<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/01/28/noteworthy-2011-delaware-court-decisions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2026 11:32:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Noteworthy 2011 Delaware Court Decisions</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/01/28/noteworthy-2011-delaware-court-decisions/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=noteworthy-2011-delaware-court-decisions</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/01/28/noteworthy-2011-delaware-court-decisions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:37:38 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation & Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=25243?d=20150113152449EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is the seventh year that we are providing an annual review of key Delaware corporate and commercial decisions. During 2011, we reviewed and summarized approximately 200 decisions from Delaware’s Supreme Court and Court of Chancery on corporate and commercial issues. Among the decisions with the most far-reaching application and importance during 2011 include those [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Francis G.X. Pileggi, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, on Saturday, January 28, 2012 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;"><a href="http://www.eckertseamans.com/directory.aspx?View=Detail&amp;DirectoryID=815" target="_blank">Francis G.X. Pileggi</a> is Member-in-Charge of the Wilmington office of Eckert Seamans Cherin &amp; Mellott, LLC and publisher of the <a href="http://www.delawarelitigation.com/" target="_blank">Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog</a>. This post is based on an article by Mr. Pileggi and <a href="http://www.cblh.com/attorneys/kbrady" target="_blank">Kevin F. Brady</a> of Connolly Bove Lodge &amp; Hutz LLP. This post is part of the <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/the-delaware-law-series/">Delaware law series</a>, which is co-sponsored by the Forum and Corporation Service Company; links to other posts in the series are available <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/the-delaware-law-series/">here</a>.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>This is the seventh year that we are providing an annual review of key Delaware corporate and commercial decisions. During 2011, we reviewed and summarized approximately 200 decisions from Delaware’s Supreme Court and Court of Chancery on corporate and commercial issues. Among the decisions with the most far-reaching application and importance during 2011 include those that we are highlighting in this short overview. We are providing links to the more complete blog summaries, and the actual court rulings, for each of the cases that we highlight below.</p>
<p><strong>Top Five Cases from 2011</strong></p>
<p>We begin with the Top Five Cases on corporate and commercial law from Delaware for 2011 and we are glad to see that at least four of them have some support from the bench as these were the cases that four Vice Chancellors highlighted as important decisions in a recent panel presentation that they presented in New York City in early November 2011. Those cases were the following: <em>In Re: OPENLANE Shareholders Litigation; In Re: Smurfit Stone Container Corp. Shareholder Litigation; In Re: Southern Peru Copper Corp. Shareholder Litigation </em>and <em>Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v. Airgas Inc</em>., and <em>Kahn v. Kolberg Kravis Roberts &amp; Co., L.P</em>.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/01/28/noteworthy-2011-delaware-court-decisions/#more-25243" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Noteworthy 2011 Delaware Court Decisions">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/01/28/noteworthy-2011-delaware-court-decisions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
