Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
462 results for '* industry:"Investments and Investment Advisory"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2024-04-08
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Valihura
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ned Weinberger, Mark Richardson, Brendan W. Sullivan, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer, David M. Sborz, Jackson E. Warren, Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, DE; John Vielandi, Labtaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY; Jeremy Friedman, David Tejtel, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC, Bedford Hills, NY; Douglas E. Julie, W. Scott Holleman, Garam Choe, Julie & Holleman LLP, New York, NY; Brian J. Robbins, Stephen J. Oddo, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for appellants.
for defendant: Kevin G. Abrams, Eric A. Veres, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; John A. Neuwirth, Stefania D. Venezia, Amanda K. Pooler, Elizabeth M. Sytsma, Tanner S. Stanley, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY for appellees.
Case Number: 241, 2023
Chancery court erred in reviewing squeeze-out merger under business judgment review where proxy statement failed to disclose potential conflicts of interest of the special committee's financial and legal advisors.
Publication Date: 2024-04-01
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Adams
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: N23C-07-144 MAA CCLD
Complaint seeking payment of settlement consideration was an action at law rather than a request for specific performance, meaning jurisdiction was proper in the superior court rather than the chancery court.
Publication Date: 2024-03-26
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Real Estate
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Ambro
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John Bash, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Austin, TX; Daniel C. Posner, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Eric W. Pinker, Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann, LLP, Dallas, TX; Ricardo Palacio, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE for appellants.
for defendant: Nicole A. Saharsky, Minh Nguyen-Dang, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC; Michael P. Lennon, Charles S. Kelley, Jr., Susan L. Alkadri, Mayer Brown LLP, Houston, TX; Bryan J. Hall, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, Wilmington, DE; Jeffrey M. Scott, Archer & Greiner, P.C., Philadelphia, PA for appellee.
Case Number: 22-3019
Original tenant could not be held liable under assigned lease which was amended by the landlord and assignee without the original tenant's knowledge or consent.
Publication Date: 2024-03-18
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Food and Beverage | Hospitality and Lodging | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Restrepo
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 23-1297
Seller did not breach implied covenant of good faith in negotiations simply by increasing its asking price, as non-binding letter of intent allowed parties to terminate negotiations except to breach exclusivity provision.
Publication Date: 2024-03-11
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Manufacturing | Retail
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Judge Wallace
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin M. Coen, Rachel R. Tunney, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Nicholas Cutaia, Jaclyn Grodin, Goulston & Storrs PC, New York, NY; Joshua M. Looney, Nora A. Saunders, Goulston & Storrs PC, Boston, MA for plaintiff.
for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, Peter C. Cirka, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 2023-0470 PRW
Although claimant had potentially known about facts underlying fraud/misrepresentation claims for some time, the court declined to apply laches to bar the claims where they were filed within the analogous statutes of limitations. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss denied; defendants' motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Joseph S. Britton
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2024-03-11
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Rosemary J. Piergiovanni, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; A. Arnold Gershon, Michael A. Toomey, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Kevin M. Gallagher, Robert L. Burns, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. Wilmington, DE; Kevin G. Abrams, Peter Shindel Jr., Matthew L. Miller, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., David M.J. Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 2017-0354-SG
Law of the case precluded settlement objector's challenge to the adequacy of consideration where revised settlement merely deleted provisions improperly releasing future claims and the court had previously found the retained provisions fair and beneficial to the corporation and its stockholders.
Publication Date: 2024-03-11
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Bradley R. Aronstam, Roger S. Stronach, Benjamin M. Whitney, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jordan A. Goldstein, Lauren J. Zimmerman, Babak Ghafarzade, Selendy Gay PLLC, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Blake Rohrbacher, Matthew W. Murphy, John M. O’Toole, Edmond S. Kim, Spencer V. Crawford, Margaret Rockey, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Harry P. Susman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, TX; Thomas W. Briggs, Jr., Kirk Andersen, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew K. Glenn, Glenn Agre Bergman & Fuentes LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 2024-0106-LWW
Court declined to preliminarily enjoin invocation of drag-along rights where the invocation was not inconsistent with the terms of the proposed merger agreement or the minority securityholders' agreements and the minority could obtain monetary relief if the court ultimately found an improper invocation.
Publication Date: 2024-03-11
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip Trainer, Jr., Marie M. Degnan, Randall J. Teti, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Marcos D. Jimenez, Marcos D. Jimenez, P.A., Miami, FL for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Ryan P. Newell, Lakshmi A. Muthu, Tara C. Pakrouh, Michael A. Carbonara, Jr., Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Heyden, Jr., Joseph E. Brenner, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 2020-1004-SG
Although defendant prevailed on some claims asserted by plaintiff, plaintiff was the prevailing party in the overall litigation as the central issue in the case was the validity and enforceability of the parties' contracts, and thus plaintiff was entitled to legal fees and costs under the contractual fee-shifting provisions.
Publication Date: 2024-02-26
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas Curry, Taylor D. Bolton, Saxena White P.A, Wilmington, DE; David Wales, Saxena White P.A., White Plains, NY; Adam Warden, Saxena White P.A; Boca Raton, FL for plaintiff.
for defendant: John P. DiTomo, Miranda N. Gilbert, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; William Savitt, Anitha Reddy, Getzel Berger, Emma S. Stein, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, NY for defendant.
Case Number: 2023-0309-JTL
Court denied summary judgment dismissal of complaint challenging legality of stockholders' agreement provisions on grounds of laches and ripeness, where equitable defenses could not validate a void contractual provision and where stockholder could launch a facial attack against challenged provisions without having to wait for company controllers to breach fiduciary duties.
Publication Date: 2024-02-19
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Wallach
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Francis J. Murphy, Jr., Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon, Wilmington, DE; Steven M. Coren, Benjamin M. Mather, Matthew R. Williams, Kauffman, Coren & Ress, P.C, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Brian M. Rostocki, Anne M. Steadman, Justin M. Forcier, Reed Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jonathan K. Youngwood, Janet A. Gochman, Tyler A. Anger, Katherine A. Hardiman, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, New York, NY; Kevin R. Shannon, Daniel Rusk, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Tracy Richelle High, Scott A. Foltz, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 15-00897-EJW
Although plaintiffs' experts' report in support of their damages theory for class certification used sufficiently reliable methodologies under the Daubert standard, the evidence was wholly speculative to demonstrate economic loss or proximate causation, such that plaintiffs could not meet the commonality or predominance standards.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read