Chancery court erroneously applied business judgment rule to review transaction where controlling stockholder stood on both sides and received a non-ratable benefit where not all members of the company's separation committee were independent from the controller.

Insurers' subrogation action failed where they failed to identify specific contractual provisions or common law duties of care that were breached by hosting company that suffered a data breach.

Retention holdback agreement breached where reasonable interpretation of definition of qualifying revenue meant that the acquiring company hit the revenue goals to trigger the payout.

Court denied summary judgment dismissal of complaint challenging legality of stockholders' agreement provisions on grounds of laches and ripeness, where equitable defenses could not validate a void contractual provision and where stockholder could launch a facial attack against challenged provisions without having to wait for company controllers to breach fiduciary duties.

Plaintiff failed to plead demand futility due to the lack of directors' personal liability for oversight and corporate waste claims, as the failure to implement a formal policy governing executives' personal use of corporate aircraft did not, by itself, amount to bad faith, and any financial loss from personal use constituted a fraction of a percentage of the company's expenses and profits.

Amendment to contract purporting to "accelerate" past due payments lacked consideration where defendant was already making payments.

Court declined to enter summary judgment where there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiffs had provided valid consent to the elimination/revocation of their vested advancement rights under the companies' operating agreements upon the amendment/restatement of those agreements.

Ability to sue corporate officers for fiduciary violations was not a "power, preference, or special right" of a class of stock and thus a proposed amendment to add an officer exculpation clause did not require a separate class vote under the Delaware General Corporation Law.

Merely combining natural gene sequences was insufficient to create a patentable invention.

Plaintiff failed to plead demand futility for derivative complaint where controller's ability to remove board members by itself could not establish a lack of independence and a majority of the board's financial ties did not prevent them from exercising independent judgment.