In a proceeding stemming from the divorce between the founders of the CrossFit fitness company, the Delaware Court of Chancery recently issued a decision involving the common-interest doctrine and business-strategy immunity. InGlassman v. CrossFit, Del. Ch., C.A. 7717-VCG (Oct. 12, 2012) (Mem. Op.), Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III ruled on a motion to compel in a dispute between the husband-and-wife founders of the corporation, CrossFit Inc., a distributor of fitness and training regimens. In granting the defendant’s motion to compel, the court provided a refresher on the common-interest doctrine and the business-strategy immunity and the application of these doctrines in Delaware.

CrossFit is wholly owned by the marital community of Greg and Lauren Glassman. The Glassmans are currently in the midst of a divorce and the marital community is being disassembled under the divorce jurisdiction of an Arizona court. As the marital community is the sole stockholder of CrossFit, the Glassmans’ divorce has spun off corporate litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery.