0 results for ''Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP''
In re Oracle Corp. Derivative Litig.
Publication Date: 2021-07-07 Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory |
Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris of 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 Rud-man & Dowd LLP, Nashville, TN; Brian J. Robbins, Stephen J. Oddo, Gregory Del Gaizo, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for lead plaintiff. For defendant: Kenneth J. Nachbar, John P. DiTomo, Thomas P. Will, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sara B. Brody, Jaime A. Bartlett, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA; Matthew J. Dolan, Sidley Austin LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Thomas A. Beck, Blake K. Rohrbacher, Susan M. Hannigan, Matthew D. Perri, Daniel E. Kaprow, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Kevin R. Shannon, Berton W. Ashman, Jr., Pot-ter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Arthur H. Aufses, Jonathan M. Wagner, Jason M. Moff, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY; Elena C. Norman, Nicholas J. Rohrer, Richard J. Thomas, Benjamin Potts, Kevin P. Rickert, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter A. Wald, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA; Blair Connelly, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY for defendants. Case number: D69458
The court granted motions to dismiss as to two defendants in this breach of fiduciary duty matter, but it de-nied another defendant's motion because that party was not independent and had actively participated in the negotiation of the challenged transaction.
In re Pattern Energy Group Inc. Stockholders Litig.
Publication Date: 2021-05-26 Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Energy |
Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ned Weinberger, Mark Richardson, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Wilmington, DE; David MacIsaac, John Vielandi, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY; Chad Johnson, Noam Mandel, Desiree Cummings, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, New York, NY; Brian Schall, Rina Restaino, The Schall Law Firm, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiff. For defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, April M. Kirby, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Alan S. Goudiss, K. Mallory Brennan, Deke Shearon Shearman & Sterling LLP; Christina Urhausen, Shearman & Sterling LLP, San Francisco, CA; Rudolf Koch, Matthew D. Perri, Andrew L. Milam, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Matthew A. Schwartz, Y. Carson Zhou, John-Francis S. Flynn, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY for defendants. Case number: D69408
Stockholder could seek entire fairness review of company sale under controller theory where investor that had formed the company continued to exercise soft power over the company's management, which allegedly prioritized the investor's interests over shareholder value during the sales process.
Appellate Division, First Department: April 29, 2021
Publication Date: 2021-05-03 Practice Area: Civil Appeals |
Criminal Appeals
Industry:
Court: Appellate Division, First Department, Appeal & Motion Lists Judge: Unsigned Attorneys: For plaintiff: For defendant: Case number: DOCKET
Appellate Division, First Department: April 29, 2021
Kazi v. XP Inc.
Publication Date: 2021-02-18 Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry:
Court: Supreme Court, New York Judge: Justice Barry Ostrager Attorneys: For plaintiff: Plaintiff was Represented By: Joseph Russello of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Ralph M. Stone of Johnson Fistel, LLP. For defendant: Defendants were Represented By: Antonio J. Perez-Marques, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP and Jed M. Schwartz, Milbank LLP. Case number: 651774/2020
Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Represent Shareholders Regarding XP's Initial Public Offering
In Re Viacom Inc. Stockholders Litig.
Publication Date: 2021-01-13 Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory V. Varallo, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Edward G. Timlin, Andrew E. Blumberg, Daniel E. Meyer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Chad Johnson, Noam Mandel, Desiree Cummings, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, New York, NY; Christopher H. Lyons, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Nashville, TN; Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Anne B. Beste, Bottini & Bottini, Inc., La Jolla, CA for plaintiffs. For defendant: Matthew E. Fischer, Michael A. Pittenger, Christopher N. Kelly, J. Matthew Belger, Jacqueline A. Rogers, Callan R. Jackson, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Victor L. Hou, Rahul Mukhi, Mark E. McDonald, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, New York, NY; Gregory P. Williams, Blake Rohrbacher, Kevin M. Regan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Robert H. Baron, Gary A. Bornstein, Rory A. Leraris, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY; Jon E. Abramczyk, D. McKinley Measley, Alexandra M. Cumings, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stuart J. Baskin Randall Martin, Shearman & Sterling LLP, New York, NY for defendants. Case number: D69255
Controller standing on both sides of a merger transaction without dual protections for minority shareholders was required to defend transaction under entire fairness review standard rather than business judgment rule.
Appellate Division, First Department:December 3, 2020
Publication Date: 2020-12-07 Practice Area: Civil Appeals |
Criminal Appeals
Industry:
Court: Appellate Division, Second Department, Appellate Division, First Department: December 3, 2020 Judge: Unsigned Attorneys: For plaintiff: For defendant: Case number: DOCKET
Appellate Division, First Department:December 3, 2020
Dane v. UnitedHealthCare Ins. Co.
Publication Date: 2020-09-16 Practice Area: Consumer Protection |
Insurance Law |
Insurance Litigation
Industry: Insurance
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Judge: Circuit Judge Denny Chin Attorneys: For plaintiff: For Plaintiff-Appellant: Susan K. Alexander, Stuart A. Davidson, Christopher C. Gold, and Dorothy P. Antullis, on the brief, Andrew S. Love, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Francisco, California and Boca Raton, Florida, and Sean K. Collins, Law Offices of Sean K. Collins, Boston, Massachusetts. For defendant: For Defendants-Appellees United HealthCare Insurance Company and UnitedHealth Group, Inc.: Brian D. Boyle, Samantha M. Goldstein, and Jennifer B. Sokoler, on the brief, Meaghan Vergow, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, D.C. and New York, New York.
