Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
465 results for '* industry:"Investments and Investment Advisory"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-08-30
Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Ross, Eric D. Selden, A. Gage Whirley, Ross Aronstam & Moritz, LLP, Wilmington, DE; John F. Hartmann, P.C., Ravi Subramanian Shankar, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Stephen C. Norman, Ellis H. Huff, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Norman M. Powell, Emily V. Burton, Lauren Dunkle Fortunato, Michael E. Neminski, Nehama L. Hanoch, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brett M. McCartney, Elizabeth A. Powers, Sarah T. Andrade, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael K. Hurst, Sara H. Chelette, Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann, Dallas, TX for defendants.
Case Number: D69936
Sophisticated transactional arrangement did not list plaintiffs as beneficiaries or holders of beneficial interest in certain exchange trusts, therefore causing plaintiffs to lack standing to seek removal of the trust advisor of the exchange trusts.
Publication Date: 2022-08-16
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael Busenkell, Margaret F. England, Bradley P. Lehman, Gellert Scali Busenkell & Brown LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Patricia L. Enerio, Jamie L. Brown, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Christopher J. Sullivan, Nutter, McClennan & Fish LLP, New York, NY; Thomas A. Uebler, Joseph Christensen, McCollom D’Emilio Smith Uebler LLC, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69919
Laches barred contract, fraud, and waste claims arising from the payment of management fees where rejection of claimant's request for books/records/information meant that it could no longer be "blamelessly ignorant" of any alleged wrongdoing and therefore the running of the limitations period was triggered.
Publication Date: 2022-08-16
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory V. Varallo, Andrew E. Blumberg, Daniel E. Meyer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark Lebovitch, Reuben Gottlieb, Jeroen van Kwawegen, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Jeremy Friedman, David Tejtel, Julie Palley, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC, Bedford Hills, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: William M. Lafferty, Ryan D. Stottmann, Sabrina Hendershot, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Jacqueline A. Rogers, Abraham C. Schneider, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Matthew Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Colleen Smith, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Diego, CA; Kristin Murphy, Latham & Watkins LLP, Costa Mesa, CA; Brad D. Sorrels, Shannon E. German, Benjamin M. Potts, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Wilmington, DE; David J. Berger, Steven M. Guggenheim, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Palo Alto, CA; S. Toni Wormald, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., San Francisco, CA for defendants.
Case Number: D69918
Interested transaction benefitting controlling stockholder was subject to business judgment review under MFW framework where special committee had a majority of disinterested directors and proxy adequately disclosed the controller's motivation for proposing the transaction.
Publication Date: 2022-08-09
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jennifer Selendy, Andrew R. Dunlap, Oscar Shine, Max H. Siegel, Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC, New York, NY; Laura Davis Jones, Timothy P. Cairns, Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, Wilmington, DE for appellants.
for defendant: James R. Prince, Kevin Chiu, Baker Botts LLP, Dallas, TX; Scott R. Bowling, Baker Botts LLP, New York, NY; David R. Eastlake, Lauren N. Randle, Baker Botts LLP, Houston, TX; Robert J. Dehney, Curtis S. Miller, Daniel B. Butz, Matthew 0. Talmo, Brian Loughnane, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kristopher M. Hansen, Kenneth Pasquale, Jonathan D. Canfield, Paul Hastings LLP, New York, NY; Matthew B. Lunn, Robert F. Poppiti, Jr., Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP for appellees.
Case Number: D69911
Emergency stay of bankruptcy court's adverse grant of judgment in adversary proceeding denied where appellants were unlikely to prevail on the merits of their appeal and where harm to Chapter 11 debtor outweighed the harm that might come from the reduction of appellants' claims.
Publication Date: 2022-08-02
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Montgomery-Reeves
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory P. Williams, Brock E. Czeschin, Christian C.F. Roberts, Richards, Layton, & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; John C. Dwyer, Patrick E. Gibbs, Claire A. McCormack, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA for appellant.
for defendant: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Gina M. Serra, Herbert W. Mondros, Rigrodsky Law, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Frank R. Schirripa, Hillary Nappi, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP, New York, NY; Gregory Mark Nespole, Daniel Tepper, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, New York, NY; Travis E. Downs III, Erik W. Luedeke, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; Thomas J. McKenna, Gregory M. Egleston, Gainey McKenna & Egleston, New York, NY; Beth A. Keller, Monteverde & Associates PC, New York, NY for appellees.
