Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
328 results for '* industry:"Technology Media and Telecom"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2021-10-27
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Paul J. Lockwood, Arthur R. Bookout, Matthew P. Majarian, Kathryn S. Bartolacci, Gregory P. Ranzini, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; David E. Ross, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE for petitioner.
for defendant: Michael A. Pittenger, Berton W. Ashman, Jr., David A. Seal, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; William Savitt, Adam M. Gogolak, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, NY for claimants.
Case Number: D69582
During the process of sale and dissolution, company failed to provide sufficient security to cover potential indemnification claims incurred by buyer.
Publication Date: 2021-10-20
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Consulting | Software | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Stark
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian M. Gottesman, David B. Anthony, Peter C. McGivney, Berger Harris LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs
for defendant: Paul D. Brown, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Keith M. Fleischman, Joshua D. Glatter, June Park, Fleischman Bonner & Rocco LLP, White Plains, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69576
Plaintiffs properly stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty and libel.
Publication Date: 2021-10-20
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel K. Astin, Ciardi Ciardi & Astin, Wilmington, DE; Richard D. Greenfield, Marguerite R. Goodman, Ann M. Caldwell, Greenfield & Goodman LLC, Philadelphia, PA; Albert A. Ciardi III, Walter W. Gouldsbury III, Ciardi, Ciardi & Astin, Philadelphia, PA; Kevin H. Davenport, Samuel L. Closic, John G. Day, Elizabeth Wang, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Peter B. Andrews; Craig J. Springer, David M. Sborz, Andrews & Springer, LLC; Geoffrey M. Johnson, Scott+Scott Attorneys At Law LLP, Cleveland Heights, OH; Donald A. Broggi, William C. Fredericks, Scott R. Jacobsen, Jing-Li Yu, Scott+Scott Attorneys At Law LLP, New York, NY; Daniel B. Rehns, Frank R. Schirripa, Kurt M. Hunciker, Kathryn Hettler, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP, New York, NY; Brian J. Robbins, Stephen J. Oddo, Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Rob-bins LLP, San Diego, CA; Thomas J. McKenna, Gregory M. Egleston, Gainey McKenna & Egleston, New York, NY; Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Daniel E. Barenbaum, Berman Tabacco, San Francisco, CA; Joseph W. Cotchett, Mark Molumphy, Julia Peng, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP; Thaddeus J. Weaver, Dilworth Paxson LLP, Wilmington, DE; Frederic S. Fox, Laurence D. King, Hae Sung Nam, Donnie Hall, Aaron Schwartz, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, New York, NY; Kathleen A. Herkenhoff, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Oakland, CA; Catherine Pratsinakis, Dilworth Paxson LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Nathan A. Cook, Mae Oberste, Block & Leviton LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kurt M. Heyman, Melissa N. Donimirski, Aaron M. Nelson, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jason M. Leviton, Joel Fleming, Lauren G. Milgroom, Block & Leviton LLP, Boston, MA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: David E. Ross, R. Garrett Rice, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Orin Snyder, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY; Brian M. Lutz, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA; Paul J. Collins, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Joshua S. Lipshutz, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.
Case Number: D69574
The court held that consolidation of cases was not appropriate where one case's derivative plaintiffs made no demand on the corporate board and the other case's single plaintiff chose to make a demand that was subsequently refused.
Publication Date: 2021-10-13
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Carmella P. Keener, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Thomas R. Ajamie, David S. Siegel, Ryan van Steenis, Ajamie LLP, Houston, TX; Michael A. Pullara, Houston, Texas; Marcus E. Montejo, Kevin H. Davenport, John G. Day, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs
for defendant: Maurice L. Brimmage, Jr., Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Dallas, TX; Todd C. Schiltz, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Wilmington, DE; William M. Connolly, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Zoë K. Wilhelm, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants.
Case Number: D69570
Court declined to award dissociation damages where controlling partner failed to comply with provisions of agreement between partnership and another affiliate of the controlling partner, but where such failure did not constitute a breach of the partnership agreement.
Publication Date: 2021-10-06
Practice Area: Dispute Resolution
Industry: E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rudolf Koch, Ryan D. Konstanzer, Richards, Layton, & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Joseph P. Rockers, Batoul Husain, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Peter B. Ladig, Thad J. Bracegirdle, Justin C. Barrett, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: D69559
Where the parties' various agreements adopted different dispute resolution procedures, although each version delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator, the court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction to determine arbitrability where there was no unmistakable evidence that the parties had agreed to submit one party's claims to that party's chosen arbitral forum.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: SHARI L. KLEVENS, ALANNA G. CLAIR
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2021-09-29
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Electronics | Software | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Davies
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Rodney Smolla, Wilmington, DE; Justin A. Nelson, Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, TX; Stephen Shackleford, Jr., Elisha Barron, Susman Godfrey LLP, New York, NY; Davida Brook, Emily Cronin, Brittany Fowler, Susman Godfrey LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Stephen E. Morrissey, Susman Godfrey LLP, Seattle, WA; Thomas A. Clare, P.C; Megan L. Meier, Dustin A. Pusch, Daniel P. Watkins, Clare Locke LLP, Alexandria, VA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: R. Bruce McNew, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Howard Kleinhendler, New York, NY for nonparties Defending the Republic, Inc. and Sidney Powell.
Case Number: D69553
Nonparties were not entitled to reargument, because the court's order only involved issuance of a subpoena and nonparties failed to show that the court overlooked legal precedent or misapprehended the law or facts in a way that affected the outcome of the order.
Publication Date: 2021-09-29
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Davis
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John L. Reed, Peter H. Kyle, Kelly L. Freund, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE for petitioners.
for defendant: Samuel A. Nolen, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Andrew Hammond, Michelle Letourneau-Belock, Bryan Beaudoin, White & Case LLP, New York, NY for respondent.
Case Number: D69551
The Delaware Supreme court held that stockholders could waive their statutory appraisal rights.
Publication Date: 2021-09-22
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: Insurance | Software | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: J. Clayton Athey, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Hugh J. Marbury, Ryan P. Bottegal, Cozen O’Connor, Washington, DC; Stuart M.G. Seraina, Baldwin Seraina, Baltimore, MD for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Brian Lemon, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Scott S. Christie, McCarter & English, LLP, Newark, NJ for defendant.
Case Number: D69545
Significant factual disputes precluded summary judgment in this case involving end user licensing agreements for plaintiffs' software products.
Publication Date: 2021-09-15
Practice Area: Deals and Transactions
Industry: Advertising | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Davis
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Larry R. Wood, Jr., Brandon W. McCune, Blank Rome LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Rudolf Kock, Travis S. Hunter, Nicole K. Pedi, Valeria A. Caras, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: D69538
Defendant adequately stated a counterclaim for breach of contract, but the court granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaim for fraud in the inducement.
Publication Date: 2021-09-15
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
Attorneys: 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.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read