Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
465 results for '* industry:"Investments and Investment Advisory"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-02-08
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Judge: Judge Sontchi
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Mark D. Collins, Marcos A. Ramos, Cory D. Kandstein, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Mitchell A. Karlan, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Curtis S. Miller, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brian P. Miller, Samantha J. Kavanaugh, James A. Bombulie, Akerman LLP, Miami, FL for defendants.
Case Number: D69704
Breach of fiduciary duty claims were untimely where plaintiffs were on notice of the claims over a decade prior as the same claims had been asserted against several of the plaintiffs in a related action.
Publication Date: 2022-02-08
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Manufacturing
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin H. Davenport, Samuel L. Closic, Eric J. Juray, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Brian J. Robbins, Gregory Del Gaizo, Stephen J. Oddo, Eric M.Carrino, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Bradley R. Aronstam, R. Garrett Rice, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Geoffrey J. Ritts, Jones Day, Cleveland, OH; Marjorie P. Duffy, Jones Day, Columbus, OH; Blake Rohrbacher, Alexander M. Krischik, Andrew L. Milam, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Lawrence Portnoy, Davis Polk &Wardwell LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69705
The court held that a majority of the board at the time of filing were outside directors who did not receive a material personal benefit from the challenged transaction, did not face a substantial likelihood of liability because of an exculpation provision, and did not lack independence from the controlling stockholder who was a party to the challenged transaction.
Publication Date: 2022-02-08
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Consumer Products | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rudolf Koch, Matthew D. Perri, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Greg Shinall, Michael G. Dickler, Sperling & Slater, P.C., Chicago, IL for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Robert S. Saunders, Sarah R. Martin, Michelle L. Davis, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ryan D. Stottmann, Miranda N. Gilbert, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Tamir Young, Studin Young PC, Hauppauge, NY; Peter B. Ladig, Elizabeth A. Powers, Sarah T. Andrade, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69703
The court held that because there were two competing and reasonable interpretations of certain contract language, the contract was ambiguous, and the ambiguity barred a motion to dismiss as a matter of law or on the pleadings.
Publication Date: 2022-02-08
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Krause
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D69709
Failure to explain alleged "actual value" of company shares or how the company's stockholders could have achieved that value in a merger transaction was fatal to fraud/breach of fiduciary duty claim.
Publication Date: 2022-02-01
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Retail
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Adams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Julia B. Klein, Klein, LLC, Wilmington, DE, for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Ann M. Kashishian, Kashishian Law, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jack J. Nichols, Jack J. Nichols, P.C., Houston, TX for defendant.
Case Number: D69697
The court held that the convertible debentures at issue were conditional because they contained an express condition for payment which made the agreement a contract and not a negotiable instrument.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Charles F. Herring, JR, Jason M. Panzer, Leah Turner
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-01-18
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory V. Varallo, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark Lebovitch, Daniel E. Meyer, Margaret Sanborn- Lowing, Joseph W. Caputo, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Kevin M. Gallagher, Matthew D. Perri, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Jonathan K. Youngwood, Rachel S. Sparks Bradley, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York, NY; Stephen P. Blake, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Bradley R. Aronstam, S. Michael Sirkin, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; John A. Neuwirth, Joshua S. Amsel, Evert J. Christensen, Jr., Matthew S. Connors, Nicole E. Prunetti, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69679
The court found that plaintiff's claim was direct, not derivative, the claims were not exclusively contractual, and that the claims were not holder claims predicated on stockholder inaction.
Publication Date: 2022-01-18
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Marc S. Casarino, Karine Sarkisian, Kelly Rowe, White and Williams LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jarrod D. Shaw and Keisha O. Coleman, McGuire Woods LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, for plaintiff.
for defendant: Kevin M. Gallagher, Angela Lam, Christian C.F. Roberts, Richards, Layton, & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69681
The court held that plaintiff venture capital firm failed to state claims against its investors for tort and quasi-contract claims.
Publication Date: 2021-12-28
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Food and Beverage | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey Gorris, Christopher M. Foulds, Friedlander & Gorris P.A., Wilmington, DE; P. Bradford deLeeuw, Deleeuw Law LLC, Wilmington, DE; David A. Jenkins, Robert K. Beste III, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Eduard Korsinsky, Gregory M. Nespole, Nicholas I. Porritt, Daniel Tepper, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, New York, NY; Jeffrey S. Abraham, Mitchell M. Z. Twersky, Atara Hirsch, Michael J. Klein, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, New York, NY; Lawrence P. Eagel, W. Scott Holleman, Melissa A. Fortunato, Marion C. Passmore, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., New York, NY; Michael VanOverbeke, Vanoverbeke, Michaud & Timmony, P.C., Detroit, MI; Deborah Sturman, Sturman LLC, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Michael A. Pittenger, Jacqueline A. Rogers, Caneel Radinson-Blasucci, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sandra C. Goldstein, Stefan Atkinson, Kevin M. Neylan, Jr., Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY; Matthew D. Stachel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Daniel J. Kramer, Andrew J. Ehrlich, William A. Clareman, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69657
The court held that plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient allegations that a majority of the demand board was interested in a stock sale transaction such that demand would be excused.
Publication Date: 2021-12-28
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Judge: Judge Stickles
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D69654
The court held that, in this adversary proceeding, the trustee's delay in moving to amend its complaint was not undue; if the amendment was allowed, the defendant would not suffer prejudice, the motion was not brought in bad faith, and the amend-ment would relate back to the original complaint for purposes of the applicable statute of limitations.
Publication Date: 2021-12-21
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Wallace
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Wilks, Scott B. Czerwonka, Wilks Law, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jordan E. Stern, William H. Newman, Becker, Glynn, Muffly, Chassin & Hosinski, LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Catherine A. Gaul, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; David B. Anthony, Berger Harris LLP, Wilmington, DE; Beth A. Bryan, Taft Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, Cincinnati, OH for defendants.
Case Number: D69649
The court held that plaintiff's claims were not ripe or justiciable and its breach of representations claim failed to state a claim where plaintiff did not and could not plead damages.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read