• Skye Mineral Investors, LLC v. DXS Capital (U.S.) Ltd.

    Publication Date: 2021-07-28
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Mining and Resources
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rudolf Koch, Kevin M. Gallagher, Daniel Kaprow of Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Jason Cyrulnik, Edward Normand, Paul Fattaruso, Cyrulnik Fattaruso LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Thomas W. Briggs, Jr., Miranda N. Gilbert, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Pedro A. Jimenez; Kevin C. Logue, Kevin P. Broughel, Nicholas Bassett, Katherine K. Solomon, Katherine Rookard, Paul Hastings LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: D69484

    Service upon defendants in a foreign country by mailing and posting was reasonably calculated to provide them with actual notice of the pending litigation, so the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.

  • Optimis Corp v. Atkins

    Publication Date: 2021-07-28
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Theodore A. Kittila, James G. McMillan, III, William E. Green, Halloran Farkas + Kittila LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Stephen B. Brauerman, Sarah T. Andrade, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: D69483

    A company adequately alleged claims for unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty against former di-rectors who obtained a derivative award in favor of the company, but then failed to turn over the funds.

  • Coster v. UIP Co., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-07-21
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Seitz
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Max B. Walton, Kyle Evans Gay, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael K. Ross, Thomas Shakow, Serine Consolino, Sean Roberts, Aegis Law Group LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Stephen B. Brauerman, Elizabeth A. Powers, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Deborah B. Baum, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.

    Case Number: D69471

    Chancery court erred in ruling that stock sale to break shareholder deadlock and avoid shareholder's action for appointment of a custodian for the company was permissible if the stock was sold at a fair price, as the company and its board and other shareholder were obligated to demonstrate a compelling justification for conducting the sale.

  • Pettry v. Smith

    Publication Date: 2021-07-21
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Cargo and Shipping
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Robert D. Goldberg, Biggs and Battaglia, Wilmington, DE; Brian J. Robbins, Stephen J. Oddo, Emily R. Bishop, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Lisa A. Schmidt, Alexander M. Krischik, Nicole M. Henry, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for individual defendants and nominal defendant FedEx Corp.

    Case Number: D69475

    The court dismissed this derivative action with prejudice, because plaintiff failed to adequately plead de-mand futility.

  • In re Oracle Corp. Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2021-07-07
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris of Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randall J. Baron, David A. Knotts, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; Christopher H. Lyons, Robbins Geller Rud-man & Dowd LLP, Nashville, TN; Brian J. Robbins, Stephen J. Oddo, Gregory Del Gaizo, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for lead plaintiff.
    for defendant: Kenneth J. Nachbar, John P. DiTomo, Thomas P. Will, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sara B. Brody, Jaime A. Bartlett, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA; Matthew J. Dolan, Sidley Austin LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Thomas A. Beck, Blake K. Rohrbacher, Susan M. Hannigan, Matthew D. Perri, Daniel E. Kaprow, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Kevin R. Shannon, Berton W. Ashman, Jr., Pot-ter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Arthur H. Aufses, Jonathan M. Wagner, Jason M. Moff, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY; Elena C. Norman, Nicholas J. Rohrer, Richard J. Thomas, Benjamin Potts, Kevin P. Rickert, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter A. Wald, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA; Blair Connelly, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: D69458

    The court granted motions to dismiss as to two defendants in this breach of fiduciary duty matter, but it de-nied another defendant's motion because that party was not independent and had actively participated in the negotiation of the challenged transaction.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New Jersey Medical Malpractice Law 2024

    Authors: Jonathan H. Lomurro, Gary L. Riveles, Abbott S. Brown

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • The Raj & Sonal Abhyanker Family Trust v. Blake

    Publication Date: 2021-06-30
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory | Software
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ann M. Kashishian, Kashishian Law LLC, Wilmington, DE; Raj Abhyanker, Nicholas Craft, Wensheng Ma, LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, Mountain View, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Alan D. Albert, O’Hagan Meyer PLLC, Wilmington, DE; Todd A. Roberts, Nicole S. Healy, Ropers Majeski, Redwood City, CA for defendants.

    Case Number: D69453

    The court granted motions to dismiss plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty and unjust claims based on the tacit concession doctrine and plaintiff's failure to allege a wrongful refusal of its pre-suit demands.

  • Lone Pine Resources, LP v. Dickey

    Publication Date: 2021-06-23
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Energy
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: R. Karl Hill, Seitz, Van Ogtrop & Green, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Rochelle R. Koerbel, Maureen E. Sweeny, Blumling & Gusky, LLP, Pittsburg, PA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Samuel T. Hirzel, II, Gillian L. Andrews, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE for defend-ants.

    Case Number: D69444

    The court granted motions to dismiss as to multiple defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction.

  • In re: Tilray, Inc. Reorganization Litig.

    Publication Date: 2021-06-23
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer, Jessica Zeldin, David M. Sborz, Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, DE; Gregory V. Varallo, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark Lebovitch, Da-vid Wales, Andrew Blumberg, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, New York, NY; Jeffrey M. Gorris, Christopher M. Foulds, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Jeremy S. Friedman, David F.E. Tejtel, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC, Bedford Hills, NY; D. Seamus Kaskela, Kaskela Law LLC, Newtown Square, PA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Michael A. Pittenger, Matthew F. Davis, David A. Seal, Caneel Radinson-Blasucci, Potter Anderson & Cor-roon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael P. Kelly, Daniel M. Silver, Sarah E. Delia, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Carl N. Kunz, III, K. Tyler O’Connell, Albert J. Carroll, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ronald L. Berenstain, Sean C. Knowles, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA; Susan W. Waesco, John P. DiTomo, Daniel T. Menken, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Blake Rohrbacher, Matthew W. Murphy, Elizabeth A. Heise, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: D69443

    Plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to indicate the existence of a control group, and the conflicted transaction in this case was subject to entire fairness review.

  • Clifford Paper, Inc. v. WPP Investors, LLC

    Publication Date: 2021-06-16
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Manufacturing
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Samuel T. Hirzel, II, Elizabeth A. DeFelice, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Matthew M. Oliver, Lowenstein Sandler LLP, Roseland, NJ for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Oderah C. Nwaeze, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: D69431

    Claims alleging wrongful disposition of corporate resources or assets were essentially derivative in nature, meaning that former member of LLC lacked standing to assert such claims and could not do so after failing to make litigation demand or plead demand futility.

  • In re: SmileDirectClub, Inc. Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2021-06-16
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Blake A. Bennett, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; P. Bradford deLeeuw, deLeeuw Law LLC, Wil-mington, DE; Lee Squitieri, Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, New York, NY; Jeffrey S. Abraham, Michael J. Klein, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky LLP, New York, NY; Donald J. Enright, Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Jordan Cafritz, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Edward B. Micheletti, Jenness E. Parker, of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; Scott D. Musoff, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: D69435

    The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss this derivative because plaintiffs failed to meet the con-temporaneous ownership requirement, so they lacked standing.