0 results for''Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP''
You can use
to get even better search results
NVIDIA Corp. v. City of Westland Police & Fire Ret. Sys.
Publication Date: 2022-08-02Practice Area:Corporate Governance
Industry:Investments and Investment Advisory |
Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Supreme CourtJudge: Justice Montgomery-ReevesAttorneys:For plaintiff: Gregory P. Williams, Brock E. Czeschin, Christian C.F. Roberts, Richards, Layton, & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; John C. Dwyer, Patrick E. Gibbs, Claire A. McCormack, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA for appellant.For defendant: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Gina M. Serra, Herbert W. Mondros, Rigrodsky Law, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Frank R. Schirripa, Hillary Nappi, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP, New York, NY; Gregory Mark Nespole, Daniel Tepper, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, New York, NY; Travis E. Downs III, Erik W. Luedeke, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; Thomas J. McKenna, Gregory M. Egleston, Gainey McKenna & Egleston, New York, NY; Beth A. Keller, Monteverde & Associates PC, New York, NY for appellees.Case number: D69906
Stockholders in §220 action could not rely on their own hearsay evidence to prove proper purpose where they refused to identify potential witnesses to permit the company the opportunity to conduct depositions.
Teamster Members Ret. Plan v. Dearth
Publication Date: 2022-06-21Practice Area:Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry:Manufacturing
Court: Court of ChanceryJudge: Vice Chancellor ZurnAttorneys:For plaintiff: R. Bruce McNew, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randall J. Baron, David T. Wissbroecker, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; Christopher H. Lyons, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Nashville, TN for plaintiff.For defendant: Stephen C. Norman, Tyler J. Leavengood, Christopher D. Renaud, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Michael L. Kichline, Matthew D. Klayman, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Robert H. O’Leary, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendants.Case number: D69854
Alleged omissions of information regarding company value were insufficient to render stockholder vote uninformed, thereby validating a single-bidder transaction.
Goldstein v. Denner
Publication Date: 2022-06-07Practice Area:Corporate Governance
Industry:Biotechnology |
Investments and Investment Advisory |
Pharmaceuticals
Court: Court of ChanceryJudge: Vice Chancellor LasterAttorneys:For plaintiff: Kevin H. Davenport, John G. Day, Prickett, Jones & Elliott P.A., Wilmington, DE; R. Bruce McNew, Cooch & Taylor P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randall J. Baron, David T. Wissbroecker, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; Christopher H. Lyons, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Nashville, TN; Brett Middleton, Johnson Fistel, LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.For defendant: Matthew D. Stachel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Daniel J. Kramer, Geoffrey R. Chepiga, Daniel J. Juceam, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY; Stephen E. Jenkins, Richard D. Heins, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Tariq Mundiya, Sameer Advani, Richard Li, M. Annie Houghton-Larsen, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York, NY for defendants.Case number: D69839
Non-exculpated fiduciary duty claims against directors survived dismissal where plaintiff pled sufficient facts to support inference that directors were financially and professionally aligned with activist investor/director who allegedly profited off insider information to the detriment of public shareholders.
Hipple v. Oatly Group AB
Publication Date: 2022-06-02Practice Area:Commercial Law
Industry:Court: Supreme Court, New YorkJudge: Justice Andrew BorrokAttorneys:For plaintiff: Plaintiff by: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Melville, NY.For defendant: Defendants by: Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY.Case number: 2022 NY Slip Op 50411
Stay Granted in Securities Fraud Action as Identical Southern District Court Case Proceeds
Wei v. Zoox, Inc.
Publication Date: 2022-02-15Practice Area:Discovery
Industry:Technology Media and Telecom |
Transportation
Court: Court of ChanceryJudge: Chancellor McCormickAttorneys:For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris, David Hahn, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randall J. Baron, David A. Knotts, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; Christopher H. Lyons, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Nashville, TN for petitioners.For defendant: David J. Teklits, Thomas P. Will, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; William D. Savitt, Anitha Reddy, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, NY for respondent.Case number: D69714
The court held that appraisal petitioners should not be allowed to obtain full discovery in this appraisal proceeding because it was commenced for the purpose of conducting pre-suit investigation for evidence of breach of fiduciary duty.
Chester County Empls. Ret. Fund. V. Alnylam Pharms. Inc.
Publication Date: 2022-01-06Practice Area:Securities Litigation
Industry:Pharmaceuticals
Court: Supreme Court, New YorkJudge: Justice Robert ReedAttorneys:For plaintiff: For defendant: Case number: 655272/2019
Court Discusses Fairness of Settlement Between Parties to Securities Class Action
Rodriguez v. DraftKings Inc.
Publication Date: 2021-11-18Practice Area:Securities Litigation
Industry:Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, U.S. - SDNYJudge: District Judge Paul EngelmayerAttorneys:For plaintiff: For defendant: Case number: 21-CV-5739
Class Suits Against Sports Gaming Firm Consolidated; Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Appointed
Midsize firms stepped into a case challenging a mask mandate and a lawsuit that alleges violations of due process by a prosecutor.
2 minute read
Teamsters Local 237 Additional Sec. Benefit Fund v. Caruso
Publication Date: 2021-09-15Practice Area:Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry:Investments and Investment Advisory |
Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of ChanceryJudge: Vice Chancellor FioravantiAttorneys: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: 2021-09-15Practice Area:Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry:Pharmaceuticals
Court: Court of ChanceryJudge: Vice Chancellor ZurnAttorneys: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.
Debug Screen: mobile
TRENDING STORIES
More from ALM
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.