• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

McCarter & English Logo

  • People
  • Services
  • Insights
  • Our Firm
    • Leadership Team
    • Social Justice
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Client Service Values
  • Join Us
    • Lawyers
    • Summer Associates
    • Patent Professionals
    • Professional Staff
    • Job Openings
  • Locations
    • Boston
    • Philadelphia
    • East Brunswick
    • Stamford
    • Hartford
    • Trenton
    • Newark
    • Washington, DC
    • New York
    • Wilmington
  • Share

Share

Browse Alphabetically:

  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • K
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • Q
  • R
  • S
  • T
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • All
Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation
Blockchain, Smart Contracts & Digital Currencies
Business Litigation
Cannabis
Coronavirus Resource Center
Corporate
Crisis Management
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Design, Fashion & Luxury
E-Discovery & Records Management
Energy & Utilities
Environment & Energy
Financial Institutions
Government Affairs
Government Contracts & Global Trade
Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
Healthcare
Immigration
Impact Investing
Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment Law
Life Sciences
Manufacturing
Products Liability, Mass Torts & Consumer Class Actions
Proptech
Public Finance 
Real Estate
Renewable Energy
Sports & Entertainment
Tax & Employee Benefits 
Technology Transactions
Transportation, Logistics & Supply Chain Management
Trusts, Estates & Private Clients 
Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Companies
  • Broadcasts
  • Events
  • News
  • Publications
  • View All Insights
Search By:
Insights News Contract Stack
Main image for Delaware Court of Chancery Calls “Earmuffs!” in Response to Trade Libel Claims
Publications|Alert

Delaware Court of Chancery Calls “Earmuffs!” in Response to Trade Libel Claims

Delaware Law Update

9.27.2019

Preston Hollow Capital, LLC v. Nuveen LLC, et al., Ca. No. 2019-0169-SG (Del. Ch. Aug. 13, 2019)

Preston Hollow Capital followed its first ruling concerning various business torts with an insightful analysis into the limitations on the Court of Chancery’s authority to enjoin defamatory statements. The analysis began with the general principal that equity will not enjoin a libel. While the case law recognizes a few limited exceptions, Preston Hollow Capital refused to deviate from the general rule in dismissing the plaintiff’s defamatory claims. To prevent libelous statements, parties should pursue their defamation claims in a court of law.

Case Background

Preston Hollow Capital LLC sought to enjoin Nuveen LLC and its affiliates from making further statements to participants in the bond market regarding the plaintiff’s business practices. The Nuveen entities moved to dismiss the complaint, which the court granted in part. Preston Hollow’s defamation claim was the lone survivor. The parties submitted supplemental briefing, and the Vice Chancellor ultimately dismissed the defamation claim on jurisdictional grounds.

The Delaware Court of Chancery seldom enjoins future wrongdoing, and an injunction based on a defamation claim is rare. The court adheres to the maxim that equity will not enjoin a libel, which is based on the premise that a jury, rather than a judge, should decide whether a statement is defamatory. Evidence of trade libel—“a libelous statement to consumers that falsely disparages a plaintiff’s goods or services”—may give rise to an exception to the general rule. Citing Organovo Holdings, Inc. v. Dimitrov, which is explained in further detail here, the court may exercise jurisdiction over trade libel claims to the extent that the plaintiff has asserted “a separate business tort that is furthered by the speech, thereby invoking the application of equity to a wrong other than ‘mere’ defamation.” Like Organovo Holdings, the court dismissed all of Preston Hollow’s claims for relief except defamation. Having found that the complaint does not give rise to the trade libel exception, the Court of Chancery afforded Preston Hollow the opportunity to transfer its defamation claim to the Delaware Superior Court, where a jury of its peers could determine whether or not the relevant speech was defamatory.

Key Takeaways

Preston Hollow Capital serves as a reminder of the limitations on the Court of Chancery’s authority. Merely styling a claim as one for injunctive relief will not suffice; rather, the plaintiff must plead claims in equity to derive the benefit of the court’s expertise. To prevent future libelous statements, a party would be wise to pursue its claim in a court of law. Given the harmful effect of a defamatory statement on one’s business and the near certain delay in obtaining relief from a trial by jury, an injured party may feel like it is drowning, in which case, equity will not serve as a life preserver unless the defamatory statements are incidental to a business tort that falls within the Court of Chancery’s jurisdiction.

sidebar

pdfemail

Related People

Media item: Matthew J. Rifino
Matthew J. Rifino

Special Counsel

Related Services

Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Corporate
Subscribe to our Insights
McCarter & English, LLP
Copyright © 2021 McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
  • Login
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Privacy
  • Awards Methodology
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Sitemap

The McCarter & English, LLP website is for informational purposes only. We do not provide legal advice on this website. We can provide legal advice only to our clients in specific inquiries that they address to us. If you are interested in becoming a client, please contact us, but do not send any information about your specific legal question. We cannot serve as your lawyers until we establish an attorney-client relationship, which can occur only after we follow procedures within our firm and after we agree to the terms of the representation.

Accept Cancel