss, is often factually determinative, but for those who seek to “thread the needle”, our co-authored article based on Delaware decisions may…
The widely-acclaimed corporate law scholar, and friend of this blog, Prof. Stephen Bainbridge, whose prolific scholarship is cited in Delaware court decisions on corporate law, has penned a brief essay on the titular topic in light of a recent Delaware Court of Chancery opinion by Vice Chancellor Laster styled United Food & Comm. Workers Union v. Zuckerberg, C.A. No. 2018-0671-JTL at 18-19 (Del. Ch. Oct. 26, 2010). Must reading for anyone interested in refining and…
A recent Order of the Delaware Court of Chancery recited the truism reflected in prior Delaware decisions that, generally speaking, unlike in some other states, Delaware does not have a standalone, conventional cause of action for stockholder oppression, per se, as contrasted with a breach of fiduciary duty claim for not acting in the best interest of a minority stockholder.  See Verdancus Advisors, LLC v. Parker Infrastructure Partners, LLC, No. 2020-0194-KSJM, Order (Del. Ch.…
A short recent letter ruling from the Delaware Court of Chancery provides an explanation of practical application that explains why expert reports are frequently admitted into evidence in the Court of Chancery, as compared to the Delaware Superior Court, the trial court of general jurisdiction. In the matter styled In re Comtech/Gilat Merger Litigation, Cons. No. 2020-0605-JRS (Del. Ch. Oct. 2, 2020), the court explained why, despite the basis of a technical hearsay objection under…