James Travis Laster
How Judge Laster rules, drawn from 38 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Laster
J. Travis Laster has served as a Vice Chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery since October 2009. Before joining the bench, he practiced corporate litigation at Abrams & Laster and Richards, Layton & Finger. He earned his undergraduate degree at Princeton University and his law degree at the University of Virginia.
Judge Laster's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Laster's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026).
How Judge Laster decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In PWP Xerion Holdings v. Red Leaf Resources, he relied on the company's own pre-litigation legal advice, which had treated Germain as an affiliate and recognized Xerion's consent right, when rejecting the company's contrary position in litigation.
“Before it became advantageous to argue otherwise, both the Company's General Counsel and its outside counsel regarded Germain as an affiliate of TOTAL Sub and believed that Xerion's approval was necessary under the Interested Party Clause.”
In the Mehtas’ merger-consideration suit, Laster construed their pro se complaint as stating a claim for unpaid merger consideration despite its unconventional legal framing; he dismissed their other claims.
“Understandably given their status as pro se litigants, the Mehtas have not framed a claim for the merger consideration in traditional legal terms, but it can be conceptualized in at least two ways.”
In PWP Xerion Holdings v. Red Leaf Resources, he applied the Interested Party Clause's affiliate definition and found that Xerion's consent was required for the transaction, regardless of the affiliated director's degree of participation.
“The extent of Germain's participation is irrelevant to the affiliate inquiry. The Interested Party Clause establishes a bright-line rule that requires Xerion's consent for any transaction with an affiliate of a director, whether that director participated in the transaction or the day-to-day activities of the affiliate.”
In the R1 RCM merger case, Laster found that a majority-nomination right coupled with the company’s best-efforts obligation to seat nominees supported an inference of controller status under the revised statutory definition. The loyalty claim survived the investors’ dismissal motion.
“The complaint supports a reasonable inference that TA was the Company’s controlling stockholder under the Controller Definition in the Safe Harbor Statute.”
Procedural preferences
In Gandhi-Kapoor v. Hone Capital, he denied Upshot’s late motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration and its motion to vacate prior orders. Upshot first invoked the arbitration provision after losing summary judgment and being held in contempt; he held that its litigation conduct waived the right to arbitrate and that the court had jurisdiction to decide waiver.
“When a plaintiff files an arbitrable claim in court, the plaintiff implicitly offers to litigate the claim. A defendant can accept that offer by engaging sufficiently in litigation to warrant a judicial conduct waiver.”
In 250 Executive v. Christina School District, he dismissed for lack of equitable jurisdiction because a tag-along injunction to enforce a declaratory judgment did not create a genuine need for equitable relief.
“A tag-along injunction to enforce a declaratory judgment is generally insufficient to confer equitable jurisdiction. ... Nothing about this case suggests a need for injunctive relief.”
In TA Instruments-Waters v. University of Connecticut, he denied expedition out of comity because the bidding dispute concerned a Connecticut public institution and Connecticut procurement law.
“Delaware cannot match Connecticut's interests. ... As one of multiple jurisdictions with an interest in protecting its own citizens but no comparable interest in a Connecticut institution or violations of Connecticut law, Delaware should defer to Connecticut.”
In Rivest’s books-and-records case, Laster declined a two-year confidentiality restriction because the company had not shown grounds sufficient to outweigh Rivest’s interest in unrestricted access to historical financial statements.
“The Company has not made a showing sufficient to outweigh Rivest’s interest and warrant a two-year confidentiality restriction.”
Cautions
In Harris v. Harris, he dismissed the pre-merger derivative claims as derivative claims after an outbound merger, but allowed the plaintiffs to pursue their value through a direct challenge to that merger.
“The plaintiffs lack standing to litigate derivative claims based on pre-merger conduct. The plaintiffs may continue to pursue those issues along the Direct Claim Route.”
In In re Forum Mobile, he appointed independent counsel to consult with the SEC before resolving an unopposed petition to revive a defunct public shell, citing concern that such transactions could bypass federal securities law.
“The Delaware authorities addressing efforts to revive defunct entities for use as blank check companies reflect a consistent Delaware public policy against allowing capital-markets entrepreneurs to deploy Delaware law to bypass the federal securities laws that govern stock offerings.”
In Hawk Investment Holdings v. Stream TV Networks, he applied collateral estoppel to issues already resolved in related litigation and granted the creditor partial summary judgment on those issues.
“That too represents an effort to relitigate an issue that this court already decided. ... Stream cannot relitigate those rulings.”
In Aprio, Laster held that California’s employee forum statute made the Delaware forum and law clauses voidable at the employee’s election. Once the employee challenged jurisdiction, the court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
“California statute renders the Delaware forum and Delaware law provisions voidable at the employee’s election.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Judgment will be entered in favor of Leo Group in the amount of $1, reflecting an award of nominal damages against Kahlon and the General Partner for breach of the duty of candor. Otherwise, judgment will be entered in favor of the defendants and against Leo Group.”
“At trial, the Buyers proved that the Sellers breached representations and warranties in Article IV of the Merger Agreement. ... The Buyers failed to prove their other claim. The Seller Representative failed to prove its claims for breach of the implied covenant and for tortious interference.”
“WCG's motion to dismiss is granted as to Count II. The motion is also granted as to Count I for purposes of the statements that constituted puffery. Otherwise, the motion is denied.”
“This opinion denies the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ... Upshot's Rule 12(b)(1) motion is therefore denied. Upshot's Rule 60 motion is also denied.”
“To the extent that the defendants have moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims on the grounds of untimeliness, their motion is denied.”
“The motion to dismiss the derivative claims about events pre-dating the Outbound Merger is granted. ... The plaintiffs can continue to litigate the derivative claims, not as derivative claims that can support relief in their own right, but as assets to be valued as part of the plaintiffs' challenge to the Outbound Merger.”
“This decision denies Stream's motion to dismiss under Rule 17. ... This decision also denies Stream's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). ... This decision grants Hawk's motion for partial summary judgment.”
“Rivest is entitled to inspect the Company's quarterly and annual financial statements and reports, including cash flow statements, balance sheets, and income statements, for the years 2016 through 2020. The financial statements are not subject to any confidentiality restrictions.”
“The motion to dismiss is denied as to Counts I, III, and IV. The motion to dismiss is granted as to Counts II and V.”
“This decision grants the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It does not reach the other motions.”
“Evaluating the factors as a whole, a stay is unwarranted. Rather than maintaining the status quo, a stay would be likely to upset it. Consequently, to the extent the Motion seeks a stay pending appeal, that request is denied.”
Draft for Judge Laster with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Laster, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Laster's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace