THIS WEEK, in a court in Wilmington, Delaware, Lord Black will play what looks like his final hand in the fractious battle for control of the Telegraph newspapers. It will be the second time this year that the peer has made his way to Wilmington. In February Black took the stand and told the court “I have been defamed” as a judge rebuked the “cunning” peer and awarded his former colleagues control of Hollinger, the company he founded.

On Friday he will be back. This time the proceedings are likely to be spared Black’s oratory. The war of words will be fought by teams of lawyers in the hermetic language of corporate law. Drama will be saved for the verdict.

Ousted as chairman and chief executive of Hollinger, Black was hit last month with a $1.2 billion (£650m), 174-page writ that uses law once reserved for mafia bosses to accuse Black and others of racketeering and other criminal behaviour. His prize assets, the Telegraph newspapers, have been sold to the Barclay brothers in a deal that will be finalised at the end of the month.

But Black could yet scupper the sale. His holding in Hollinger accounts for 18.2% of the company but, technically, the founder’s shares control 68% of the votes.

His lawyers argue that the sale of the Telegraph should go to a shareholder vote. If the court rules in Black’s favour, he will have the power to block any sale.

Delaware is the seat of American corporate law and its courts are much concerned with protecting the rights of shareholders. The last time Black was in Delaware, he took the stand as a disgraced executive accused of ripping off his investors. This time he is the investor, accusing his former colleagues of robbing him of his rights.

“This is going to be one hell of a fight,” said one Hollinger shareholder. “Both sides have a good case. I have to say that Black makes an unattractive victim but Delaware has been keen to stand up for shareholders for some time and he is the company’s largest shareholder. On the other hand, the last time we were here the judge was not exactly sympathetic to his cause.”

Last February, in a withering verdict, Judge Leo Strine said he could not credit Black’s word, that Black was “evasive and unreliable” and that he “persistently and seriously” breached his obligations to the company.

Black has no friends in court but he does have a case, said the shareholder. “We have assumed, and it looks like we were wrong, that this would never get to court. We thought Hollinger or the Barclays would cut him some deal and avoid this.”

Strine has repeatedly pushed for an out-of-court settlement, but both sides are hanging tough. Last week Black attacked Hollinger’s other legal cases against him, his wife, Barbara Amiel, and other former colleagues.

But neither side seems prepared to back down and is unlikely to do so before the hearing in Wilmington.

Hollinger is likely to mount a three-pronged attack on Black’s claim. First, it will claim that a shareholder vote is unnecessary because the Telegraph was sold not by Hollinger but by one of its subsidiaries, DT Holdings. Delaware courts have ruled on several occasions that the sale of an asset by a subsidiary does not need a shareholder vote.

The second attack will centre on whether the Telegraph constitutes “substantially all” of Hollinger’s assets. This is the basis of Black’s claim for a vote. But Hollinger will be hoping that here, Black may serve as its best witness.

To refute Black’s suit, Hollinger will probably rely on e-mail and letter exchanges between Black and the Barclays late last year when Black was trying to strike his own deal with the brothers.

Letters first published in The Sunday Times show that at the time the brothers were concerned about the possibility of a sale of the Telegraph triggering a shareholder vote.

In reply to Sir David Barclay’s questions in November, Black responded in an e-mail: “Dear David: I have spoken with counsel on the matter you raised. The sale of the Telegraph out of Hollinger International would probably not, in itself, trigger a shareholder vote.”

As Black’s lawyers will point out, even at his most positive the peer only thought the sale would “probably not” trigger a vote. And now it will be for the court, not Black, to decide whether a vote is required.

Black’s hand may have been strengthened since he wrote the letter because Hollinger’s other significant asset has been devalued, further enhancing the relative value of the Telegraph within the group.

In June Hollinger said sales at its other big newspaper group, the Chicago Sun Times, had been significantly overstated “for the last several years”.

Details of the scandal have so far been sketchy. Stephen Hastings, vice-president for circulation, has resigned and his predecessor, Mark Hornung, now publisher of a smaller Chicago-area Hollinger newspaper, placed on administrative leave. There is speculation that the problems could reach back as far as the late 1990s.

Advertisers reacted furiously to the news, with three filing lawsuits against the newspapers. The net result has been to depress the value of Hollinger’s Chicago assets.

On Friday Hollinger International was valued at £638m. The Barclays bought the Telegraph for £665m. Their offer includes £64.5m of cash on the Telegraph’s books, making the total value of the deal £729.5m. In raw financial terms and given the devaluation of the Chicago assets, Black has a strong case to argue that the Telegraph is “substantially all” of Hollinger’s assets.

Strine has barred Black from interfering in Hollinger’s sale process until October. At the same time, Strine said he recognised that, as Hollinger’s largest shareholder, Black should at some point have a say in the sales process.

Hounded out of his office by angry shareholders, Black is returning to court as the angriest — and biggest — shareholder of them all.