• Laidlaw v. GigAcquisitions2, LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-03-14
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael J. Barry, Grant & Eisenhoffer, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael Klausner, Stanford, CA, attorneys for plaintiff;
    for defendant: John L. Reed, Ronald N. Brown & Kelly L. Freund, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE; Melanie E. Walker & Gaspard Rappoport, DLA Piper LLP (US), Los Angeles, CA, attorneys for defendants.

    Case Number: 2021-0821-LWW

    Breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from SPAC merger could proceed where plaintiff plausibly pled claims under entire fairness review by asserting that proxy statement contained material misstatements and omissions.

  • Mehra v. Teller

    Publication Date: 2023-03-14
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Consumer Products
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John L. Reed, Peter H. Kyle, Kelly L. Freund, DLA Piper LLP, Wilmington, DE; Patrick J. Smith, Brian T. Burns, Smith Zillazor LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Jon E. Abramczyk, D. McKinley Measley, Alexandra Cumings, Elizabeth A. Mullin, Sebastian Van Oudenallen, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: 2019-0812-KSJM

    Although LLC agreement entitled member to continued economic distribution rights after Holdco distributed the shares it held in its subsidiary, the subsidiary was not an indispensable party where its manager and preferred members were already parties to the action and had authority to amend the subsidiary's LLC agreement.

  • Golden v. ShootProof Holdings, LP

    Publication Date: 2023-03-14
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: E-Commerce
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael A. Barlow, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Rollo C. Baker, IV, Margaret Schmidt, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Bradley R. Aronstam, S. Reiko Rogozen, Holly E. Newell, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Yehudah L. Buchweitz, Joshua S. Amsel, Andrew Cauchi, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: 2022-0434-MTZ

    Complaint based on false representations made during merger negotiations barred by antireliance and integration clauses of the parties' merger agreement, which did not run afoul of Washington state antiwaiver laws.

  • In re McDonald's Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2023-03-14
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Food and Beverage | Investments and Investment Advisory | Retail
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael J. Barry, Christine M. Mackintosh, Rebecca A. Musarra, Vivek Upadhya, Michael D. Bell, Grant & Eisenhoffer P.A., Wilmington, DE; Barbara J. Hart, Grant & Eisenhoffer P.A., New York, NY; Geoffrey M. Johnson, Scott+Scott Attorneys At Law LLP, Cleveland Heights, OH; Jing-Li Yu, Scott+Scott Attorneys At Law LLP, New York, NY; Max R. Huffman, Scott+Scott Attorneys At Law LLP, San Diego, CA; Jeffrey M. Norton, Benjamin D. Baker, Newman Ferrara LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Garrett B. Moritz, S. Reiko Rogozen, Holly E. Newell, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ronald L. Olson, George M. Garvey, Robert L. Dell Angelo, Brian R. Boessenecker, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel C. Herr, Law Offices of Daniel C. Herr LLC, Wilmington, DE; Shawn P. Naunton, Kathleen M. Miller, Julie M. O’Dell, Jason Z. Miller, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: 2021-0324-JTL

    The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss because plaintiff shareholders failed to plead facts sufficient to establish a claim for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of employee lawsuits and damaged reputation that resulted from the company's directors' decision to ignore red flags pertaining to a corporate culture that condoned sexual harassment and misconduct.

  • Soligenix, Inc. v. Emergent Prod. Dev. Gaithersburg, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-03-07
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Biotechnology | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard L. Renck, Mackenzie M. Wrobel, Coleen W. Hill, Duane Morris LLP, Wilmington, DE; Frederick R. Ball, Duane Morris LLP, Boston, MA; Patrick C. Gallagher, Duane Morris LLP, Boca Raton, FL for petitioner.
    for defendant: Jon E. Abramczyk, Ryan D. Stottman, Grant Michl, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jake Goodelman, John Dougherty, Thomas Wintner, Katherine Galle, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky, and Pompeo, P.C., Boston, MA for respondents.

    Case Number: 2022-0880-PAF

    Motion for continued confidential treatment of petition to vacate arbitration award denied where there was nothing inherently confidential about arbitration and court was not bound by the parties' stipulated protective order during their arbitration.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Florida Construction Defect Litigation 2022

    Authors: Gary L. Brown

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • In re Lordstown Motors Corp.

    Publication Date: 2023-03-07
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Automotive | Investments and Investment Advisory | Manufacturing
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Kevin M. Gallagher, Alexander M. Krischik, Edmond S. Kim, Nicholas F. Mastria, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for petitioner.
    for defendant: NA

    Case Number: 2023-0083-LWW

    Court approved de-SPAC transaction approved by Class A and Class B common stockholders voting as single class where company conducted stockholder vote in good faith belief as to its validity, the transaction was treated as effective by the equities markets, and significant harm could come to the company in the absence of validation.

  • Malkani v. Cunningham

    Publication Date: 2023-02-21
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    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

    Parties had reached valid and enforceable contract where plaintiff met his performance obligation under the contract and his request for ancillary documents was not material to the parties' agreement as plaintiff continued to perform.

  • HighTower Holding, LLC v. Gibson

    Publication Date: 2023-02-21
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel C. Herr, Law Office of Daniel C. Herr LLC, Wilmington, DE; Matthew D. Henneman, Scott D. Smith, Henneman Rau Kirklin & Smith LLP, Houston, TX for plaintiff.
    for defendant: John H. Newcomer, Jr., Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew P. Campbell, Todd Campbell, Erin G. Godwin, Campbell Partners, LLC, Birmingham, AL for defendant.

    Case Number: 2022-0086-LWW

    Preliminary injunction denied where plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on merits of breach of non-compete claim where Alabama law would likely apply despite the parties' Delaware choice-of-law provision as the non-compete would offend Alabama public policy and give it the weightier interest in the case.

  • Malkani v. Cunningham

    Publication Date: 2023-02-14
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: 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

    Parties' written investment contract was valid and enforceable where investor did not expressly reject the contract and the parties' subsequent actions demonstrated their intent to be bound to the contract and their belief that the contract contained all material terms of their deal.

  • Franklin v. Glenhill Advisors LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-02-14
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Retail
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David L. Finger, Finger & Slanina, LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: F. Troupe Mickler IV, Marie M. Degnan, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE; John B. Horgan, Joanna R. Cohen, Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP, New York, NY; John D. Hendershot, Andrew L. Milam, Melissa A. Lagoumis, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Bryan B. House, Foley & Lardner LLP, Milwaukee, WI; Scott J. Leonhardt, Jason A. Gibson, The Rosner Law Group LLC, Wilmington, DE; S. Preston Ricardo, Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: 2021-1119-LWW

    Court declined to vacate judgment where alleged new evidence was already known to plaintiff and plaintiff failed to plead the existence of any fraud, and where plaintiff waited more than two years to file his motion, choosing instead to relitigate the issues in another jurisdiction in the interim.