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 affirmed arbitration award where defendants failed to present evidence sufficient to show that the arbitral panel's interpretation of the parties' agreements was palpably incorrect.

Court declined to grant summary judgment for defendants where the parties' joint expert persuasively opined that plaintiffs' complaint qualified as a protective action under relevant Ecuadoran law, making plaintiffs' claims not time-barred under the Delaware borrowing statute.