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.

Latest from Francis G.X. Pileggi - Page 2

In the matter of Patel v. Duncan, C.A. No. 2020-0418-MTZ (Del. Ch. May 17, 2020), the Court of Chancery addressed whether a party was indispensable for purposes of Court of Chancery Rule 19(a), and held that the case would not proceed until those parties were added. Anyone needing to know the latest iteration of Delaware law on Rule 19 should be familiar with this decision.  …
One of the country’s foremost corporate law scholars, Prof. Stephen Bainbridge, who readers of Delaware corporate law decisions and readers of these pages will recognize as having earned a place in the pantheon of corporate law luminaries, has commented on the titular topic, based on a recent Wall Street Journal article that discusses a backlash by conservatives against CEOs who also have a “side hustle” as “social justice warriors”. The good professor cites to a
Courtesy of the Delaware Business Court Insider, we provide our article that appeared in the April 21, 2021 edition on an important topic for Delaware litigators. No Such Thing as Local Counsel in Delaware Court of Chancery By: Francis G.X. Pileggi* and Chauna A. Abner** This is a compilation of selected key Delaware court decisions, rules, and customs to guide out-of-state attorneys admitted to practice in Delaware pro hac vice, or non-Delaware lawyers who…
The recent Chancery decision in Pearl City Elevator, Inc. v. Gieseke, C.A. No. 2020-0419-JRS (Del. Ch. March 23, 2021), addressed the issue of whether the procedures in an LLC Agreement were correctly followed, such that a party acquired sufficient ownership interest in order to control the board. This decision is useful for its recitation of basic contract interpretation principles in connection with interpreting disputed provisions of an LLC Agreement. See Slip op. at 24-26. Also…
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 denied as premature Stimwave Technologies Inc.’s motion to recoup $1.2 million in legal fees it had allegedly been tricked into advancing to its ex-CEO in defense of the medical device maker’s breach-of-duty charges against her and her director husband in Perryman et al. v.…
A recent decision by a Delaware Court of Chancery provides a useful reference for the prerequisites to obtain an injunction in Delaware to enjoin a party from pursuing claims in violation of an exclusive forum selection clause [in another jurisdiction]. In SPay, Inc. v. Stack Media Inc., C.A. No. 2020-0540-JRS (Del. Ch. March 23, 2021), the Delaware Court of Chancery described what one must establish before obtaining an anti-suit injunction based on a forum selection…
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently explained the public policy involved, and the applicable criteria used by the court, to determine if “claims-splitting” should require the stay or dismissal of one lawsuit when the same parties are pursuing another lawsuit in another forum based on the same operative facts. In Goureau v. Lemonis, C.A. No. 2020-0486-MTZ (Del. Ch. March 30, 2021), the court addressed the many nuances of the various factors that will be applied…
A recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision recited important nuances of fiduciary duty applicable to controlling or majority stockholders. In RCS Creditor Trust v. Schorsch, C.A. No. 2017-0178-SG (Del. Ch. March 18, 2021), the court explained that the fiduciary duties of a majority or controlling stockholder do not require self-sacrifice, nor do they mean that such a fiduciary forfeits her contractual rights. See page 20 and footnote 73. There is much else to commend…