• 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 Headline Stack
Main image for Sent to Bed Without Dessert: The Delaware Court of Chancery Denies Attempt to Hold Ice Cream Maker Liable for Contaminated Product
Publications|Alert

Sent to Bed Without Dessert: The Delaware Court of Chancery Denies Attempt to Hold Ice Cream Maker Liable for Contaminated Product

Delaware Law Update

12.14.2018

The Delaware Court of Chancery denied limited partners’ efforts to hold the corporate parent of their general partner liable for the general partner’s management of the limited partnership.[1] The derivate suit related to the limited partnership’s production and sale of contaminated ice cream, which resulted in a recall of its products and the shutdown of its facilities. The Court dismissed the limited partners’ claims against the parent company of the general partner, and it denied the legal equivalent of “a request for seconds” in relatively short order.

In denying the motion for reargument, the Court explained that the basis for its dismissal of the claims against the parent corporation was well-grounded in Delaware law. First, a principal may not be held vicariously liable for its agent’s non-tortious breach of a contract. This ruling adheres to the general rule that only parties to a contract may be held liable under the contract. Second, there is no viable claim under a direct agency theory where the principal was not a party to the underlying agreement, the agreement expressly stated that the agent possessed exclusive authority over the management of the limited partnership, and there was no indication that the principal authorized the agent to bind the principal in the agreement. In the absence thereof, the limited partners could not show that the parent corporation directed the general partner to enter into the limited partnership agreement. Third, “there exists a presumption of corporate separateness, even when a parent wholly owns its subsidiary and the entities have identical officers and directors.” While the limited partners sought to pierce the corporate veil based on allegations of domination and control, the Court found that the parent corporation’s mere ownership of the general partner and the overlap of officers and directors between the parent corporation and general partner were insufficient. In short, Wenske proves as unremarkable as a bowl of vanilla ice cream in light of Delaware legal precedent.

[1]Wenske v. Blue Bell Creameries, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2017-0699-JRS (Del. Ch. Nov. 13, 2018).

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