• 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 Publication Magazine Pages
Main image for Organovo Holdings, Inc. v. Dimitrov – Court of Chancery Does Not Hold Subject Matter Jurisdiction to Enjoin a “Short And Distort” Scheme Absent Interference with Specific Contractual or Economic Relationships
Publications|Alert

Organovo Holdings, Inc. v. Dimitrov – Court of Chancery Does Not Hold Subject Matter Jurisdiction to Enjoin a “Short And Distort” Scheme Absent Interference with Specific Contractual or Economic Relationships

Delaware Law Update

10.2.2017

In Organovo Holdings, Inc. v. Georgi Dimitrov, C.A. No. 10536-VCL (Del. Ch. June 5, 2017), the Delaware Court of Chancery vacated a default judgment against an investor facing $188 million in damages caused by an online short-sale scheme. The court extensively analyzed equitable jurisdiction over defamation and libel claims to determine subject matter jurisdiction did not exist on a fact pattern of a party disseminating false statements to the general public, via Twitter and webpages, intended to drive down the price of a stock to enable short-sale profit. The court left open the question of whether equitable jurisdiction exists to enjoin trade libel that interferes with specific contractual and economic relationships.

Organovo sued Georgi Dimitrov for libel, libel per se, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. Organovo designs functional human tissues through its use of a proprietary 3-D bio-printing technology. Allegedly Dimitrov, through a sham company called Simeon, published two defamatory “research reports” through a webpage disseminated by sixty-five comments on Simeon’s Twitter account. The reports were camouflaged as the work product of a professional research firm, but contained false statements designed to damage Organovo’s share value, in a typical “short and distort” scheme that netted approximately $35,000. 

Organovo had won a prior action against Simeon by default judgment, in which the Court of Chancery ordered Simeon to remove all internet and Twitter posts containing the false statements. Dimitrov caused Simeon to comply with that order.

Then, on January 13, 2015, Organovo sued Dimitrov personally, alleging the same fact pattern, seeking a prohibitory injunction to prevent Dimitrov from defaming Organovo in the future, and monetary damages. Dimitrov defaulted, but later moved via Chancery Court Rule 60(b) to vacate the judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, among other unaddressed reasons.

The court expounded upon the maxim “equity will not enjoin a libel,” noting that historically libel was a crime and therefore subject to the sole jurisdiction of the law courts. The court noted that English law discarded the maxim with the merger of its courts of law and equity, and now makes available even preliminary injunctions against libel. However, American courts have maintained a “no injunction” rule, grounded on the premise that defamation claims are uniquely suitable for jury determination in the context of First Amendment guarantees. The rule of “no injunction against future defamation” was endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1931 opinion Near v. Minnesota ex rel Olson, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).   

The court then explained that Delaware jurisprudence does permit preliminary injunctive relief for trade libel, including tortious interference with economic relations. But Organovo’s complaint was that Dimitrov had defamed it generally to the wide world, rather than interfered with any specific customer, lender, or supplier. The complaint was unable to allege that Dimitrov knew anything about Organovo’s specific business relationships, and therefore failed to effectively allege that Dimitrov intentionally interfered with any specific prospective contract. 

The court then noted that it held the power to issue an injunction after a jury verdict via a transfer of jurisdiction during the remedial phase of the case per 10 Del. C. §1092. Finally, the court rejected disgorgement as a viable equitable remedy, because the profits were alleged to come from general trading rather than any contribution of Organovo.

The case is important for two reasons. First, it affirms that the Court of Chancery will not enjoin libelous statements directed to the wide world, rather than to specific contractual or economic relations of the complaining party. Second and arguably more important, Organovo recognizes the availability of equitable jurisdiction over claims of trade libel, i.e., statements that are intended to interfere with the complainant’s relationships with specific identified parties rather than with the wide world. 

sidebar

pdfemail

Related People

Media item: Andrew S. Dupre
Andrew S. Dupre

Partner

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