Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
1,623 results for '* court:"Court of Chancery"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2024-04-08
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry: Automotive | E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Christine M. Mackintosh, Rebecca A. Musarra, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Kimberly A. Evans, Robert Erikson, Irene R. Lax, Block & Leviton LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jason M. Leviton, Amanda R. Crawford, Block & Leviton LLP, Boston, MA; Ned Weinberger, Mark Richardson, Jiahui (Rose) Wang, Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP, Wilmington, DE; Domenico Minerva, John Vielandi, Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Joseph R. Slights III, Brad D. Sorrels, Shannon E. German, Leah E. León, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Wilmington, DE; David E. Ross, Adam D. Gold, R. Garrett Rice, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brian M. Lutz, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA; Colin B. Davis, Katie Beaudin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Irvine, CA; John L. Reed, Ronald N. Brown, III, Peter H. Kyle, Kelly L. Freund, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 2020-0415-KSJM
Court granted special litigation committee's motion to dismiss derivative action where members were sufficiently independent and disinterested and conducted a seven-month-long investigation that uncovered sufficient evidence to support the decision to move to dismiss.
Publication Date: 2024-04-01
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael Hanrahan, Corinne Elise Amato, Kevin H. Davenport, Stacey A. Greenspan, Christine N. Chappelear, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Lee D. Rudy, Eric L. Zagar, J. Daniel Albert, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor, PA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Edward B. Micheletti, Lauren N. Rosenello, Michelle L. Davis, Peyton V. Carper, Claire K. Atwood, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; Elena C. Norman, Daniel M. Kirshenbaum, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephen P. Blake, Laura Lin, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Sareen K. Armani, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants.
Case Number: 2022-1001-KSJM
Although the Delaware General Corporation Law only required a corporate board to approve and recommend an essentially complete version of a merger agreement, the draft version approved by defendants failed to meet this standard by omitting key terms and ancillary documents repeatedly referenced throughout the agreement.
Publication Date: 2024-04-01
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory V. Varallo, Andrew E. Blumberg, Mae Oberste, Daniel E. Meyer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kimberly A. Evans, Lindsay K. Faccenda, Irene R. Lax, Robert Erickson, Block & Leviton LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Jeremy Friedman, David Tejtel, Christopher Windover, Lindsay La Marca, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC, Bedford Hills, NY; Jason Leviton, Block & Leviton LLP, Boston, MA; D. Seamus Kaskela, Adrienne Bell, Kaskela Law LLC, Newtown Square, PA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Kevin R. Shannon, J. Matthew Belger, Jaclyn C. Levy, Christopher D. Renaud, Justin T. Hymes, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Matthew W. Close, Jonathan B. Waxman, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Abby F. Rudzin, Asher Rivner, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, NY, New York; Bradley R. Aronstam, S. Michael Sirkin, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; John A. Neuwirth, Evert J. Christensen, Jr., Stefania D. Venezia, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 2023-0449-JTL
Court declined to certify order denying motion to dismiss where the order did not decide novel legal issues or issues of substantial importance and where interlocutory review was unlikely to materially advance the resolution of the litigation.
Publication Date: 2024-03-26
Practice Area: Creditors' and Debtors' Rights
Industry: Biotechnology
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Adam Hiller, Hiller Law, LLC, Wilmington, DE
for defendant: Patrick Costello, Vectis Law, Redwood City, CA for assignee.
Case Number: 2023-1294-PAF
Court denied assignee's motion to appoint appraisers and fix a bond where assignee failed to file a timely inventory and obtained appraisers without court approval.
Publication Date: 2024-03-18
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Health Care
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Christopher J. Day, Day Law Group, LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Michael J. Maiomone, Gabriella Mouriz, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 2022-0728-SG
Chancery court lacked jurisdiction over complaint seeking specific performance where the relief sought by plaintiff was legal in nature and the parties' contract could not confer jurisdiction.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2024-03-18
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Chemicals and Materials | Energy | Manufacturing
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Paul D. Brown, Joseph B. Cicero, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Janet A. Hendrick, Michele C. Spillman, Angela M. Buchanan, Phillips Murrah P.C., Dallas, TX for plaintiffs.
for defendant: P. Clarkson Collins, Jr., K. Tyler O’Connell, Kirsten Zeberkiewicz, Morris James, Wilmington, DE; Sean D. Walsh, Scott R. Schillings, Matthew K. Holcomb, Hinkle Law Firm, Wichita, KS for defendants.
Case Number: 2021-0659-SG
Contractual limitations period rendered breach of asset purchase agreement facially untimely, and there were no allegations of misconduct by defendants that would warrant tolling the limitation period.
Publication Date: 2024-03-11
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Manufacturing | Retail
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Judge Wallace
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin M. Coen, Rachel R. Tunney, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Nicholas Cutaia, Jaclyn Grodin, Goulston & Storrs PC, New York, NY; Joshua M. Looney, Nora A. Saunders, Goulston & Storrs PC, Boston, MA for plaintiff.
for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, Peter C. Cirka, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 2023-0470 PRW
Although claimant had potentially known about facts underlying fraud/misrepresentation claims for some time, the court declined to apply laches to bar the claims where they were filed within the analogous statutes of limitations. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss denied; defendants' motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part.
Publication Date: 2024-03-11
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Rosemary J. Piergiovanni, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; A. Arnold Gershon, Michael A. Toomey, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Kevin M. Gallagher, Robert L. Burns, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. Wilmington, DE; Kevin G. Abrams, Peter Shindel Jr., Matthew L. Miller, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., David M.J. Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 2017-0354-SG
Law of the case precluded settlement objector's challenge to the adequacy of consideration where revised settlement merely deleted provisions improperly releasing future claims and the court had previously found the retained provisions fair and beneficial to the corporation and its stockholders.
Publication Date: 2024-03-11
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Bradley R. Aronstam, Roger S. Stronach, Benjamin M. Whitney, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jordan A. Goldstein, Lauren J. Zimmerman, Babak Ghafarzade, Selendy Gay PLLC, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Blake Rohrbacher, Matthew W. Murphy, John M. O’Toole, Edmond S. Kim, Spencer V. Crawford, Margaret Rockey, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Harry P. Susman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, TX; Thomas W. Briggs, Jr., Kirk Andersen, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew K. Glenn, Glenn Agre Bergman & Fuentes LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 2024-0106-LWW
Court declined to preliminarily enjoin invocation of drag-along rights where the invocation was not inconsistent with the terms of the proposed merger agreement or the minority securityholders' agreements and the minority could obtain monetary relief if the court ultimately found an improper invocation.
Publication Date: 2024-03-11
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
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
Although defendant prevailed on some claims asserted by plaintiff, plaintiff was the prevailing party in the overall litigation as the central issue in the case was the validity and enforceability of the parties' contracts, and thus plaintiff was entitled to legal fees and costs under the contractual fee-shifting provisions.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read