I:N THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
ANR PIPELINE COMPANY,
a Delaware Corporation,
Plaintiff, I
v. 1 c .
iivil Act on No. 8610
1 .I.
SHELL OIL COMPANY, a )
Delaware Corporation, SHELL
WESTERN E&P, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and SHELL
OFFSHORE, INC.,a Delaware
corporation,
: Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Date Submitted: May 14, 1987
Date Decided: May 28, 1981
Henry N. Herndon, Jr., Esquire, Grover C. Brown,. Esquire,
Edward M. McNally, Esquire, P. Clarkson Collins, Jr., Esquire
and.Barbara MacDonald, Esquire of MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS &
WILLIAMS, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Plaintiff
Allen M. Terrell, Jr., Esquire and Stephen 'E. Herrmann,
Esquire of RICHARDS, LAYTON. & FINGER, Wilmington, Delaware,
and G. E:dward Pickle, Esquire of SHELL OIL COMPANY, Attorneys
for Defendants.
BERGER, Vice Chancellor
Plaintiff, ANR Pipeline Company ("ANR"), filed this
action eon September 8, 1986, seeking declaratory and injunc-
tive relief against defendants, Shell Oil Company, Shell
Western E. & P., Inc. and Shell Offshore, Inc. (collectively,
"Shell" '
,, I
'm connection with a dispute over the parties'
rights under certain gas purchase contracts. By opinion dated
April 2., 1987, this Court granted Shell's motion to stay in
favor of two later filed Louisiana actions and denied ANR's
motion to enjoin further prosecution of the Louisiana actions.
ANR filed an interlocutory appeal, and, on May 14, 1987, the
Delaware Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision in which
SNIPPETS:
I:N THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ANR PIPELINE COMPANY,
Delaware Corporation, SHELL
WESTERN E&P, INC., a Delaware corporation, and SHELL OFFSHORE, INC.,a Delaware corporation,
Henry N. Herndon, Jr., Esquire, Grover C. Brown,.
Plaintiff, ANR Pipeline Company, filed this action eon September 8, 1986, seeking declaratory
By opinion dated April 2., 1987, this Court granted Shell's motion to stay in favor of two
ANR filed an interlocutory appeal, and, on May 14, 1987, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a
In its decision, the Delaware Supreme Court reaffirmed that the factors to be considered in
Supr., 198 A.2d 681.
In granting Shell's motion to stay, this Court found that several of the Cryo-Maid factors
cally, this Court found that Delaware law will not be applicable whereas Louisiana law may be
Ewing, Del.
Supr., 269 A.2d 51, 52 (moving party has burden of showing factors of hardship sufficient to
"the burden is upon the defendant to show inconvenience and 'hardship sufficient to move the
Shell argues that it will suffer inconvenience and hardship if its Louisiana personnel were
Undoubtedly it would be less convenient for Shell's operating personnel to travel to Delaware
becomes necessary for the Court to have a detailed understanding of the operation and
|
