• Hill v. LW Buyer, LLC

    Publication Date: 2019-08-14
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: C. Barr Flinn, Emily V. Burton and Elisabeth S. Bradley,Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Nicholas M. Oertel, Richard C. Kraus and James B. Jensen, Jr., Foster Swift Collins & Smith PC, Lansing, MI for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: William J. Lafferty, Kevin M. Coen and Jarrett W. Horowitz, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Craig S. Primis and K. Winn Allen, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC for defendant.

    Case Number: D68665

    The court granted summary judgment on buyer's claims for indemnification of tax payments because those claims were not ripe for adjudication.

  • Windy City Inv. Holdings, LLC v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass'n of Am.

    Publication Date: 2019-08-07
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Ross and Eric D. Selden, Ross, Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; K. Winn Allen, Kasdin M. Mitchell, Holly R. Trogdon and Rebecca W. Forrestal, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Michael A. Pittenger, Jennifer C. Wasson and Tyler J. Leavengood, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mary Eaton, Zeh Ekono and Le-Ahn Bui, Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York, NY for defendant.

    Case Number: D68661

    Plaintiff adequately stated its claims for declaratory relief as to an earn-out provision in the parties' contract, and plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of a clause allowing access to books and records.

  • Ephrat v. medCPU, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-07-24
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry: Software
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Douglas D. Herrman, James H.S. Levine, Ellis E. Herington and Jay A. Dubow, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Wilmington, DE and Philadelphia, PA for petitioners.
    for defendant: Patricia L. Enerio and Aaron M. Nelson, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Adam P. Samansky, Frank J. Earley and Andre Cizmarik, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Pope, P.C., Boston, MA and New York, NY for respondent.

    Case Number: D68639

    Former directors and officers were entitled to some advancement under former employer's corporate charter where employer's allegations of misappropriation of confidential information and property arose, at least in part, from the former directors' and officers' status as directors and officers to which they were entitled advancement for claims arising from such status.

  • Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. v. BlackRock Credit Allocation Income Trust

    Publication Date: 2019-07-17
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Carmella P. Keener of Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Carol S. Shahmoon and Gregory E. Keller, Shahmoon Keller PLLC, Great Neck NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: William M. Lafferty, D. McKinley Measley, Thomas P. Will and Lauren P. Russell, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wil-mington, DE; Tariq Mundiya, Sameer Advani, Alexander L. Cheney and Brittany M. Wagonheim, Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York, NY for BlackRock Credit Allocation Income Trust and BlackRock New York Municipal Bond Trust. Robert S. Saunders, Ronald N. Brown, III and Eben P. Colby, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, Wilmington, DE and Boston MA for BlackRock Advisors, LLC, Robert Fairbairn and John Perlowski. Gregory P. Williams and Kevin M. Regan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; John S. Kiernan and Jeremy Feigelson, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York, NY for remaining defendants.

    Case Number: D68635

    The court held that companies could not invalidate a shareholder's nominees due to the failure to return an overly broad ques-tionnaire within a short time frame, and the court further required that votes in favor of the shareholder's nominees should be counted at the next annual meetings.

  • Reith v. Lichtenstein

    Publication Date: 2019-07-10
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Software
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew S. Dupre and Alexandra M. Joyce, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Eduard Korsinsky, Amy Miller, William J. Fields and Samir Shukurov, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: John M. Seaman, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Thomas J. Fleming, Adrienne Ward and Kerrin T. Klein, Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP, New York, NY for defendants Lichtenstein, Howard, Kassan Fejes and Steel Holdings defendants. Gregory V. Varallo, Matthew D. Perri and Sarah T. Andrade, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants Fenton, Legyel and Wald.

    Case Number: D68626

    Pre-suit demand was excused in this derivative action.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings and Related Torts in Pennsylvania, Second Edition

    Authors: George Bochetto, David P. Heim, John A. O’Connell, Robert S. Tintner

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Brown v. Rite Aid Corp.

    Publication Date: 2019-06-05
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Retail
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John M. Seaman and Matthew L. Miller, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ray Shepard, The Shepard Law Firm LLC, Pasadena, MD for plaintiff
    for defendant: David J. Margules, Jessica C. Watt, and Evan W. Krick, Ballard Spahr LLP, Wilmington, DE; William A. Slaughter and William B. Igoe, Ballard Spahr LLP, Philadelphia, PA for defendant

    Case Number: D68583

    Former director/officer was entitled to mandatory indemnification by prevailing in corporate lawsuit against him for acts taken in his official capacity by ultimately enforcing court's prior order barring corporation from asserting suits against its directors and officers.

  • In the Matter of the Liquidation of Indem. Ins. Corp.

    Publication Date: 2019-05-29
    Practice Area: Creditors' and Debtors' Rights
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Insurance
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Christopher P. Simon and Kevin S. Mann, Cross & Simon, LLC, Wilmington, DE; James J. Black III, Jef-frey B. Miceli and Mark W. Drasnin, Black & Gerngross, P.C., Philadelphia, PA for Delaware Ins. Comm'r as receiver for Indemnity Ins. Co, RRG.
    for defendant: David S. Eagle, Sally E. Veghte and Francis M. Correll, Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP, Wilming-ton, DE and Philadelphia, PA for intervening third-party plaintiff Branch Banking and Trust Co.

    Case Number: D68579

    The court granted a bank's motion for summary judgment to exclude a receiver's equitable defenses, because the bank sought only legal relief.

  • Coyne v. Fusion Healthworks, LLC

    Publication Date: 2019-05-15
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities | Trusts and Estates
    Industry: Health Care | Insurance
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kathleen Coyne, pro se plaintiff.
    for defendant: Josiah R. Wolcott, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: D68558

    Dismissal of deceased LLC member's spouse's claim for proceeds of company-purchased life insurance policy not dismissed where LLC agreement did not terminate upon dissolution, when dissolution reasonably required member vote.

  • Otto Candies LLC v. KPMG, LLP

    Publication Date: 2019-05-08
    Practice Area: Business Torts | Civil Procedure
    Industry: Consulting | Transportation
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Ross, Ross, Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Terry L. Wit, A. William Urquhart, Juan P. Morillo, Derek L. Shaffer, and Lauren H. Dickie, Quinn Emanual Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA and Washington, DC for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Kevin R. Shannon, Matthew F. Davis, and Christopher N. Kelly, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gregory G. Ballard and Jose F. Sanchez, Sidley Austin LLP, New York, NY; Todd Schlitz, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert A. Scher and Jonathan H. Friedman, Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, NY; Timothy Jay Houseal, Jennifer M. Kinkus, and William E. Gamgord, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ana C. Reyes, Williams & Connolly, LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.

    Case Number: D68551

    Actions transferred from superior court to chancery court subject to a fully-briefed and argued motion to dismiss were subject to the chancery court's rule requiring plaintiffs subject to such a motion to either seek leave to amend or stand on their complaint and risk dismissal with prejudice; however, as a matter of first impression the court declined to enforce the rule on plaintiffs.

  • Takeda Pharm. U.S.A., Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-04-24
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner and Jonathan A. Choa, Potter Anderson Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; William F. Cavanaugh, Irena Royzman, Jacob F. Siegel, Eric B. LaPre and Sara A. Arrow, Patterson Belnap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Kelly E. Farnan and Blake Rohrbacher, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Robert W. Trenchard, Jane M. Love and Mark H. Mixon, Jr., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY for de-fendant.

    Case Number: D68539

    An alleged patent infringer had an adequate remedy at law in the form of a license defense in foreign patent litigation, so the Delaware court did not have subject matter jurisdiction in this declaratory relief matter.