October 16, 2023
Delaware Court of Chancery Begins Significant Rules Revisions
Written by: Michael Walter
On September 25, 2023, the Court of Chancery announced the first of a series of revisions to its rules. For this round of amendments, a subcommittee of the Court of Chancery’s Rules Committee considered Rules 7, 10, 17-25, and 171. Largely designed to align the Court of Chancery Rules with their federal counterparts, the amendments introduce several substantive, stylistic, and format-based changes. By eliminating outdated sections, preserving features that remain useful, and consolidating content and formatting requirements, the Court hopes to modernize the rules and ease practitioners’ ability to apply the requirements for filings. Potentially, this will have time-saving benefits for practitioners and, by extension, cost-saving benefits for clients.
Among the more notable changes, Rule 171 has been repealed and the contents of the rule have been incorporated into Rules 7 and 10. The revised Rule 7 now includes the content requirements for briefs and it clarifies that the only briefs that may be filed without court approval are an opening, answering, and reply brief for a case-dispositive motion under Rule 12, 23, 23.1, 41(b), 56, or 65; briefs concerning the approval of a settlement or application for attorney’s fees and expenses for a class or derivative action brought under Rule 23, 23.1, or 23.2; pre-trial briefs; and post-trial briefs. An updated set of formatting requirements for briefs can now be found under Rule 10.
By conforming Rules 17 through 25 to the language of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court hopes to make it easier to cite to authorities interpreting the federal rules as persuasive authority for the amended Chancery Rules. Among this set of rules, the most interesting changes were made to Rules 17 and 23. Rule 17 now provides for the appointment of a limited guardian to sue or defend on behalf of a person lacking capacity. Additionally, the rule recognizes a presumption that the parent of a minor is a qualified guardian ad litem unless there will be a conflict of interest. Rules 23 and 23.1 now require that an objector provide “adequate security” before they can be substituted as lead plaintiffs in class actions or derivative suits.
On September 25, 2023, the Court of Chancery announced the first of a series of revisions to its rules. For this round of amendments, a subcommittee of the Court of Chancery’s Rules Committee considered Rules 7, 10, 17-25, and 171. Largely designed to align the Court of Chancery Rules with their federal counterparts, the amendments introduce several substantive, stylistic, and format-based changes. By eliminating outdated sections, preserving features that remain useful, and consolidating content and formatting requirements, the Court hopes to modernize the rules and ease practitioners’ ability to apply the requirements for filings. Potentially, this will have time-saving benefits for practitioners and, by extension, cost-saving benefits for clients.
Among the more notable changes, Rule 171 has been repealed and the contents of the rule have been incorporated into Rules 7 and 10. The revised Rule 7 now includes the content requirements for briefs and it clarifies that the only briefs that may be filed without court approval are an opening, answering, and reply brief for a case-dispositive motion under Rule 12, 23, 23.1, 41(b), 56, or 65; briefs concerning the approval of a settlement or application for attorney’s fees and expenses for a class or derivative action brought under Rule 23, 23.1, or 23.2; pre-trial briefs; and post-trial briefs. An updated set of formatting requirements for briefs can now be found under Rule 10.
By conforming Rules 17 through 25 to the language of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court hopes to make it easier to cite to authorities interpreting the federal rules as persuasive authority for the amended Chancery Rules. Among this set of rules, the most interesting changes were made to Rules 17 and 23. Rule 17 now provides for the appointment of a limited guardian to sue or defend on behalf of a person lacking capacity. Additionally, the rule recognizes a presumption that the parent of a minor is a qualified guardian ad litem unless there will be a conflict of interest. Rules 23 and 23.1 now require that an objector provide “adequate security” before they can be substituted as lead plaintiffs in class actions or derivative suits.