Justia Criminal Law Opinion SummariesArticles Posted in Delaware Court of Chancery
Doe v. Coupe
11 Del. C. 4121(u) mandates GPS monitoring of all Tier III sex offenders granted parole or probation without reference to the offenders’ risks of recidivism. Tier III sex offenders are those convicted of the most serious sex crimes. Plaintiffs in this case were Tier III sex offenders that challenged the constitutionality of section 4121(u), claiming that the statute violates the Fourth Amendment and the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Federal Constitution, as well as Del. Const. art. I, 6. The Court of Chancery granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, the Commissioner of the Delaware Department of Correction, holding that the challenged statute is not unconstitutional. View "Doe v. Coupe" on Justia Law
La. Mun. Police Employees Ret. Sys. v. Pyott
Allergan, Inc. entered into a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to which Allergan pled guilty to criminal misdemeanor misbranding and paid a total of $600 million in civil and criminal fines. Various specialized plaintiffs' law firms subsequently filed derivative actions in the Court of Chancery and in the California federal court. The California federal court dismissed an amended and consolidated complaint pursuant to Rule 23.1 with prejudice (the "California judgment"). One Stockholder, UFCW Local 1776 & Participating Employers Pension Fund (UFCW) later intervened in the action before the Court of Chancery, and the plaintiffs filed a verified second amended derivative complaint ("the complaint"). The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The Court of Chancery denied the defendants' motions, holding (1) the California judgment did not mandate dismissal with prejudice under the doctrine of collateral estoppel; (2) the complaint pled demand futility under Rule 23.1; an (3) the complaint stated a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Darrell Long and BHA Group, Inc. (d/b/a GE Energy)
This matter was before the court on plaintiff's motion to disregard the testimony of defendant on certain subjects. When called as an adverse witness during plaintiff's case-in-chief, defendant invoked his constitutional rights against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 7 of the Delaware Constitution and refused to answer various questions concerning, among other things, allegations that he downloaded confidential data to USB devices in the final weeks of his employment with plaintiff and retained those devices and data after his employment ended. The court concluded that defendant's testimony on cross-examination did extend into certain subjects he refused to address on direct, albeit not as broadly as plaintiff contended. Therefore, the court held that defendant's invocation of his privilege against self-incrimination required that the court disregard his testimony as to those subjects and, to that limited extent, granted plaintiff's motion.
Klig v. Deloitte LLP, et al.
Plaintiff was terminated as a partner of Deloitte LLP and Deloitte Tax LLP after he pled guilty to a criminal charge relating to allegedly stalking and harassing an ex-lover. Plaintiff claimed that Deloitte management wrongfully placed him on unpaid leave, recognized their error by reinstating his salary, yet continued to deny him his right to participate in the partnerships' business. The court granted summary judgment against plaintiff on the claim for breach of the partnership agreement; on his wrongful disassociation claim; on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim; on the Delaware Wage Payment and Collection Act claim; and on the breach of the duty of loyalty claim. The court also held that plaintiff's final complaint seeking specific performance was rendered moot when plaintiff was involuntarily terminated. Accordingly, defendants were entitled to summary judgment on all counts of the complaint.