Delaware Law Office
of Larry D. Sullivan, Esquire

A Weblog?
The column to the right, is a news/editorial/comment column. It is a weblog, also know as a blog.

The weblog thing comes from www.blogger.com, which offers us a convenient way to manage the posting, administratively. You don't really need to know all of that, but we have included this explanation so that you won't be confused by the term "blog".

Another important topic here is that since the column includes editorials and comments, you can be sure that we are just exercising our free speech rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and as not yet abridged by a reactionary opportunistic vocal minority.

opinions, everybody's got one...
If you would like your opinion published here, forward it for consideration and editorial review to: info@delawoffice.com.
Or add a comment. Comments by: YACCS

We encourage the exchange of responsible ideas.

Friday, May 30, 2003

New Law Expands Chancery Court's Role

 

Senate Bill 58, reportedly signed by Governor Minner yesterday and now named Title 10 Sections 346 and 347 of the Delaware Code, greatly increases Chancery Court's jurisdiction to include technology disputes worth more than one million dollars and, allows private pre-litigation mediation to be handled by the Court.

This is HUGE.

346. Technology Disputes.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Code, and without limiting the jurisdiction vested in any court in this State, the Court of Chancery shall have power to mediate and jurisdiction to hear and determine technology disputes as defined herein when
  1. the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of or mediation by the Court of Chancery by agreement or by stipulation,
  2. at least one party is a business entity as defined herein,
  3. at least one party is a business entity formed or organized under the laws of this State or having its principal place of business in this State,
  4. no party is a consumer, as that term is defined in 2731 of Title 6, with respect to the technology dispute, and
  5. in the case of technology disputes involving solely a claim for monetary damages, the amount in controversy is no less than one million dollars or such greater amount as the Court of Chancery determines by rule.
Neither punitive damages nor a jury trial shall be available for a technology dispute heard and determined by the Court of Chancery pursuant to this Section. Mediation proceedings shall be considered confidential and not of public record.

(b) A ?business entity? means a corporation, statutory trust, business trust or association, a real estate investment trust, a common-law trust, or any other unincorporated business, including a partnership (whether general (including a limited liability partnership) or limited (including a limited liability limited partnership)) or a limited liability company.

(c) A ?technology dispute? means a dispute arising out of an agreement and relating primarily to: the purchase or lease of computer hardware; the development, use, licensing or transfer of computer software; information, biological, pharmaceutical, agricultural or other technology of a complex or scientific nature that has commercial value, or the intellectual property rights pertaining thereto; the creation or operation of Internet web sites; rights or electronic access to electronic, digital or similar information; or support or maintenance of the above. The term does not include a dispute arising out of an agreement
  1. that is primarily a financing transaction, or
  2. merely because the parties? agreement is formed by, or contemplates that communications about the transaction will be by, the transmission of electronic, digital or similar information.

(d) The Court shall interpret the term ?technology dispute? liberally so as to effectuate the intent of this section to provide an expeditious and expert forum for the handling of technology disputes involving parties who have agreed to resolve their disputes in the Court of Chancery, whether the parties are seeking to have the Court of Chancery
  1. mediate the dispute only,
  2. mediate the dispute initially, and if that fails, adjudicate the dispute; or
  3. adjudicate the dispute.
The Court shall adopt rules to facilitate the efficient processing of technology disputes, including rules to govern the filing of mediation only technology disputes, and to set filing fees and other cost schedules for the processing of technology disputes.?

347. Mediation Proceedings For Business Disputes

Without limiting the jurisdiction of any court of this State, the Court of Chancery shall have the power to mediate business disputes when
  1. the parties have consented to the mediation by the Court of Chancery by agreement or by stipulation,
  2. at least one party is a business entity as defined in 346 of this Title,
  3. at least one party is a business entity formed or organized under the laws of this State or having its principal place of business in this State,
  4. no party is a consumer, as that term is defined in 2731 of Title 6, with respect to the business dispute, and
  5. in the case of disputes involving solely a claim for monetary damages, the amount in controversy is no less than one million dollars or such greater amount as the Court of Chancery determines by rule.
A mediation pursuant to this section shall involve a request by parties to have a member of the Court of Chancery, or such other person as may be authorized under rules of the Court, act as a mediator to assist the parties in reaching a mutually satisfactory resolution of their dispute. Mediation proceedings shall be considered confidential and not of public record. By rule, the Court of Chancery may define those types of cases that are eligible for submission as a business dispute mediation. This section is intended to encourage the Court of Chancery to include complex corporate and commercial disputes, including technology disputes, within the ambit of the business dispute mediation rules. The Court of Chancery should interpret its rule-making authority broadly to effectuate that intention.


Tuesday, May 27, 2003

bill proposes delaware trusts for pets

 

Delaware House Bill 31 passed the House of Representatives and is now awaiting action in the Senate Judiciary Committee:
House Bill No. 31

An Act to Amend Title 12 of the Delaware Code Relating to Trusts.

Be it Enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Delaware:

Section 1. Amend Title 12 of the Delaware Code by enacting as a new "sec. 3593. Caretaker Trusts For Pets." and "sec. 3594 Definitions." as follows:

"Sec. 3593. Caretaker Trusts For Pets.

Purpose. It is hereby established under Delaware law that persons can leave funds in a ?Caretaker Trust? for the care of pets similar to other trusts under Delaware law subject to the same rules, regulations and reporting requirements as other trusts.

Sec. 3594. Definitions.

?Caretaker Trust?. A type of Trust that provides for the care of a pet or pets.

?Caretaker Trustee?. A person or entity that serves as the principal director of the trust, including trust companies, financial institutions, educational institutions, and any other corporations permitted under Delaware law to serve as trustee for a trust.".

Synopsis

This establishes "Caretaker Trusts For Pets" as a type of Trust permitted under Delaware law
The proposed bill would allow Delawareans to establish trusts for the benefit of their pets, so that the pets may be cared for after the death of the pet owners. Delaware Lawyers have previously had to draft Trust and Will provisions that leave funds to humans, with conditions and with the hope that the humans would care for the pets.

If passed, the pet owners will be able to make more clear and enforceable trust provisions, naming their pets and appointing a "caretaker". This will be a nice step forward in enabling residents to plan for the care of their pets.








Delaware (Executive Branch) Meetings and Events

Craig's List Delaware

Technorati Delaware Search

New Castle County Crime Map

Business Blogs
Start Blogging