“Musk, KKR Lawsuits Traded by Judges Over Conflict Concerns” —

• “A Delaware judge Monday reassigned litigation over a $720 million payout to KKR & Co. insiders, completing a swap with the judge who recently stepped away from a batch of cases targeting Elon Musk.”
• “Vice Chancellor Bonnie W. David responded to conflict-of-interest concerns by handing the KKR case to Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick, who recently sent the Musk lawsuits to David after he raised bias allegations. David swiftly dismissed the Musk suits from Delaware’s Chancery Court, effectively sending them to Tesla Inc.’s new home, Texas, where corporate cases are harder for shareholders to bring and win.”
• “Musk’s judicial recusal gambit immediately sparked fears that other aggrieved businesses or billionaires might follow his lead, a possibility David addressed head on in Monday’s ruling.”
• “‘As officers of the court, Delaware lawyers owe a duty not to seek judicial reassignment to obtain a perceived litigation advantage,’ the judge wrote. ‘I am hopeful that this motion is an outlier.’”
• “The two case reassignments were parallel but far from symmetrical. The world’s richest person spent years slamming McCormick and trying to incite a mass ‘DExit’ from the state after she voided his $56 billion compensation. Lawmakers spooked by the attacks scrambled to lower the guardrails around powerful founders, and Delaware’s top court later reinstated the record pay plan.”
• “McCormick finally stepped away from Musk’s remaining cases after he scored a hit with his allegation that she’d endorsed a LinkedIn post taunting him. The judge—who has said she engaged with the social media post accidentally if at all—presided over an ad hoc reassignment procedure using Scrabble tiles.”
• “The decision to let go of the KKR litigation involved far less drama, but it was still unusual in a state where bids for judicial recusal are exceedingly rare. The motion for disqualification by the pension fund suing KKR concerned David’s ties to her former firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, which is representing the KKR conflicts committee that signed off on the payout and restructuring.”
• “Although the investment firm and its co-founders fought the request—referring to it in a May 1 court filing as an act of ‘gamesmanship’ that failed to raise any evidence of ‘genuine bias’—David granted it with little fanfare, citing Delaware’s judicial ethics code. Her initial order said the case would be randomly reassigned, but a subsequent docket entry indicated it landed with McCormick.”
• “The Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund is represented by Friedlander & Gorris PA, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, and Shobe & Shobe LLP. KKR, its founders, and other board members are represented by Richards, Layton & Finger PA and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.”
• The case is Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund v. Kravis, Del. Ch., No. 2024-0808, 5/4/26.

“Judge declares ‘conflict of interest’ in defense teams ahead of Amber Spradlin murder trial” —

• “The judge presiding over the Amber Spradlin case has asked two of the attorneys involved in the defense to clear up a conflict of interest concern ahead of the upcoming murder trial.”
• “On Wednesday, Judge Eddy Coleman filed an order, addressing Randy O’Neal, one of the attorneys for MK McKinney, and Whitney O’Neal, the attorney for Josh Mullins. They are both attorneys for the same law firm, O’Neal Law Office, and have represented their respective clients since the early days of the case. Since the couple got married in 2025, their relationship has never been a public topic of discussion as a conflict of interest in the courtroom.”
• “However, after Mullins’ attorney filed a motion in support of a continuance in the trial, while McKinney’s team has maintained its demands for a speedy trial, Judge Coleman is asking for clarification about the possible conflict to the defendants moving forward.”
• “‘Upon receipt of any information reasonably suggesting that what is best for one client may not be best for another, counsel shall explain its significance to the defendant and disclose it to the court, and shall withdraw as counsel for one client or the other unless (a)each such client who is a defendant in the proceeding executes a written waiver setting forth the circumstances and reiterating the client’s desire for continued representation by, the same counsel and(b) such waiver is entered in the record of the proceeding,’ said the order.”
• “Coleman said the fact that the O’Neals represent the same firm and opposite opinions in the case is grounds for them to be removed from the case, unless their clients object.”
• “‘Mullins has taken the position that a continuance would be best for him while Defendant Michael K. McKinney, III has repeatedly objected to continuance and reiterated his demand for speedy trial,’ said the order. ‘Thus, as members of the same law firm, Randall O’Neal and Whitney O’Neal represent two co-defendants with a clear conflict of interest requiring the counsel to explain the significance to the defendants and withdraw their representation unless an executed waiver from each defendant is filed with the Court.’”
• “The order is expected to be discussed Monday at the next pretrial conference, during which several other motions will also be addressed.”