N24C-11-049 CLS
Del. Super. Ct.Jul 10, 2025Background
- LiveBarn, Inc., a Canadian sports streaming company, entered into exclusive contracts with over 1,500 venues, providing automated streaming equipment and maintaining confidentiality around its individually negotiated pricing and terms.
- Black Bear Sports Group, Inc., a Delaware-based hockey venue operator, formerly contracted with LiveBarn, then terminated its contract and launched a competing service, Black Bear TV.
- After launching competition, Black Bear surveyed and contacted LiveBarn’s client venues, allegedly inducing them to disclose confidential LiveBarn contract terms in violation of their agreements.
- LiveBarn asserts Black Bear used this confidential information to replicate LiveBarn’s pricing strategy and entice venues to leave LiveBarn for Black Bear.
- LiveBarn sued Black Bear for tortious interference with contractual relations, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment; Black Bear moved to dismiss, arguing failure to state a claim and that its actions were legitimate competition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tortious interference with contract | Black Bear induced breaches of confidentiality | No actual breach alleged; info was public | Claim survives motion to dismiss |
| Use of confidential vs. public information | Terms are tailored and confidential | Info sought was available via public contracts | Factual issue; not for dismissal stage |
| Unfair competition | Black Bear's conduct was wrongful, not fair | Legitimate competition, no wrongful conduct | Claim survives motion to dismiss |
| Unjust enrichment | Black Bear wrongfully benefited at LiveBarn’s expense | No benefit was wrongful; contingent on other claims | Claim survives motion to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Bhole, Inc. v. Shore Invs., Inc., 67 A.3d 444 (Del. 2013) (sets out elements for tortious interference with contract under Delaware law)
- Schock v. Nash, 732 A.2d 217 (Del. 1999) (articulates elements of unjust enrichment claim in Delaware)
- Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. v. Cantor, 724 A.2d 571 (Del. Ch. 1998) (elaborates on standards for unjust enrichment)
- Bowl-Mor Co. v. Brunswick Corp., 297 A.2d 61 (Del. Ch. 1972) (clarifies not all competitive interference is unlawful)