A July 1, 2026 order from the Delaware Court of Chancery provides another insight into the risks of using generative artificial intelligence (“GenAI”) without adequate human review, and highlights the court’s increased focus on organizational controls governing AI use. Although Leiske v. Kidd concerned litigation conduct and the duties of attorneys and law firms rather
Sidley Austin Blog
Blog Authors
Latest from Sidley Austin Blog
When the Meeting Minutes and the AI Transcript Don’t Match: Litigation Insights from Delaware Chancery
You join a virtual meeting and a banner appears: The meeting is being transcribed by AI. You scan the attendees, glance at the agenda, and run a quick risk-benefit analysis. Who turned it on? Should I say something? Will someone else? Has everyone consented? Will the transcript be accurate and secure? And is there a…
When “The Devil Made Me Do It” Is Not a Defense: Lessons in AI Governance and Organizational Oversight from an SDNY Decision
As companies increasingly integrate generative and agentic AI into core business functions, a May 7, 2026 decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York1 highlights several fundamental guardrails for corporate legal and compliance departments to consider. Although the case arose in the context of government decision-making, the opinion carries broader…
Earnouts, AI, and Equitable Remedies: Delaware Court Reinstates CEO and Extends Payout Clock
Earnout remedies are not limited to damages. In Fortis Advisors v. Krafton, the Delaware Court of Chancery awarded specific performance to reinstate a target company’s CEO and extend the earnout by the time that elapsed between the CEO’s wrongful, ChatGPT-informed termination and his restoration. The decision also highlights a growing business risk: executives’ direct…