Caremark claims failed where board of directors promptly responded to whistleblower action regarding the company's billing practices by overseeing the response to the DOJ's civil investigation demands and fixing the billing software to eliminate the improper practices.

Court found that coverage exclusion in defendants' insurance tower for insured's securities action was not triggered where prior SEC subpoena was, at best, tangentially related to the action as the subpoena and the action focused on two different types of alleged improper conduct.

A "forfeiture-for-competition" provision in a partnership agreement did not qualify as a restraint on trade, and thus partners who had negotiated and benefitted from such a term would be held to the terms of their agreement due to the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act's express favor for the enforceability of contracts.

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

Court imposed sanctions in the form of a factual presumption on a key issue, which defendants could only rebut with clear and convincing evidence, after defendants admittedly took no action to preserve electronically stored information in response to litigation hold notices.

Court transferred case to Eastern District of Virginia where it involved a dispute over an insurance policy issued to a Virginia-headquartered company and the parties had no connection to Delaware other than the company's state of incorporation.

Court dismissed shareholders' derivative complaint for failure to plead demand futility where plaintiffs' fiduciary claims against the company's directors and officers failed to set forth a prima facie case of personal liability such that the board could not independently consider a litigation demand.