Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
1,621 results for '* court:"Court of Chancery"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-10-30
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Software
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Neil R. Lapinski, Phillip A. Giordano, Madeline R. Silverman, Gordon, Fournaris & Mammarella, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Garrett B. Moritz, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Thad J. Bracegirdle, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants. Albert H. Manwaring, IV & Kirsten A. Zeberkiewicz, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE for nominal defendant.
Case Number: 2023-0805-LWW
Reasoning that the master's report in the parties' divorce proceeding had not yet been adopted by the probate court and the defendant had not been removed as a general partner of the Family LP, plaintiff, acting alone, lacked the authority to direct the Family LP through a written consent to remove another board member of nominal defendant.
Publication Date: 2023-10-16
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Insurance
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas A. Uebler, McCollom D’Emilio Smith Uebler LLC, Wilmington, DE; Blake A. Bennett, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Melinda A. Nicholson, Nicolas Kravitz, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, New Orleans, LA; Benjamin I. Sachs-Michaels, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, New York, NY; Robert V. Prongay, Pavithra Rajesh, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Kevin M. Gallagher, Nicholas F. Mastria, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Jonathan Youngwood, Janet A. Gochman, Jacob Lundqvist, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 2022-0034-LWW
Court dismissed shareholders' derivative complaint for failure to plead demand futility where plaintiffs' fiduciary claims against the company's directors and officers failed to set forth a prima facie case of personal liability such that the board could not independently consider a litigation demand.
Publication Date: 2023-10-16
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Consumer Products | Manufacturing
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen C. Norman, Matthew F. Davis, Tyler J. Leavengood, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Elizabeth B. McCallum, Gilbert S. Keteltas, Carey S. Busen, Evan M. Mannering, Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jim W. Phillips, Jr., Kimberly M. Marston, Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, Greensboro, NC; Charles E. Coble, Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, Raleigh, NC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Gregory P. Williams, Rudolf Koch, Robert L. Burns, Matthew D. Perri, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Noel J. Francisco, C. Kevin Marshall, William D. Coglianese; Jones Day, Washington, D.C.; Stephanie E. Parker, Katrina L.S. Caseldine, Jones Day, Atlanta, GA; David B. Alden, Kevin P. Riddles; Jones Day, Cleveland, OH; Elli Leibenstein, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Chicago, IL; Stephen L. Saxl, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, NY; Andrea Shwayri Ferraro, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL for defendants.
Case Number: 2017-0129-LWW
Although seller was entitled to recover compensation for settlement payments it made based on post-closing sales of various acquired brands, trial was necessary to determine acquirers' entitlement to offsets and the availability of specific performance for future settlement payments.
Publication Date: 2023-10-16
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: E-Commerce | Non-Profit
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Neil R. Lapinski, Phillip A. Giordano, Madeline R. Silverman, Gordon, Fournaris & Mammarella, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Kenneth H. Young, intervenor, pro se.
Case Number: 2022-0107-PAF
Finding that plaintiffs had not demonstrated that board action was required to authorize defendant's wholly owned subsidiary's tender offer that resulted in its becoming defendant's majority stockholder, the court concluded that plaintiffs had not satisfied their burden to invalidate individual plaintiff's removal as a director of defendant's board.
Publication Date: 2023-10-16
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Judge Adams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Ross, Adam D. Gold, A. Gage Whirley, Ross Aronstam & Moritz, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark W. Premo-Hopkins, Katie Lencioni, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
for defendant: Henry E. Gallagher, Jr., Lauren DeLuca, Jarrett W. Horowitz, Connolly Gallagher, LLP, Wilmington, DE, Lazar P. Raynal, Melanie Burke, Tatum Ellis, King & Spalding, LLP, Chicago, IL for defendant.
Case Number: 2022-1149-MAA
Determining that the purchase agreement did not bar claims based on extra-contractual statements, the court declined to dismiss plaintiff's fraud claims concerning the purchase of defendant's company. The court also found that the detailed factual allegations contained in the complaint stated a claim for fraud and that fraud claims were not barred by the anti-bootstrapping rule.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-10-16
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ned Weinberger, Mark Richardson, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Edward G. Timlin, Eric J. Riedel, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Rudolf Koch, Kevin M. Gallagher, Daniel E. Kaprow, John M. O’Toole, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Thomas Uebler, McCollom D’Emilio Smith Uebler LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jason Cyrulnik, Paul Fattaruso, Matthew Henken, Cyrulnik Fattaruso LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 2017-0486-SG
Although controlling stockholder breached fiduciary duties by using his position to cause company to release an indemnification claim, the minority stockholders were only entitled to nominal damages due to significant obstacles to enforcing the claim which resulted in the release consideration being worth more than the company likely would have recovered attempting to enforce the claim.
Publication Date: 2023-10-02
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Robert C. McDonald, Adrienne M. McDonald, Silverman McDonald & Friedman, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Robert M. Goff, Jr., City of Wilmington Law Department, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 2019-0969-KSJM
Chancery court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction over former police officer's complaint challenging his termination for failure to comply with later-voided revised residency requirement, where declaratory judgment or certiorari review would be unlikely to afford relief given city's continued assertion, despite the striking down of the revised policy, that officer's termination was proper.
Publication Date: 2023-10-02
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry:
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas W. Briggs, Jr., Alexandra Cumings, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Holmes, Jeffrey Crough, Thomas Mitsch, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, TX; Matthew R. Freidenberg, Vinson & Elkins LLP, New York, NY; Scott B. Czerwonka, D. Charles Vavala, III, Wilks Law, LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Martin S. Lessner, Elisabeth S. Bradley, M. Paige Valeski, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant. John D. Hendershot, Matthew W. Murphy, Angela Lam, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for nominal defendant.
Case Number: 2022-0582-LWW
Noting that a contracting party is obligated to read any contract it signs including any documents incorporated by reference, the court denied defendant relief because it could have discovered the challenged loan terms by exercising ordinary care.
Publication Date: 2023-09-18
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin M. Coen, Alexandra M. Cumings, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jamie L. Wine, Steven N. Feldman, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Matthew W. Walch, Russell Mangas, Latham & Watkins LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Elizabeth A. Sloan, Brittany M. Giusini, Fred DeRitis, Ballard Spahr LLP, Wilmington, DE; Paul Lantieri III, Ballard Spahr LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Stephen B. Brauerman, Justin C. Barrett, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 2021-0210-PAF
Company president was liable for breaching his non-compete and fiduciary duties where the evidence supported finding that he diverted business opportunities to a competing company he founded.
Publication Date: 2023-09-18
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: A. Thompson Bayliss, Eric A. Veres, Joseph A. Sparco, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Paul J. Loh, Jason H. Wilson, Eileen M. Ahern, Amelia L.B. Sargent, Peter Shimamoto, Ashley L. Kirk, Kenneth M. Trujillo-Jamison, Breeanna N. Brewer, Caitlin F. Lynch, Willenken LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Kevin R. Shannon, Christopher N. Kelly, Daniel M. Rusk, IV, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Fred A. Kelly, Jr., Joshua S. Barlow, Tiffany Jang, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, D.C.; Mark Basanta, Aakruti G. Vakharia, Haug Partners LLP, New York, NY; Christopher Gosselin, Haug Partners LLP, Washington, D.C. for defendant.
Case Number: 2020-0953-SG
Plaintiff's damages methodology was found mostly reliable, as the court rejected defendant's assertion that plaintiff could have mitigated its damages since the evidence showed that defendant would not have cooperated with those mitigation efforts or the success of those efforts was speculative at best.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read