Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
289 results for '* topic:"Corporate Governance"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-01-18
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Energy | Mining and Resources
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Blake A. Bennett, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael J. Palestina, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, New Orleans, LA; Juan E. Monteverde, Miles D. Schreiner, Monteverde & Associates PC, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Rolin P. Bissell, James M. Yoch, Jr., Alberto E. Chávez, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Holmes, Virginia DeBeer, Vinson & Elkins L.L.P., Dallas, TX for defendants.
Case Number: D69678
The court held that plaintiffs' complaint failed to state causes of action against alleged controlling and conflicted stockholders and directors for breach of fiduciary duties when they approved a merger.
Publication Date: 2022-01-18
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Marc S. Casarino, Karine Sarkisian, Kelly Rowe, White and Williams LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jarrod D. Shaw and Keisha O. Coleman, McGuire Woods LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, for plaintiff.
for defendant: Kevin M. Gallagher, Angela Lam, Christian C.F. Roberts, Richards, Layton, & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69681
The court held that plaintiff venture capital firm failed to state claims against its investors for tort and quasi-contract claims.
Publication Date: 2021-12-28
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Food and Beverage | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey Gorris, Christopher M. Foulds, Friedlander & Gorris P.A., Wilmington, DE; P. Bradford deLeeuw, Deleeuw Law LLC, Wilmington, DE; David A. Jenkins, Robert K. Beste III, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Eduard Korsinsky, Gregory M. Nespole, Nicholas I. Porritt, Daniel Tepper, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, New York, NY; Jeffrey S. Abraham, Mitchell M. Z. Twersky, Atara Hirsch, Michael J. Klein, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, New York, NY; Lawrence P. Eagel, W. Scott Holleman, Melissa A. Fortunato, Marion C. Passmore, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., New York, NY; Michael VanOverbeke, Vanoverbeke, Michaud & Timmony, P.C., Detroit, MI; Deborah Sturman, Sturman LLC, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Michael A. Pittenger, Jacqueline A. Rogers, Caneel Radinson-Blasucci, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sandra C. Goldstein, Stefan Atkinson, Kevin M. Neylan, Jr., Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY; Matthew D. Stachel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Daniel J. Kramer, Andrew J. Ehrlich, William A. Clareman, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69657
The court held that plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient allegations that a majority of the demand board was interested in a stock sale transaction such that demand would be excused.
Publication Date: 2021-12-14
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Corinne Elise Amato, Kevin H. Davenport, Jason W. Rigby, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Eric L. Zagar, Matthew C. Benedict, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor, PA; Patrick C. Lynch, Lynch & Pine, Providence, RI, for plaintiff.
for defendant: Paul J. Lockwood, Jenness E. Parker, Jacob J. Fedechko, Trevor T. Nielsen, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Wilmington, DE; John L. Reed, Ronald N. Brown, III, Peter H. Kyle, Kelly L. Fruend, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE; Rudolf Koch, Matthew D. Perri, Andrew L. Milam, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Roberto M. Braceras, Caroline H. Bullerjahn, John A. Barker, Dylan E. Schweers, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA; Kurt M. Heyman, Gillian L. Andrews, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hir-zel, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brandon F. White, Euripides Dalmanieras, Leah S. Rizkallah, Foley Hoag LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.
Case Number: D69638
The court held in this derivative suit that demand was not excused where there was no showing that at least five members of a nine-member board of directors were unable to consider a pre-suit demand. Motions to dismiss granted.
Publication Date: 2021-12-14
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Biotechnology | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen E. Jenkins, F. Troupe Mickler, IV, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Gregory V. Varallo, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Daniel E. Meyer, Margaret Sanborn-Lowing, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Gustavo F. Bruckner, Samuel J.Adams, Daryoush Behbood, Pomerantz LLP, New York, NY; Sascha N. Rand, Rollo C. Baker, IV , Silpa Maruri, Jesse Bernstein, Charles H. Sangree, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; Stanley D. Bernstein, Matthew Guarnero, Bernstein Liebhard LLP, New York, NY; William J. Fields, Christopher J. Kupka, Samir Shukurov, Fields Kupka & Shukurov LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Brock E. Czeschin, Andrew L. Milam, Richards Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Riccardo DeBari, Renee Zaytsev, Mendy Pie-karski, Thompson Hine, New York, NY; Matthew F. Davis, Abraham C. Schneider, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Douglas A. Rappaport, Kaitlin D. Shapiro, Elizabeth C. Rosen, Madeleine R. Freeman, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69639
The court held that plaintiff shareholders were required to make a demand on the board prior to filing suit. Because they did not make a demand, their claims failed. Motion to dismiss granted.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: George Bochetto, David P. Heim, John A. O’Connell, Robert S. Tintner
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2021-12-07
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Neal C. Belgam, Jason Z. Miller, Michael C. Wagner, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Christopher M. Caparelli, Torys LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Thomas G. Macauley, Macauley LLC, Wilmington, DE; Euripides D. Dalmanieras, Foley Hoag LLP, Boston, MA for defendant.
Case Number: D69631
Where a corporation failed to update its stock ledger after acknowledging a convertible note holder's conversion into preferred stock, court could look to extrinsic evidence beyond the ledger to determine standing for a §220 demand.
Publication Date: 2021-12-07
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Manufacturing | Software | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Phillip Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., New York, NY; Timothy Brown, The Brown Law Firm, P.C., Oyster Bay, NY; Marion C. Passmore, Melissa A. Fortunato, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Lori W. Will, Nora M. Crawford, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Gregory L. Watts, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Seattle, WA for defendants.
Case Number: D69636
The court found the settlement in this derivative action to be fair and reasonable where the balance of the Girsh factors favored settlement.
Publication Date: 2021-11-30
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Blake A. Bennett, Cooch & Taylor, P.A. Wilmington, DE, Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Albert Y. Chang, Anne Beste, Yury A. Kolesnikov, Bottini & Bottini, Inc., La Jolla, CA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Jonathan A. Choa, Potter, Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Koji Fukumura, Peter M. Adams, Heather Speers, Cooley, LLP, San Diego, CA; Brian French, Cooley, LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69626
The court held that plaintiffs' claims for breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment should be dismissed for failing to plead demand futility.
Publication Date: 2021-11-16
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Pharmaceuticals
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Steven J. Purcell, Douglas E. Julie, Robert H. Lefkowitz, Anisha Mirchandani, Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Blake Rohrbacher, Alexander M. Krischik, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Caroline H. Bullerjahn, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA; Peter B. Ladig, Brett M. McCartney, Bayard P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69606
The court held that plaintiffs' amended complaint satisfied pleading requirements for a claim of breach of fiduciary duty concerning board approval and implementation of charter amendments where 1) plaintiffs made a valid demand on the board to correct a violation and 2) the allegations supported an inference that the demand was wrongfully refused.
Publication Date: 2021-11-02
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Financial Services and Banking
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin H. Davenport, John G. Day, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Art. C. Aranilla, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Brett A. Scher, Patrick M. Kennell, Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP, New York, NY for defendant.
Case Number: D69591
Motion to dismiss challenge to board election denied where motion referred to documents outside of the pleadings, requiring conversion of the motion to one for summary judgment, under which standard the court determined that further factfinding was required.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read