Filter This View

  • Inter-Marketing Group USA, Inc. v. Armstrong

    Publication Date: 2019-02-13
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities | Environmental Law
    Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Theodore A. Kittila, Halloran Farkas & Kittila LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gregory M. Nespole and Correy A. Kamin, Wolf HaldensteinAdler Freeman & Herz LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Srinivas M. Raju and Matthew W. Murphy, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Holmes, Craig E. Zieminski, Kimberly R. McCoy, and Jeffrey Crough, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, TX for defendants.
    Case Number: D68456

    Derivative complaint dismissed for failure to make demand, where demand would not be futile as a majority of directors were disinterested and independent as nominal defendant's partnership agreement eliminated the directors' personal liability.

  • Sheldon v. Pinto Tech. Ventures, L.P.

    Publication Date: 2019-02-06
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance | Securities Litigation
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thad J. Bracegirdle and Scott B. Czerwonka, Wilks, Lukoff & Bracegirdle, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jeff Joyce, Joyce & McFarland LLP, Houston, TX for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Brian C. Ralston and Jacqueline A. Rogers, Potter Anderson Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Danny Da-vid and Rebecca Huddle, Baker Botts LLP, Houston, TX for defendants Terry and Walker. Bruce E. Jameson and Samuel L. Closic, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; B. Russell Horton, George Brothers Kincaid & Horton, L.L.P., Austin, TX for Pinto Tech., RiverVest and Bay City Capital defendants.
    Case Number: D68451

    Defendants' successful effort to enforce a forum selection clause in the court of another state did not preclude them from arguing that a shareholder action was derivative.

  • CHC Inv., LLC v. FirstSun Capital Bancorp

    Publication Date: 2019-02-06
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities | Discovery
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: James D. Taylor, Jr., Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Manning, Jeffrey J. Goulder, Stefan M. Palys, and Christy M. Milliken, Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Phoenix, AZ for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jon E. Abramczyk, William M. Lafferty, and Sabrina M. Hendershot, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lawrence Portnoy and Julia Kiechel, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, New York, NY for defendant.
    Case Number: D68447

    Section 220 complaint was dismissed after stockholder had filed plenary action against corporation and could not demonstrate timing pressures created by defendant or need to discover additional information following a dismissal without prejudice.

  • Applied Energetics, Inc. v. Farley

    Publication Date: 2019-02-06
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities | Securities Litigation
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jason C. Jowers, Meghan A. Adams, and Ian D. McCauley, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; David A. Robinson, Benjamin P. Pugh, and Michael S. Wilde, Enterprise Counsel Group, a Law Corporation, Irvine, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Kathleen M. Miller and Clarissa R. Chenoweth, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ryan J. Whalen, Gusrae Kaplan Nusbaum PLLC, New York, NY for defendants.
    Case Number: D68446

    Preliminary injunction restricting transfer of stock allegedly issued in a director's breach of fiduciary duty was granted where company was likely to prove director lacked authority to issue the stock and director issued it at an unreasonably low price.

  • Ritchie Multi-Strategy Global, LLC v. Huizenga Managers Fund, LLC

    Publication Date: 2019-01-30
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Johnston
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John A. Sensing and Ryan C. Cicoski for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Steven L. Caponi and Matthew B. Goeller, K&L Gates, LLP; Christopher J. Barber, Williams Montgom-ery & John Ltd. for defendant.
    Case Number: D68443

    A stay of this Delaware proceeding was appropriate where an action in another state involving the same parties and operative facts was not yet final.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Florida Affirmative Defenses and Procedural Objections: With Forms 2024

    Authors: Joshua B. Spector, Paul D. Turner

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Oxbow Carbon & Minerals Holdings, Inc. v. Crestview-Oxbow Acquisition, LLC

    Publication Date: 2019-01-30
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Mining and Resources
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Valihura
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen C. Norman and Jaclyn C. Levy, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; David B. Hennes, C. Thomas Brown, Adam M. Harris and Elizabeth D. Johnston, Ropes & Gray LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs Oxbow Carbon & Mineral Holdings, Ingraham Investments, William I. Koch and Oxbow Carbon Investment Co. LLC. Kenneth J. Nachbar, Thomas W. Briggs, Jr. and Richard Li, Morris, Nich-ols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; R. Robert Popeo, Michael S. Gardener and Breton Leo-ne-Quick, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., Boston, MA for plaintiff
    for defendant: Oxbow Carbon LLC. Kevin G. Abrams, Michael A. Barlow and April M. Kirby, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brock E. Czeschin, Matthew D. Perri and Sarah A. Galetta, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael B. Carlinsky, Chad Johnson, Jennifer Barrett, Silpa Maruri, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; Christopher Landau, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sul-livan, LLP, Washington, DC for defendant Crestview-Oxbow Acquisition. J. Clayton Athey and John G. Day, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Dale C. Christensen, Jr and Michael B. Weitman, Seward & Kissell, LLP, New York, NY for defendant Load Line Capital
    Case Number: D68441

    The plain language of an LLC agreement governed the parties' dispute, and the trial court improperly implied a cove-nant where no contractual gap existed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

  • In re Xura, Inc. Stockholder Litig.

    Publication Date: 2019-01-02
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: A. Thompson Bayliss and David A. Seal, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Robert S. Saunders, Arthur R. Bookout, Matthew P. Majarian, and Haley S. Stern, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington DE; John L. Reed, Ethan H. Townsend, Peter H. Kyle, and Harrison S. Carpenter, DLA Piper LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: D68407

    Objecting shareholder could maintain parallel appraisal and breach of fiduciary duty claims where breach claims were based on failure to disclose material facts and shareholder sought traditional remedies for breach of fiduciary duty, such as rescission or disgorgement, rather than a quasi-appraisal remedy.

  • AR Capital, LLC v. XL Specialty Ins. Co.

    Publication Date: 2018-12-26
    Practice Area: Insurance Law | REITS | Securities Litigation
    Industry: Consulting | Insurance | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Carpenter
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jennifer C. Wasson and Carla M. Jones, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robin L. Cohen and Natasha Romagnoli, McKool Smith, PC, New York, NY for plaintiff
    for defendant: Stephen B. Brauerman and Sara E. Bussiere, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Joseph D. Jean, Alexander D. Hardiman, and Benjamin D. Tievsky, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, New York, NY for intervenor.
    Case Number: D68398

    Investment manager entitled to coverage under client's policy where endorsement on policy expressly defined manager under the definition of "company" entitled to coverage for securities claims.

  • Emerging Europe Growth Fund, L.P. v. Figlus

    Publication Date: 2018-12-26
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Consulting | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John G. Harris and Sean A. Meluney, Berger Harris LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Richard P. Rollo and Kevin M. Gallagher, Richards, Layton & Finger P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: D68403

    The parties' settlement agreement was ambiguous, and extrinsic evidence indicated that the scope of the release provision did not extend to a foreign divorce proceeding.

  • In re Fitbit, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2018-12-26
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Consumer Products | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer and David M. Sborz, Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Zeldin of Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A., Wilmington, DE, Melinda A. Nicholson and Michael R. Robinson, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, Madisonville, LA; Robert C. Schubert of Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, San Francisco, CA; Edward F. Haber of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, Boston, MA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Elena C. Norman, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP; Wilmington, DE; Jordan Eth, Anna Erickson White and Ryan M. Keats, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendants.
    Case Number: D68405

    Plaintiffs demonstrated demand futility, and their allegations were sufficient to state a claim against the company's board of directors for breach of fiduciary duty.