Filter This View

  • Swift v. Houston Wire & Cable Company

    Publication Date: 2021-12-21
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Distribution and Wholesale
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Blake A. Bennett, Cooch and Taylor P.A., Wilmington, DE; W. Scott Holleman, Garam Choe, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Mark Hurd, Miranda Gilbert, Morris, Nichols, Arsht, & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kayvan Sadeghi, Schiff Hardin LLP, New York, NY; Jin Yan, Schiff Hardin LLP, Chicago, IL for defendant.
    Case Number: D69647

    The court held that plaintiff did not have standing to file a suit to compel production of books and records of corporation be-cause, at the time of initiating litigation, plaintiff was not a stockholder in the corporation.

  • White Winston Select Asset Funds, LLC v. Good Times Rest., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-11-09
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Food and Beverage
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Bibas
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard A. Barkasy, Kristi J. Doughty, Stephen A. Fogdall, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis LLP, Wilmington, DE; Daniel M. Pereira, Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Catherine A. Gaul, Michael Dean Walker, Jr. Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Peter L. Loh, Davis G. Mosmeyer III, Sara A. Brown, Foley & Lardner LLP, Dallas, TX for defendant.
    Case Number: D69605

    Motion for leave to amend granted where the new proposed claims were based in part on facts that were not known to plaintiff until revealed during discovery.

  • Pacira Biosciences, Inc. v. Fortis Advisors LLC

    Publication Date: 2021-11-09
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Biotechnology | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Lisa A. Schmidt, Raymond J. DiCamillo, Megan E. O’Connor, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randy M. Mastro, Declan T. Conroy, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: R. Judson Scaggs, Jr., Lauren K. Neal, Sarah P. Kaboly, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Christopher J. Marino, Davis Malm & D’agostine, P.C., Boston, MA; Henry E. Gallagher, Jr., Shaun Michael Kelly, Jarrett W. Horowitz, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: D69603

    Claims that former owners and employees of acquired company improperly interfered with acquirer's operation of the business were dismissed where the parties' merger agreement contained no express non-compete/non-interference language and defendants' cited actions did not rise to the level of bad faith interference or communication with the acquirer's employees.

  • Chertok v. Zillow, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-11-02
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory | Real Estate
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael J. Maimone, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Geoffrey G. Grivner, Kody M. Sparks, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
    Case Number: D69590

    Complaint seeking contractual remedies from a merger, filed six years after the closing of the merger transaction, was patently untimely under the applicable statute of limitations.

  • In Re: Altaba, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-10-27
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Paul J. Lockwood, Arthur R. Bookout, Matthew P. Majarian, Kathryn S. Bartolacci, Gregory P. Ranzini, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; David E. Ross, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE for petitioner.
    for defendant: Michael A. Pittenger, Berton W. Ashman, Jr., David A. Seal, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; William Savitt, Adam M. Gogolak, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, NY for claimants.
    Case Number: D69582

    During the process of sale and dissolution, company failed to provide sufficient security to cover potential indemnification claims incurred by buyer.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Texas Personal Automobile Insurance Policy 2020

    Authors: Janet K. Colaneri

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Yatra Online, Inc. v. Ebix, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-09-15
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Software | Transportation | Travel and Tourism
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory V. Varallo, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP; Wilmington, DE; Mark Lebovitch, Daniel E. Meyer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Alisa E. Moen, Moen Law LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Paul J. Lockwood, Cliff C. Gardner, Elisa M.C. Klein, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; Tammy L. Mercer, Lakshmi A. Muthu, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert A. Muckenfuss, Kelly A. Warlich, McGuireWoods LLP, Charlotte, NC; Kayla J. Marshall, McGuireWoods LLP, Washington DC; Michael D. DeBaecke, F. Troupe Mickler IV, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Victor A. Walton, Jr., Eric W. Richardson, David F. Hine, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, Cincinnati, OH for defendants.
    Case Number: D69537

    Where plaintiff terminated a merger agreement, the termination provision in the agreement prevented plaintiff from re-covering against defendant for breach of contract.

  • Ligos v. Isramco, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-09-15
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Energy
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Corinne Elise Amato, Kevin H. Davenport, Samuel L. Closic, Stephen D. Dargitz, Jason W. Rigby, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Eric L. Zagar, J. Daniel Albert, Justin O. Reliford, Christopher M. Windover, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor, PA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: William B. Chandler III, Bradley D. Sorrels, Daniyal M. Iqbal, Nora M. Crawford, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Steven Guggenheim, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Palo Alto, CA; S. Mark Hurd, Daniel T. Menken, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnel, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Danny David, Amy Pharr Hefley, Baker Botts L.L.P., Houston, TX; Bradley R. Aronstam, Adam D. Gold, Anthony M. Calvano, Ross Aronstam & Moritz, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: D69535

    Business judgment review at the pleadings stage denied where minority stockholders were not informed that controller standing on both sides of cash-out merger transaction had also participated in an arbitration that would affect the value assets that made up a critical component of the company's overall value, thereby supporting an inference that the stockholder approval was uninformed.

  • Teamsters Local 237 Additional Sec. Benefit Fund v. Caruso

    Publication Date: 2021-09-15
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris, Christopher M. Foulds, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Gregory V. Varallo, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark Lebovitch, Jeroen van Kwawegen, Andrew E. Blumberg, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, New York, NY; Randall J. Baron, David Wissbroecker, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; Christopher H. Lyons, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Nashville, TN for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Edward B. Micheletti, Cliff C. Gardner, Veronica B. Bartholomew, Gregory P. Ranzini, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
    Case Number: D69536

    Claim of breach of fiduciary duty by CEO with conflict of interest in merger transaction failed where there was no allegation that the independent board was unreasonable in its oversight activities during the negotiation process or that CEO acted to undermine the board's authority.

  • Kihm v. Mott

    Publication Date: 2021-09-15
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffery M. Gorris, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; R. Bruce McNew, Cooch & Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randall J. Baron, David Wissbroecker, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; Christopher H. Lyons, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Nashville, TN; Peretz Bronstein, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, April M. Kirby, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter L. Welsh, Elena Weissman Davis, Ropes & Gray LLP, Boston, MA; Timothy R. Farrell, Ropes & Gray LLP, Chicago, IL; Christian Reigstad, Ropes & Gray LLP, New York, NY; Paul D. Brown, Joseph B. Cicero, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Roger A. Lane, Courtney Worcester, Holland & Knight LLP, Boston, MA; Daniel A. Mason, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Bruce Birenboim, Susanna M. Buergel, Christopher L. Filburn, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
    Case Number: D69534

    Post-closing fiduciary claims against directors failed where none of the alleged omissions from the board's disclosure statement to stockholders rendered the statement deficient, such that the approval of the transaction by a majority of informed, uncoerced stockholders relieved the directors from any liability for fiduciary claims arising from the sale of the company.

  • Flannery v. Genomic Health, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-09-01
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Biotechnology
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Samuel L. Closic, Eric J. Juray, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Stephen J. Oddo, Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Eric M. Carrino, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Robert S. Saunders, Stefania A. Rosca, Matthew R. Conrad, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; C. Barr Flinn, Emily V. Burton, Peter J. Artese, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Douglas A. Rappaport, Kaitlin D. Shapiro, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, New York, NY; Daniel A. Mason, Brendan W. Sullivan, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Daniel J. Toal, Geoffrey Chepiga, Caitlin E. Grusauskas, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY; William M. Lafferty, Daniel T. Menken, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Tariq Mundiya, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
    Case Number: D69521

    The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claims, because plaintiff did not establish any improper conduct in connection with a merger.