Filter This View

  • In re: Samson Res. Corp.

    Publication Date: 2023-06-27
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
    Judge: Judge Shannon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; J. Christopher Shore, Colin T. West, White & Case, LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Michael S. Neiberg, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sabina Willett, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Boston, MA; David M. Stern, KTBS Law LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants.
    Case Number: 15-11934 (BLS)

    Suit to recover proceeds of the sale of debtor as a fraudulent transfer failed where the acquisition negotiations were fair and conducted at arms-length, since the seller was entitled to sell the company for as much as they could get and the buyer was free to negotiate what it considered a fair price, even though in hindsight the purchase price seemed overinflated as it placed an unsustainable amount of debt on the company.

  • State v. Holmes

    Publication Date: 2023-06-27
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Wallace
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel B. McBride, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Robert M. Gamburg, Gamburg & Benedetto LLC, Philadelphia, PA; Brian J. Chapman, Law Office of Brian J. Chapman, Newark, DE for defendant.
    Case Number: 2203012514

    Search warrant was supported by probable cause where police obtained various articulable facts indicating that an apartment and storage unit were used by defendant for stashing drugs, with that suspicion confirmed by a non-Fourth Amendment canine sniff.

  • Topia Tech., Inc. v. Egnyte, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-06-20
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Burke
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Mark Boland, Raja Saliba, Michael R. Dzwonczyk, Chidambaram S. Iyer, Sughrue Mion, PLLC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Carl D. Neff, FisherBroyles, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ryan T. Beard, FisherBroyles, LLP, Austin, TX; Christopher R. Kinkade, FisherBroyles, LLP, Princeton, NJ for defendant.
    Case Number: 21-1821-CJB

    Patent claims described a sufficiently narrower invention than the abstract idea of file synchronization to constitute an arguable improvement in computer technology and an inventive concept.

  • Bunge, S.A. v. ADM Int'l SARL

    Publication Date: 2023-06-20
    Practice Area: Admiralty
    Industry: Cargo and Shipping
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Bibas
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: J. Stephen Simms, Simms Showers, Baltimore, MD for appellant.
    for defendant: Amanda D. Price, Squire Patton Boggs, Houston, TX; John J. Reilly, Squire Patton Boggs, New York, NY for appellee.
    Case Number: 22-1276

    Party could seek maritime attachment for indemnification of a claim made against that party, but its claim for loss-of-hire was too contingent to support attachment as it depended on failing to recover on that claim against the vessel's owner.

  • In re Tesla Motors, Inc. Stockholder Litig.

    Publication Date: 2023-06-20
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Automotive | Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Valihura
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jay W. Eisenhofer, Christine M. Mackintosh, Kelly L. Tucker, Vivek Upadhya, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael Hanrahan, Kevin H. Davenport, Samuel L. Closic, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Daniel L. Berger, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., New York, NY; Lee D. Rudy, Eric L. Zagar, Justice O. Reliford, Matthew Benedict, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor, PA; Randall J. Baron, David T. Wissbroecker, Robbins Gellar Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA for appellants.
    for defendant: David E. Ross, Garrett B. Moritz, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Evan R. Chesler, Daniel Slifkin, Vanessa A. Lavely, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY for appellee.
    Case Number: 181, 2022

    Chancery court correctly found acquisition of company partially owned by controlling stockholder was entirely fair where stockholder recused himself from shareholder vote, the board operated independently, and evidence demonstrated that the acquired company had value from long-term cash flows and was not worthless due to being insolvent.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Connecticut Landlord and Tenant Law with Forms Third Edition (2020)

    Authors: NOBLE F. ALLEN

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Cargill, Inc. v. Vantage Specialty Chem., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-06-20
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Robert M. Oakes, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; Ahmed J. Davis, Joshua Rosefelt, Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, DC; Elizabeth Flanagan, Brianna Chamberlin, Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneapolis, MN for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Rodger D. Smith II, Travis J. Murray, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Thomas R. Makin, David Cooperberg, Eric S. Lucas, Shearman & Sterling LLP, New York, NY; Lillian J. Mao, Sherman & Sterling LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Aaron L. Morris, Shearman & Sterling LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendant.
    Case Number: 22-979-RGA

    Use of the term "comprising" was open language permitting the inclusion of additional components not named in the claim language, with the claim language further implying that the term could include other components.

  • Oasis Tooling, Inc. v. Siemens Indus. Software, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-06-20
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Electronics | Manufacturing | Software
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Burke
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah, Timothy Layden, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Aaron M. Frankel, Cristina Martinez, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Karen Jacobs, Cameron P. Clark, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kristin L. Cleveland, Mark W. Wilson, Salumeh R. Loesch, John D. Vandenberg, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, OR; Kristina R. Cary, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Boston, MA; Gregg F. LoCascio, P.C., Michael A. Pearson, Jr., Matthew J. McIntee, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C.; Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Clement Naples, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Gabriel K. Bell, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, D.C.; Thomas W. Yeh, Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel S. Todd, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendants.
    Case Number: 22-151-CJB

    Patent did not claim ineligible subject matter where it recited an inventive concept that improved upon the prior art by claiming to solve limitations of previous systems through a specific procedure.

  • CBV, Inc. v. ChanBond, LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-06-20
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Williams
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Geoffrey Graham Grivner, Kody Macgyver Sparks, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Stephen B. Brauerman, Ronald P. Golden, III, Bayard P.A., Wilmington, DE; James H. S. Levine, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Wilmington, DE; David L. Finger, Finger & Slanina LLC, Wilmington, DE; John Legare Williams, Brian C. Crawford, The Williams Law Firm P.A., Wilmington, DE; Akiva M. Cohen, Dylan M. Schmeyer, Kamerman, Uncyk, Soniker & Klein P.C., New York, NY for defendants.
    Case Number: 21-1456-GBW

    Preliminary injunction to enjoin distribution of settlement funds pursuant to the parties' agreement denied where there was no support in the parties' contract for plaintiff's claim of breach and thus plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits.

  • Arcelik A.S. v. EI DuPont de Nemours & Co.

    Publication Date: 2023-06-20
    Practice Area: Products Liability
    Industry: Chemicals and Materials | Consumer Products | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Greenaway
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Christopher F. Cannataro, April M. Ferraro, John M. Seaman, Abrams & Bayliss, Wilmington, DE; Christopher M. Ryan, Shearman & Sterling, Washington, DC for appellant.
    for defendant: Brandon R. Harper, John A. Sensing, Potter Anderson & Corroon, Wilmington, DE for appellee.
    Case Number: 22-2634

    Global parent corporation did not qualify as the manufacturer of allegedly defective components which were made by a foreign subsidiary using materials produced by a third-party supplier, where the parent did not control the day-to-day manufacturing operations and merely established product standards.

  • Gaspero v. Kijakazi

    Publication Date: 2023-06-20
    Practice Area: Administrative Law
    Industry: Federal Government
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen A. Hampton, Grady & Hampton, Dover, DE; David F. Chermol, Chermol & Fishman, LLC, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: David C. Weiss, United States Attorney, Brian C. O’Donnell, Associate General Counsel, Evelyn Rose Marie Protano, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD for defendant.
    Case Number: 22-86 (MN) (JLH)

    Sufficient evidence supported ALJ's determination that plaintiff's combination of medical conditions did not impair him from performing light work that existed in substantial numbers in the national economy, such that plaintiff had residual functional capacity and was not disabled for purposes of SSI.