KT4 Partners LLC v. Palantir Techs.

15 Citing cases

  1. Red Cat Holdings, Inc. v. Autonodyne LLC

    C. A. N24C-04-082-SKR (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 6, 2025)

    See Agilent Techs., Inc., 2009 WL 119865, at *8; Int'l Bus. Mach. Cotp. v. Comdisco, Inc., 1993 WL 259102, at *21 (Del. Super. June 30, 1993) ("Only wrongful interferences will satisfy the tort, as some interferences are seen as justified or privileged under the aegis of competition."). See KT4 Partners LLC v. Palantir Techs. Inc., 2021 WL 2823567, at *13 (Del. Super. June 24, 2021).

  2. Matrix Parent, Inc. v. Audax Mgmt. Co.

    319 A.3d 909 (Del. Super. Ct. 2024)   Cited 4 times

    .See In re Columbia Pipeline Grp., Inc. Merger Litig., 299 A.3d 393, 481 n.38 (Del. Ch. 2023) (collecting sources); KT4 Partners LLC v. Palantir Techs. Inc., 2021 WL 2823567, at *31 (Del. Super. June 24, 2021) (citing NACCO Indus., Inc. v. Applica Inc., 997 A.2d 1, 35 (Del. Ch. 2009)). Finally, although these parties invited a detailed analysis of this issue, the Court reiterates that this is not a new rule.

  3. Dupont De Nemours, Inc. v. Hemlock Semiconductor Operations LLC

    C. A. N23C-10-261 PRW CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Jun. 10, 2024)

    Pls.' Mot. to Dismiss at 12-18. E.g., KT4 Partners, LLC v. Palantir Techs. Inc., 2021 WL 2823567, at *26 (Del. Super. Ct. June 24, 2021). E.g., Windsor I, LLC v. CWCapital Asset Mgmt. LLC, 238 A.3d 863, 875 (Del. 2020).

  4. Rwanda Social Sec. Bd. v. L.E.A.F. Pharm.

    C. A. 2022-0987-BWD (Del. Ch. Dec. 8, 2023)

    "Under Delaware law, the elements of a claim for tortious interference with prospective contractual relations are: (i) the reasonable probability of a business opportunity; (ii) the intentional interference by the defendant with the opportunity; (iii) proximate causation; and (iv) damages." KT4 P 'rs LLC v. Palantir Techs. Inc., 2021 WL 2823567, at *13 (Del. Super. June 24, 2021). "In order to adequately allege th[e] first element, the claimant must allege 'a bona fide expectancy'"-"[t]he claim will be dismissed for failure to establish a reasonable probability of a business opportunity if the opportunity is too speculative."

  5. Shakesby v. SNC Int'l

    N22C-11-070 MAA CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 27, 2023)

    The implied covenant will not be invoked "when the contract addresses the conduct at issue."KT4 Partners, LLC v. Palantir Techs. Inc., 2021 WL 2823567, at *26 (Del. Super. June 24, 2021). Glaxo Grp. Ltd. v. DRIT LP, 248 A.3d 911, 919 (citation omitted).

  6. Boatswain v. Miller

    C. A. N22C-07-020 AML (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 23, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    . KT4 Partners LLC v. Palantir Techs. Inc., 2021 WL 2823567, at *24 (Del. Super. June 24, 2021). 4. Plaintiffs alleged when Defendants prepared the offer package to send to the Seller on Plaintiffs' behalf, Defendants became statutory agents for the Plaintiffs.

  7. CoreTel Am. v. Oak Point Partners

    C. A. N21C-10-103 AML CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 21, 2022)   Cited 5 times

    Malpiede v. Townson, 780 A.2d 1075, 1099 (Del. 2001) KT4 Partners LLC v. Palantir Techs. Inc., 2021 WL 2823567, at *19 (Del. Super. Ct. June 24, 2021) (citing DeBonaventura v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 428 A.2d 1151, 1153 (Del. 1981)). Id. (internal citations omitted).

  8. Centene Corp. v. Accellion, Inc.

    C. A. 2021-0206-PAF (Del. Ch. Mar. 29, 2022)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses

    California rules governing contract interpretation are similar. See Grunstein v. Silva, 2011 WL 378782, at *13 (Del. Ch. Jan. 31, 2011); see also KT4 Partners LLC v. Palantir Techs. Inc., 2021 WL 2823567, at *18 (Del. Super. Ct. June 24, 2021) ("Both Delaware and California courts take a plain meaning approach to contract interpretation."). Under California law, "[t]he language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity."

  9. Balooshi v. GVP Glob. Corp.

    C. A. N19C-10-215 CEB (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 25, 2022)   Cited 11 times
    Rejecting defenses based on recoupment and setoff because both theories "require some proof of loss" but defendant failed to offer any "evidence of a quantifiable injury"

    See also Stroud v. Milliken Enters., Inc., 552 A.2d 476, 477 (Del. 1989) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction after the jurisdictional issue was raised by the Court at oral argument).E.g., KT4 Partners LLC v. Palantir Techs. Inc., 2021 WL 2823567, at *24 (Del. Super. Ct. June 24, 2021) (articulating rule and collecting authority).Cf. Appriva S'holder Litig. Co., LLC v. EV3, Inc., 937 A.2d 1275, 1284 n.14 (Del. 2007)

  10. Blue Cube Spinco LLC v. The Dow Chem. Co.

    C. A. N21C-01-214 PRW CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Sep. 29, 2021)   Cited 17 times
    Denying motion to dismiss based on alleged failure to plead a specific amount of damages because "[i]n some sense, all complained-of damages are 'speculative' until the true amount emerges in discovery and ultimately is set at trial"

    Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b)(1).KT4 Partners LLC v. Palantir Techs. Inc., 2021 WL 2823567, at *24 (Del. Super. Ct. June 24, 2021) (alteration and emphasis omitted) (quoting Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(h)(3)).Appriva S'holder Litig. Co., LLC v. EV3, Inc., 937 A.2d 1275, 1284 n.14 (Del. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Nelson v. Russo, 844 A.2d 301, 302 (Del. 2004) ("In deciding whether the Superior Court has subject matter jurisdiction, we must look beyond the language in the complaint . . . ."); see also Texcel v. Com. Fiberglass, 1987 WL 19717, at *2 (Del.