Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

Paddling Down Esopus Creek

An end-of-year (Nov. 29) Delaware Chancery Court decision, <i>Esopus Creek Value LP v. Hauf</i>, No. 2487-N (Del. Ch. Nov. 29, 2006), is receiving a great deal of attention from corporate transactional and corporate restructuring attorneys alike. In <i>Esopus</i>, the Delaware Chancery Court prevented a financially sound company that was prohibited by federal securities law from holding a shareholder vote, because it failed to meet its reporting requirements, from executing an agreement outside of bankruptcy to sell substantially all of its assets under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code without first obtaining common stockholder approval as required under Section 271(a) of the Delaware General Company Law ('DGCL').

10 minute read March 26, 2007 at 12:36 AM
By
Jonathan Friedland And Mazen Asbahi
Paddling Down Esopus Creek

An end-of-year (Nov. 29) Delaware Chancery Court decision, Esopus Creek Value LP v. Hauf, No. 2487-N (Del. Ch. Nov. 29, 2006), is receiving a great deal of attention from corporate transactional and corporate restructuring attorneys alike.

This premium content is locked for LawJournalNewsletters subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

Already have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Continue Reading

AI claims are getting more scrutiny and regulators are looking more closely at whether organizations can substantiate what they say their AI does, while courts are beginning to address what happens when AI-generated search summaries get information wrong.

November 01, 2026

This is the second in a two-part series on AI-driven crises. Part 1 examined communications during an incident while the facts are still developing. Part 2 addresses crisis plans, governance and tabletop exercises before an agent acts on behalf of the business.

November 01, 2026