Filter This View

  • In Re Appraisal of Columbia Pipeline Grp., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-09-12
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Energy
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen E. Jenkins, Andrew D. Cordo, Marie M. Degnan, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Marcus E. Montejo, Kevin H. Davenport, John G. Day, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Mark Lebovitch, Jeroen van Kwawegen, Christopher J. Orrico, John Vielandi, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for petitioners
    for defendant: Martin S. Lessner, James M. Yoch, Jr., Paul J. Loughman, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brian J. Massengill, Linda X. Shi, Mayer Brown LLP, Chicago, IL, attorneys for respondent.
    Case Number: D68280

    Motion for continued confidential treatment of litigation records denied where moving party failed to demonstrate good cause to overcome the presumption in favor of the right of public access to judicial records.

  • QC Holdings, Inc. v. Allconnect, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-09-12
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes | Corporate Entities | Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: S. Mark Hurd, Alexandra M. Cumings, Danny David, Benjamin Sweet and Kelly Hanen for plaintiff
    for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, Cameron T. Kirby, Matthew L. DiRisio and Thomas G. Weber for defendant.
    Case Number: D68283

    A party properly exercised its rights under a put agreement, so the company was contractually obligated to pay the put price.

  • Godden v. Franco

    Publication Date: 2018-09-05
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Cargo and Shipping
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Samuel T. Hirzel, II, Melissa N. Donimirski, Elizabeth A. DeFelice, HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL, LLP, Wilmington, DE, Kevin H. Marino, John D. Tortorella, John A. Boyle, MARINO, TORTORELLA & BOYLE, P.C., Chatham, NJ, Kostas D. Katsiris, VENABLE LLP, NY, NY, for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Elena C. Norman, Richard J. Thomas, Benjamin M. Potts, YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert M. Sulkin, Gregory J. Hollon, MCNAUL, EBEL, NAWROT & HELGREN PLLC, Seattle, WA, for defendant.
    Case Number: D68273

    A written consent to terminate a corporate office was not self-executing with regard to all of the company's subsidiaries.

  • Domain Assocs., LLC v. Shah

    Publication Date: 2018-08-29
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian M. Rostocki and Benjamin P. Chapple, Reed Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE; Scott D. Baker and James A. Daire, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, attorneys for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Elena C. Norman, Tammy L. Mercer, and Lakshmi Muthu, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael A. Kahn and Nathaniel P. Bualat, Crowell & Moring, San Francisco, CA, attorneys for defendant.
    Case Number: D68264

    In the absence of an express operating agreement provision, expelled LLC member entitled to fair value of membership interest as of date of withdrawal.

  • In re Oxbow Carbon LLC Unitholder Litigation

    Publication Date: 2018-08-15
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kenneth J. Nachbar, Thomas W. Briggs, Jr., Richard Li, R. Robert Popeo, Michael S. Gardener and Breton Leone-Quick for Oxbow Carbon LLC; Stephen C. Norman, Jaclyn C. Levy, Daniyal M Iqbal, Da-vid B. Hennes, C. Thomas Brown, Adam M. Harris and Elizabeth D. Johnston for Koch parties
    for defendant: Kevin G. Abrams, Michael A. Barlow, April M. Ferraro, Brock E. Czeschin, Matthew D. Perri, Sarah A. Galetta, Chad Johnson, Jennifer Barrett and Silpa Maruri for Crestview parties; J. Clayton Athey, John G. Day, Dale C. Christensen, Jr., and Michael B. Weitman for Loan Line Capital LLC.
    Case Number: D68250

    Where a party disrupted and delayed an exit sale, the court awarded both the remedies of specific performance and compensatory damages.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Delaware County Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Penton Bus. Media Holdings, Inc. v. Informa PLC

    Publication Date: 2018-07-25
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: William M. Lafferty, John P. DiTomo, Coleen Hill, Craig S. Primis, Erin C. Johnston and Matthew S. Brooker for plaintiff
    for defendant: Kevin R. Shannon, Christopher N. Kelly, Jaclyn C. Levy, Anthony M. Candido, Robert C. Myers and Benjamin A. Berringer for defendants.
    Case Number: D68227

    A merger agreement contained specific provisions regarding an expert's role in the dispute resolution process, which precluded consideration of extrinsic evidence.

  • Basho Techs. Holdco B, LLC v. Georgetown Basho Invs., LLC

    Publication Date: 2018-07-18
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: R. Montgomery Donaldson and Robert A. Penza, Polsinelli PC, Wilmington, DE; Robert V. Spake, Polsinelli PC, Kansas City, MO, attorneys for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Barry M. Klayman, Cozen O'Connor, Wilmington, DE; Lezlie Madden, Cozen O'Connor, Philadelphia, PA, attorneys for defendants.
    Case Number: D68215

    Controlling stockholder breached fiduciary duties by forcing company to accept onerous financing terms from stockholder, which permitted stockholders to gain actual control of company and direct it to engage in unfair self-dealing transactions.

  • Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. v. ABS Capital Partners, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-06-27
    Practice Area: Contracts | Intellectual Property
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, and Alan R. Silverstein, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Chad M. Shandler, Matthew W. Murphy, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Steven F. Barley, Andrea W. Trento, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Baltimore, MD, attorneys for defendants.
    Case Number: D68190

    Misappropriation claim failed where only circumstantial evidence involved defendant's investment in competing business, an act it was permitted to do under the parties' agreements.

  • Deutsch v. ZST Digital Networks, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-06-27
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Hardware
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Theodore A. Kittila, James G. McMillan, III, Halloran Farkas & Kittila, LLP, Wilmington, DE; David Graff, Robins Kaplan LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for receiver
    for defendant: David L. Finger, Finger & Slanina, LLC, Wilmington, DE, attorney for non-parties.
    Case Number: D68191

    Foreign national officers of Delaware corporation could be subject to contempt proceedings in Section 220 action pursuant to statutory personal jurisdiction and privity with corporation.

  • The Marilyn Abrams Living Trust v. Pope Inv. LLC

    Publication Date: 2018-06-13
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas E. Hanson, Jr. and Jeffrey R. Blackwood for plaintiff
    for defendant: Jonathan M. Stemerman for defendants.
    Case Number: D68180

    A party that was awarded expenses under the bad faith exception to the American Rule was not entitled to re-cover expenses incurred on a subsequent appeal, nor was it able to recover additional fees incurred at the trial level.