Dweck v. Nasser
Delaware Court of Chancery
959 A.2d 29 (2008)
Dweck (plaintiff) and Nasser (defendant) each owned significant equity in a corporation. Dweck was president of the corporation, and Nasser was the chairman of the board. Following a dispute which resulted in Nasser dismissing Dweck and the commencement of litigation, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations. Dweck retained Watchel as her lawyer in the settlement discussions. Nasser chose Shiboleth, his longtime friend and primary attorney as his settlement lawyer, in spite of the fact that Nasser had already retained Heyman as his attorney of record in the litigation. Settlement negotiations went on throughout the spring and summer of 2007 without much progress, due to Nasser’s preconditions. In August 2007, Nasser changed his mind and told Heyman that he wanted to settle and would drop the preconditions. Nasser also told Heyman that he had instructed Shiboleth to “get it done,” and Shiboleth told Heyman that Nasser had told him to settle the case. By November 2007, the parties were negotiating intensely to come to terms on a settlement agreement. Various draft agreements were circulated, but Nasser objected to some of the key terms in each draft. On November 19, an agreement that met Nasser’s demands was sent to Nasser and Shiboleth. After receiving Nasser’s consent to the agreement, Shiboleth informed Watchel that the matter had been settled and that Nasser would sign the agreement. Nasser refused to sign the agreement, contended that he had not seen the final agreement on November 19. Nasser contacted Heyman a few days later, stating that he had concerns about several provisions in the agreement. Nasser also told Heyman that he did not give Shiboleth authority to enter into the settlement. Nasser subsequently sent an email to Heyman and Shiboleth, listing his objections to the settlement agreement. Shiboleth responded with a letter to Nasser, recounting the times when Nasser had informed members of Dweck’s family, as well as Heyman and Shiboleth, that Nasser did not intend to read the settlement agreement and that he had told Heyman and Shiboleth that he would sign the agreement when Shiboleth told him to. A motion to enforce the settlement agreement was filed with the court of chancery.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Lamb, VC.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 726,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 726,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,700 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.