• Ray Beyond Corp. v. Trimaran Fund Mgmt., L.L.C.

    Publication Date: 2019-02-20
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes | Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Education | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kenneth J. Nachbar and Sabrina M. Hendershot, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Phillip A. Geraci, Aaron F. Miner and Harry K. Fidler, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff and third-party defendant.
    for defendant: Robert S. Saunders, Jenness E. Parker, Lauren N. Rosenello and Jessica M. Jones, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: D68467

    A party was not entitled to specific enforcement of a provision for expert determination where the parties' dis-pute involved an issue outside the expert's area of expertise.

  • Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund v. Navient Corp.

    Publication Date: 2019-02-20
    Practice Area: Securities Litigation
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Patrick F. Morris, Karen L. Morris and R. Michael Lindsey, Morris and Morris LLC, Wilmington, DE; Ste-ven E. Fineman, Daniel P. Chiplock, Michael J. Miarmi, Richard M. Heimann, Bruce W. Leppla and Sha-ron M. Lee, Liefe Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Kelly E. Farnan, Richards Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Peter A. Wald, Abid R. Qureshi, Christopher S. Turner and Christopher R. Harris, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC for Navient Corp. and individual defendants. Kevin G. Abrams and John M. Seaman, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wil-mington, DE; Adam S. Hakki, Daniel C. Lewis and Anthony D. Marinello of Shearman & Sterling LLP for underwriter defendants.

    Case Number: D68465

    Plaintiffs adequately stated claims for securities violations, except with regard to statements that were mere puffery and where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate scienter.

  • KT4 Partners LLC v. Palantir Tech. Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-02-13
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Strine
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Bartholomew J. Dalton and Michael C. Dalton, Dalton & Assoc., P.A., Wilmington, DE; Barry S. Simon, Jonathan B. Pitt and Stephen L. Wohlgemuth, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Blake Rohrbacher, Kevin M. Gallagher and Kelly L. Freund, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilming-ton, DE; Kevin J. Orsini and Rory A. Leraris, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY for defendant.

    Case Number: D68458

    The chancery court abused its discretion in refusing to allow a shareholder to inspect emails under a §220 books and records, request, because the corporation did not have any formal documents relating to the amend-ment of an investors' rights agreement.

  • A&J Capital, Inc. v. Law Office of Krug

    Publication Date: 2019-02-13
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kurt M. Heyman, Melissa N. Donimirski, and Elizabeth A. DeFelice, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel, LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Stephen B. Brauerman and Sara E. Bussiere, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Craig H. Marcus, Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendant.

    Case Number: D68454

    Members erred in removing manager where manager specifically bargained for a "for cause" removal standard and members lacked cause to remove manager.

  • Inter-Marketing Group USA, Inc. v. Armstrong

    Publication Date: 2019-02-13
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities | Environmental Law
    Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Theodore A. Kittila, Halloran Farkas & Kittila LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gregory M. Nespole and Correy A. Kamin, Wolf HaldensteinAdler Freeman & Herz LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Srinivas M. Raju and Matthew W. Murphy, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Holmes, Craig E. Zieminski, Kimberly R. McCoy, and Jeffrey Crough, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, TX for defendants.

    Case Number: D68456

    Derivative complaint dismissed for failure to make demand, where demand would not be futile as a majority of directors were disinterested and independent as nominal defendant's partnership agreement eliminated the directors' personal liability.

  • Sheldon v. Pinto Tech. Ventures, L.P.

    Publication Date: 2019-02-06
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance | Securities Litigation
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thad J. Bracegirdle and Scott B. Czerwonka, Wilks, Lukoff & Bracegirdle, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jeff Joyce, Joyce & McFarland LLP, Houston, TX for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Brian C. Ralston and Jacqueline A. Rogers, Potter Anderson Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Danny Da-vid and Rebecca Huddle, Baker Botts LLP, Houston, TX for defendants Terry and Walker. Bruce E. Jameson and Samuel L. Closic, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; B. Russell Horton, George Brothers Kincaid & Horton, L.L.P., Austin, TX for Pinto Tech., RiverVest and Bay City Capital defendants.

    Case Number: D68451

    Defendants' successful effort to enforce a forum selection clause in the court of another state did not preclude them from arguing that a shareholder action was derivative.

  • CHC Inv., LLC v. FirstSun Capital Bancorp

    Publication Date: 2019-02-06
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities | Discovery
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: James D. Taylor, Jr., Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Manning, Jeffrey J. Goulder, Stefan M. Palys, and Christy M. Milliken, Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Phoenix, AZ for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jon E. Abramczyk, William M. Lafferty, and Sabrina M. Hendershot, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lawrence Portnoy and Julia Kiechel, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, New York, NY for defendant.

    Case Number: D68447

    Section 220 complaint was dismissed after stockholder had filed plenary action against corporation and could not demonstrate timing pressures created by defendant or need to discover additional information following a dismissal without prejudice.

  • Applied Energetics, Inc. v. Farley

    Publication Date: 2019-02-06
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities | Securities Litigation
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jason C. Jowers, Meghan A. Adams, and Ian D. McCauley, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; David A. Robinson, Benjamin P. Pugh, and Michael S. Wilde, Enterprise Counsel Group, a Law Corporation, Irvine, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Kathleen M. Miller and Clarissa R. Chenoweth, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ryan J. Whalen, Gusrae Kaplan Nusbaum PLLC, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: D68446

    Preliminary injunction restricting transfer of stock allegedly issued in a director's breach of fiduciary duty was granted where company was likely to prove director lacked authority to issue the stock and director issued it at an unreasonably low price.

  • Ritchie Multi-Strategy Global, LLC v. Huizenga Managers Fund, LLC

    Publication Date: 2019-01-30
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Johnston
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John A. Sensing and Ryan C. Cicoski for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Steven L. Caponi and Matthew B. Goeller, K&L Gates, LLP; Christopher J. Barber, Williams Montgom-ery & John Ltd. for defendant.

    Case Number: D68443

    A stay of this Delaware proceeding was appropriate where an action in another state involving the same parties and operative facts was not yet final.

  • Oxbow Carbon & Minerals Holdings, Inc. v. Crestview-Oxbow Acquisition, LLC

    Publication Date: 2019-01-30
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Mining and Resources
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Valihura
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen C. Norman and Jaclyn C. Levy, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; David B. Hennes, C. Thomas Brown, Adam M. Harris and Elizabeth D. Johnston, Ropes & Gray LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs Oxbow Carbon & Mineral Holdings, Ingraham Investments, William I. Koch and Oxbow Carbon Investment Co. LLC. Kenneth J. Nachbar, Thomas W. Briggs, Jr. and Richard Li, Morris, Nich-ols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; R. Robert Popeo, Michael S. Gardener and Breton Leo-ne-Quick, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., Boston, MA for plaintiff
    for defendant: Oxbow Carbon LLC. Kevin G. Abrams, Michael A. Barlow and April M. Kirby, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brock E. Czeschin, Matthew D. Perri and Sarah A. Galetta, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael B. Carlinsky, Chad Johnson, Jennifer Barrett, Silpa Maruri, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; Christopher Landau, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sul-livan, LLP, Washington, DC for defendant Crestview-Oxbow Acquisition. J. Clayton Athey and John G. Day, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Dale C. Christensen, Jr and Michael B. Weitman, Seward & Kissell, LLP, New York, NY for defendant Load Line Capital

    Case Number: D68441

    The plain language of an LLC agreement governed the parties' dispute, and the trial court improperly implied a cove-nant where no contractual gap existed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part.