NEW: Fried Frank discusses “reflexive skepticism” with which Delaware courts approach transactions involving conflicted controllers by examining the Delaware Court of Chancery’s decisions in Richard J. Tornetta v. Elon Musk, et al. and Tesla, Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0408-JRS, opinion (Del. Ch. Sept. 20, 2019) and In re BGC Partners, Inc. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 2018-0722-AGB, memo. op. (Del. Ch. Sep. 30, 2019).  Conflicted Controllers, the “800-Pound Gorillas”: Part II—BGC.

Fried Frank discusses “reflexive skepticism” with which Delaware courts approach transactions involving conflicted controllers by examining the Delaware Court of Chancery’s decisions in Richard J. Tornetta v. Elon Musk, et al. and Tesla, Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0408-JRS, opinion (Del. Ch. Sept. 20, 2019) and In re BGC Partners, Inc. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 2018-0722-AGB, memo. op. (Del. Ch. Sep. 30, 2019). Conflicted Controllers, the “800-Pound Gorillas”: Part I—Tornetta.

[$$$] Law360 discusses perceived potential for coercive influence in transactions involving controlling stockholders recent Delaware Court of Chancery decisions Richard J. Tornetta v. Elon Musk, et al. and Tesla, Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0408-JRS, opinion (Del. Ch. Sept. 20, 2019), and In re BGC Partners, Inc. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 2018-0722-AGB, memo. op. (Del. Ch. Sep. 30, 2019). 2 Del. Decisions Call Out Conflicted Controlling Stockholders.