As such, the court may consider documents outside the complaint for purposes of such a motion. Acierno v. New Castle County, 2006 WL 1668370, at *1 n. 8 (Del.Ch. June 8, 2006). 16 . Elf Atochem N. Am., Inc. v. Jaffari, 727 A.2d 286, 295 (Del.1999). 17 . Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Panhandle E. Corp., 1987 WL 13520, at *8 (Del.Ch. July 7, 1987). 18 . SBC Interactive, Inc. v. Corporate Media Partners, 714 A.2d 758, 761 (Del.1998). 19 . 817 A.2d 149 (Del.2002). 20 . Id. at 155. 21 . Majkowski v. Am. Imaging Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 913 A.2d 572, 581-82 (Del.Ch.2006); Westendorf v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 2000 WL 307369, at *3 (Del.Ch. Mar. 16, 2000). 22 . Parfi, 817 A.2d at 156. 23 . James & Jackson, LLC v. Willie Gary, LLC, 906 A.2d 76, 78 (Del.2006). 24 . See, e.g., Parfi, 817 A.2d at 156-57 (<HOLDING>); Majkowski, 913 A.2d at 584-85 (holding that
holding that plaintiffs were entitled to a jury trial on claim of breach of fiduciary duty where underlying claim was a common law negligence action holding that where excess policy provided that duty to defend did not arise until the underlying insurance was exhausted by payments of judgments settlements and any cost or expense subject to such limit excess insurers duty to defend did not arise until the payment of the settlement holding that employers decision to merge plans did not invoke the fiduciary duty provisions of erisa holding that a duty of care may arise out of a contractual relationship between two parties holding that certain fiduciary duty claims did not arise out of the underlying contractual provisions