July 24, 2014

Delaware Chancery Court Strengthens First-Filed Action Rule

The Delaware Court of Chancery recently stayed a Delaware action in favor of an earlier-filed Texas case because they dealt with substantially similar facts, even where the two lawsuits did not contain identical claims. The ruling emphasizes that filing a complaint in the early stages of a dispute is often necessary to guarantee that a party will be able to litigate the dispute in the preferred forum.

Plaintiff in the Delaware action brought breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims, in connection with a jointly owned company. Plaintiff alleged that defendant, by acquiring a corporation without giving the company an opportunity to acquire it first, had personally usurped a corporate opportunity belonging to the company.

Defendant had preemptively filed an action in Texas two weeks earlier, asking for a declaratory judgment holding that defendant’s ownership of the disputed corporation did not constitute a breach of his contract with the company. Accordingly, defendant moved to dismiss or stay the Delaware action under the well-settled “first-filed action” rule, which gives discretion to Delaware courts to stay an action when “(1) there is a prior action pending elsewhere, (2) involving the same parties, (3) the same issues, and (4) the court in the other jurisdiction is capable of rendering prompt and complete justice.”

Plaintiff argued that the issues in the Texas action were not identical to those in the Delaware action as the two actions had different legal claims and the Delaware action was more expansive – concerning other alleged misconduct on defendant’s part.

The court held that although the issues were not perfectly identical, the first-filed rule only requires a showing that the two actions contain a “substantial or functional identity of issues or claims” based on the same common nucleus of operative facts. The court determined that despite the differences between the claims alleged in the two actions, both actions ultimately arose out of the dispute over defendant’s corporate acquisition and how it affected the company, and thus were substantially identical. The court also rejected the notion that the issues of Delaware law could not be competently resolved by the Texas court. Accordingly, the court granted defendant’s motion to stay the Delaware action until the Texas action was resolved.

Brookstone Partners Acquisition XVI, LLC, et al. v. Tanus, et al., Civil Action 7533-VCN (Del. Ch. Nov. 20, 2012) (internal citations omitted).

©2014 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

About the Author

Michael M. Rosensaft, Health Care Attorney, Katten Muchin Law Firm

Michael M. Rosensaft focuses his litigation practice on representing individuals and businesses in white collar criminal matters, regulatory enforcement matters, corporate internal investigations, insurance and health care fraud and complex civil litigation.


About the Author

Joseph E. Gallo, Litigation Attorney, Katten Muchin Law Firm

Joseph Gallo concentrates his practice in securities litigation and dispute resolution matters. 


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.