Case Number: D69906
Stockholders in §220 action could not rely on their own hearsay evidence to prove proper purpose where they refused to identify potential witnesses to permit the company the opportunity to conduct depositions.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Michael D. Malfitano
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-08-02
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Real Estate
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Traynor
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael Hanrahan, Ronald A. Brown, Jr., Stephen D. Dargitz, J. Clayton Athey, Marcus E. Montejo, Samuel L. Closic, Prickett Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Carl L. Stine, Adam J. Blander, Antoinette Adesanya, Wolf Popper LLP, New York, NY; Brian D. Long, Long Law, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Frank P. DiPrima, Law Office of Frank DiPrima, P.A., Morristown, NJ for appellants.
for defendant: Kevin G. Abrams, John M. Seaman, Matthew L. Miller, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; John A. Neuwirth, Evert J. Christensen, Jr., Seth Goodchild, Matthew S. Connors, Nicole E. Prunetti, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY; Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Berton W. Ashman, Jr., and Jaclyn C. Levy, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter E. Kazanoff, Michael J. Garvey, Sara A. Ricciardi, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York, NY; Raymond J. Dicamillo, Susan M. Hannigan, Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, DE; Brian T. Frawley, Y. Carson Zhou, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY; David J. Teklits, Thomas P. Will, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for appellees.
Case Number: D69905
Dividing merger transaction into substantial pre-closing dividend and meager "per share merger consideration" did not frustrate stockholders' appraisal rights since dividend legally constituted merger consideration.
Publication Date: 2022-08-02
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas V. Ayala, Sally E. Veghte, Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Scott B. Czerwonka, Andrea S. Brooks, Wilks Law, LLC, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69902
Restrictive covenants in agreements governing asset purchase transaction for the sale of a business were governed by Delaware law where the parties had contractually chosen Delaware and where parties challenging the enforceability of the covenants failed to show that their home state's law would apply in the absence of the contractual choice.
Publication Date: 2022-08-02
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Greenaway
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D69903
Proxy statement was not materially false or misleading by relying on financial projections that were prepared before the merger parties learned of materially adverse information about product development, where the proxy expressly stated that the projections were prepared prior to a certain date and merely reflected the company's views at the time the merger was prepared.
Publication Date: 2022-07-26
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Construction | Investments and Investment Advisory | Transportation
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew W. Lentz, plaintiff pro se
for defendant: Shah Mathias, defendant pro se; Debra Mathias, defendant pro se; Robert Choiniere, defendant pro se; Bryan Elicker, defendant pro se; Robert Todd Reynold, defendant pro se; James Becker, defendant pro se; Steve Trout, defendant pro se; John W. Thompson, defendant pro se; Shahjahan C. Mathias, defendant pro se; Donald E. Williams, Jr., defendant pro se; Keith Doyle, defendant pro se; Suhail Matthias, defendant pro se; James Kingsborough, defendant pro se; Joseph Silbaugh, defendant pro se; Kevin Eisenhart, defendant pro se; Kurt Bauer, defendant pro se.
Case Number: D69894
Court issued temporary injunction barring tender offer after finding that controllers provided misleading and false disclosures in connection with the offer and had made coercive threats to induce non-tendering stockholders to tender.
Publication Date: 2022-07-26
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Laura Davis Jones, David M. Bertenthal, Peter J. Keane, Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, Wilmington, DE; Patricia L. Glaser, Gali Grant, Matthew P. Bernstein, Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro LLP, Los Angeles, CA for appellants.
for defendant: Seth A. Niederman, Fox Rothschild LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gregory P. Joseph, Douglas J. Pepe, Gila S. Singer, Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC, New York, NY; Jeffrey H. Zaiger, Judd A. Lindenfeld, Zaiger LLC, Stamford, CT for appellee.
Case Number: D69895
District court accepted bankruptcy court's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in non-core breach of contract claim where defendant failed to cite evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to each of defendant's alleged breaches of a first lien credit agreement, including with respect to the measure of damages.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read