Filter This View

  • Crispo v. Musk

    Publication Date: 2023-11-13
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael Hanrahan, Samuel L. Closic, John G. Day, Robert B. Lackey, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Max Huffman, Joseph A. Pettigrew, Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, San Diego, CA; Justin O. Reliford, Jing-Li Yu, Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Edward B. Micheletti, Lauren N. Rosenello, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: 2022-0666-KSJM

    Stockholder lacked standing to enforce merger agreement, and the agreement did not confer stockholders with third-party beneficiary status to pursue lost-premium damages while the target company pursued specific performance of the merger.

  • Allen v. Harvey

    Publication Date: 2023-11-13
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer, David M. Sborz, Andrew J. Peach, Jackson E. Warren, Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, DE; Joshua Fruchter, Wohl & Fruchter LLP, Monsey, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Tammy L. Mercer, James M. Yoch, Jr., Michael A. Laukaitis II, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Craig Zieminski, Andy Jackson, Jeremy Gonzales, Vinson & Elkins, LLP, Dallas, TX for defendants.
    Case Number: 2022-0248-MTZ

    Court declined to award a substantial success fee to stockholders who obtained supplemental disclosures to merger proxy where the disclosures did not remove an impediment to the stockholders' vote, but the disclosures provided a meaningful corporate benefit by informing stockholders about the transaction committee's affiliations with a controlling stockholder sitting on both sides of the merger transaction.

  • Cahill v. Air Med. Group Holdings, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-10-30
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Transportation
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Bryson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-679-WCB

    Plaintiff's claim for insurance proceeds was not necessarily barred by contractual limitations period on indemnification claim where plaintiff asserted that the proceeds constituted retained property that defendant had an ongoing obligation to turn over after closing.

  • Energy Transfer, LP v. The Williams Cos., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-10-23
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Energy
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Griffiths
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: James M. Yoch, Alberto E. Chávez, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, Wilmington, DE; Paul D. Clement, Matthew D. Rowen, Clement & Murphy, PLLC, Alexandria, VA for appellants.
    for defendant: Kenneth J. Nachbar, Susan Wood Waesco, Matthew R. Clark, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Antony L. Ryan, Kevin J. Orsini, Michael P. Addis, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY for appellee.
    Case Number: 391, 2022

    Chancery court's determination that counterparty did not breach merger agreement was supported by record evidence demonstrating that company continued to use best efforts to consummate the merger, entitling it to reimbursement of a prior termination fee and precluding liability for a breakup fee.

  • ITG Brands, LLC v. Reynolds Am., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-10-16
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Consumer Products | Manufacturing
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen C. Norman, Matthew F. Davis, Tyler J. Leavengood, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Elizabeth B. McCallum, Gilbert S. Keteltas, Carey S. Busen, Evan M. Mannering, Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jim W. Phillips, Jr., Kimberly M. Marston, Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, Greensboro, NC; Charles E. Coble, Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, Raleigh, NC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Gregory P. Williams, Rudolf Koch, Robert L. Burns, Matthew D. Perri, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Noel J. Francisco, C. Kevin Marshall, William D. Coglianese; Jones Day, Washington, D.C.; Stephanie E. Parker, Katrina L.S. Caseldine, Jones Day, Atlanta, GA; David B. Alden, Kevin P. Riddles; Jones Day, Cleveland, OH; Elli Leibenstein, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Chicago, IL; Stephen L. Saxl, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, NY; Andrea Shwayri Ferraro, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL for defendants.
    Case Number: 2017-0129-LWW

    Although seller was entitled to recover compensation for settlement payments it made based on post-closing sales of various acquired brands, trial was necessary to determine acquirers' entitlement to offsets and the availability of specific performance for future settlement payments.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Library of Pennsylvania Family Law Forms, Fourth Edition

    Authors: Joseph S. Britton

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Adviser Investments, LLC v. Powell

