Although the business community had hoped the Court would overrule Basic v. Levinson, and the presumption of reliance it created, the Court did not go so far.

The Delaware Supreme Court ruled that a bylaw shifting attorneys' fees and costs to the losing party in intra-corporate litigation can be valid and enforceable.

In a case involving the breach of an express obligation to negotiate a license in good faith based on a preexisting term sheet, the Delaware Supreme Court ordered the breach remedied by expectation, rather than mere reliance, damages.

The Delaware Supreme Court has recently reversed the Chancery Court's decision that a shareholder derivative suit could be litigated in Delaware even after an identical claim had been dismissed with prejudice by a federal court in California.

A discussion on the article of Chancellor Leo E. Strine, Jr. of the Delaware Court of Chancery, which argues that place of incorporation should receive prominence in deciding where multijurisdictional shareholder litigation should proceed.

In a recent decision, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery held that limited liability company managers are subject to "default" fiduciary duties under the Delaware Limited Liability Act.

In October 2011, Chancellor Leo Strine of the Delaware Chancery Court awarded more than $1.2 billion in damages and interest to Southern Peru Copper Corp.

On June 11, 2012, the Delaware Chancery Court ruled that a shareholder derivative case could proceed against the directors of Allergan, Inc.

On October 14, 2011, Chancellor Leo Strine of the Delaware Court of Chancery awarded $1.263 billion to Southern Peru Copper Corp. ("Southern Peru") following trial of a derivative lawsuit against a controlling stockholder of Southern Peru and certain of its affiliates who served as directors of Southern Peru.

On June 13, 2011, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, held that an entity that does not have ultimate authority and control over the content of a statement or whether and how to communicate the statement does not "make" the statement for purposes of liability under Rule 10b-5. Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. ---, No. 09-525 (U.S. June 13, 2011). The Janus decision limits the scope of primary liability for violations of th

In Erica P. John Fund Inc. v. Halliburton Co., --- S. Ct. ----, No. 09–1403, 2011 WL 2175208, at *3 (U.S. June 6, 2011), the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Fifth Circuit's requirement that a securities fraud plaintiff prove loss causation before a class can be certified under Rule 23.

Conflicting opinions in the past two years from the Second, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits have created uncertainty regarding the extent to which, in a private action under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, a plaintiff who invokes the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance must prove loss causation at the class certification stage in order to be able to proceed on behalf of a class.

On March 22, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano (No. 09-1156).

The sweeping reforms of the Dodd‑Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act include the creation of a whistleblower program that will affect every public company.