For Defendants-Appellees AARP, Inc., AARP Services, Inc., and AARP Insurance Plan: Jeffrey S. Russell, Noah M. Weissman, and Alec Winfield Farr, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, St. Louis, Missouri, New York, New York and Washington, D.C., and James T. Shearin, Pullman & Comley, LLC, Bridgeport, Connecticut. Case number: 19-2330-cv
Medigap Insured Fails to Allege Unlawful Rebate Over Royalty Fee to AARP
In re Oracle Corp. Derivative Litig.
Publication Date: 2020-08-05 Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory |
Software
Court: Court of Chancery Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris, Christopher P. Quinn and Bradley P. Lehman, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randall J. Baron, David A. Knotts and Christopher H. Lyons, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA and Nashville, TN; Brian J. Robbins, Stephen J. Oddo and Gregory Del Gaizo, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiff. For defendant: Kevin R. Shannon, Berton W. Ashman, Jr. and David A. Seal, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Arthur H. Aufses, Jonathan M. Wagner and Jason M. Moff, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY for Oracle Corp. special litigation committee. Elena C. Norman and Richard J. Thomas, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter A. Wald and Blair Connelly, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA and New York, NY for defendants Ellison and Catz. Kenneth J. Nachbar, John P. DiTomo and Thomas P. Will, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sara B. Brody, Jaime A. Bartlett and Matthew J. Dolan, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA and Palo Alto, CA for defendants Henley, James and Hurd. Thomas A. Beck, Blake Rohrbacher, Susan M. Hannigan, Matthew D. Perri and Daniel E. Kaprow, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for Oracle Corp. Case number: D69057
The court denied plaintiff's motion to compel because the documents sought were protected as work product and the op-posing party had not waived the privilege.
In re Oracle Corp. Derivative Litig.
Publication Date: 2020-07-22 Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory |
Software
Court: Court of Chancery Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris, Christopher P. Quinn and Bradley P. Lehman, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randall J. Baron, David A. Knotts and Christopher H. Lyons, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA and Nashville, TN; Brian J. Robbins, Stephen J. Oddo and Gregory Del Gaizo, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiff. For defendant: Kevin R. Shannon, Berton W. Ashman, Jr. and David A. Seal, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Arthur H. Aufses, Jonathan M. Wagner and Jason M. Moff, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY for Oracle Corp. special litigation committee. Elena C. Norman and Richard J. Thomas, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter A. Wald and Blair Connelly, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA and New York, NY for defendants Ellison and Catz. Kenneth J. Nachbar, John P. DiTomo and Thomas P. Will, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sara B. Brody, Jaime A. Bartlett and Matthew J. Dolan, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA and Palo Alto, CA for defendants Henley, James and Hurd. Thomas A. Beck, Blake Rohrbacher, Susan M. Hannigan, Matthew D. Perri and Daniel E. Kaprow, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for Oracle Corp. Case number: D69057
The court denied plaintiff's motion to compel because the documents sought were protected as work prod-uct and the opposing party had not waived the privilege.
In re: Oracle Corp. Derivative Litig.
Publication Date: 2020-07-08 Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Software
Court: Court of Chancery Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris, Christopher P. Quinn and Bradley P. Lehman, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randall J. Baron, David A. Knotts and Christopher H. Lyons, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA and Nashville, TN; Brian J. Robbins, Stephen J. Oddo and Gregory Del Gaizo, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiff. For defendant: Elena C. Norman and Richard J. Thomas, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter A. Wald and Blair Connelly, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA and New York, NY for defendants Ellison and Catz. Kenneth J. Nachbar, John P. DiTomo and Thomas P. Will, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sara B. Brody, Jaime A. Bartlett and Matthew J. Dolan, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA and Palo Alto, CA for defendants Henley, James and Hurd. A. Thompson Bayliss and E. Wade Houston, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; John W. Spiegel, George M. Garvey and John M. Gildersleeve, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendant Goldberg. Andrew S. Dupre and Sarah E. Delia, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert P. Feldman and Christopher D. Kercher, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA and New York, NY for defendant Nelson. Thomas A. Beck, Blake Rohrbacher, Susan M. Hannigan, Matthew D. Perri and Daniel E. Kaprow, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. , Wilmington, DE for nominal defendant Oracle Corp. Case number: D69043
Fiduciaries for an acquired entity did not engage in aiding and abetting, because they did not provide substantial assistance to the buyer's fiduciaries in breaching their duties.
TRENDING STORIES
More from ALM
- Holwell Shuster & Goldberg Partners Leverage 'Hostile' Witnesses to Secure $101 Million Verdict Against Walmart 1 minute read
- Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference Midwest 2024: Mike Andolina, Partner, White & Case 1 minute read
- Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference Midwest 2024: Carolyn Burbrink, Uber Director of Volume Mobility Safety and Insurance Litigation 1 minute read
Resources
Creating a Culture of Compliance
Brought to you by Ironclad
Download Now
A Buyer's Guide to Law Firm Software
Brought to you by PracticePanther
Download Now
A Step-by-Step Flight Plan for Legal Teams: Fire Up Your Productivity Engine and Deliver High-Impact Work Faster
Brought to you by HaystackID
Download Now
Corporate Transparency Act Resource Kit
Brought to you by Wolters Kluwer
Download Now