    Publication Date: 2023-10-16
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Judge Adams
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Ross, Adam D. Gold, A. Gage Whirley, Ross Aronstam & Moritz, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark W. Premo-Hopkins, Katie Lencioni, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Henry E. Gallagher, Jr., Lauren DeLuca, Jarrett W. Horowitz, Connolly Gallagher, LLP, Wilmington, DE, Lazar P. Raynal, Melanie Burke, Tatum Ellis, King & Spalding, LLP, Chicago, IL for defendant.
    Case Number: 2022-1149-MAA

    Determining that the purchase agreement did not bar claims based on extra-contractual statements, the court declined to dismiss plaintiff's fraud claims concerning the purchase of defendant's company. The court also found that the detailed factual allegations contained in the complaint stated a claim for fraud and that fraud claims were not barred by the anti-bootstrapping rule.

  • Sapp v. Indus. Action Servs., LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-08-14
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Chemicals and Materials
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Ambro
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Maureen Farrell, Adam T. Muery, Muery & Farrell, Austin, TX for appellants
    for defendant: David J. Baldwin, Berger Harris, Wilmington, DE; Irving M. Geslewitz, Edward D. Shapiro, Much Law, Chicago, IL for appellees.
    Case Number: 22-2181

    District court erred in ordering arbitration where dispute resolution clause imposing narrow scope of review of solely factual issues during a short window of time indicated that the dispute resolution provision constituted an expert determination rather than an arbitration.

  • Evolve Growth Initiatives, LLC v. Equilibrium Health Solutions LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-08-07
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory | Recruitment and Staffing
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kenneth J. Nachbar, Alexandra M. Cumings, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew Z. Schwartz, Euripides Dalmanieras, Christian A. Garcia, Foley Hoag LLP, Boston, MA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Rudolf Koch, Travis S. Hunter, and Sara M. Metzler, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Motty Shulman, Centricity Law PLLC, New York, NY; Robin A. Henry, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
    Case Number: 2022-1113-SG

    Although arbitral panel did not expressly address claims against one defendant in its award imposing joint and several liability against all defendants, that oversight did not rise to the level of significant error necessary to overturn an arbitration award where those theories of liability against the defendant were pled by claimants and thus before the panel for its consideration.

  • United States v. United States Sugar Corp.

    Publication Date: 2023-08-07
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Federal Government | Food and Beverage | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Porter
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jonathan S. Kanter, Doha Mekki, Maggie Goodlander, David B. Lawrence, Daniel E. Haar, Nikolai G. Levin, Peter M. Bozzo, Brian Hanna, Jonathan Y. Mincer, U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, Washington, DC for plaintiff-appellant.
    for defendant: Melissa Arbus Sherry, Amanda P. Reeves, Lindsey S. Champlin, David L. Johnson, Charles S. Dameron, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Lawrence E. Buterman, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Christopher S. Yates, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA; Jack B. Blumenfeld, Brian P. Egan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Timothy G. Cameron, Peter T. Barbur, David R. Marriott, Daniel K. Zach, Michael K. Zaken, Lindsey J. Timlin, Hannah L. Dwyer, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY; Amanda L. Wait, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Washington, DC; Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Peter J. Schwingler, Stinson LLP, Minneapolis, MN; Daniel K. Hogan, Hogan McDaniel, Wilmington, DE for defendant-appellees.
    Case Number: 22-2806

    Rather than employ the hypothetical monopolist test analysis for determining product market under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's analysis using the actual market for refined sugar as the product market definition.

  • Restanca, LLC v. House of Lithium, Ltd.

    Publication Date: 2023-07-17
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory | Transportation
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel A. Mason, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Bruce Birenboim, Jaren Janghorbani, Paul A. Paterson, Kristina A. Bunting, Jonathan C. Day, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Daniel M. Silver, Sarah E. Delia, Travis J. Ferguson, Shannon D. Humiston, McCarter & English, LLP for defendant.
    Case Number: 2022-0690-PAF

    Although parties entered binding acquisition agreement, buyer was not obligated to close where seller had yet to meet condition precedent to obtain agreements from all its stockholders to tender their equity.