• 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.

  • In re Xura, Inc. Stockholder Litig.

    Publication Date: 2019-01-02
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: A. Thompson Bayliss and David A. Seal, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Robert S. Saunders, Arthur R. Bookout, Matthew P. Majarian, and Haley S. Stern, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington DE; John L. Reed, Ethan H. Townsend, Peter H. Kyle, and Harrison S. Carpenter, DLA Piper LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: D68407

    Objecting shareholder could maintain parallel appraisal and breach of fiduciary duty claims where breach claims were based on failure to disclose material facts and shareholder sought traditional remedies for breach of fiduciary duty, such as rescission or disgorgement, rather than a quasi-appraisal remedy.

  • In re Fitbit, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2018-12-26
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Consumer Products | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer and David M. Sborz, Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Zeldin of Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A., Wilmington, DE, Melinda A. Nicholson and Michael R. Robinson, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, Madisonville, LA; Robert C. Schubert of Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, San Francisco, CA; Edward F. Haber of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, Boston, MA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Elena C. Norman, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP; Wilmington, DE; Jordan Eth, Anna Erickson White and Ryan M. Keats, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendants.

    Case Number: D68405

    Plaintiffs demonstrated demand futility, and their allegations were sufficient to state a claim against the company's board of directors for breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Zayo Group, LLC v. Latisys Holdings, LLC

    Publication Date: 2018-12-19
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes | Deals and Transactions
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Elizabeth S. Fenton and Scott W. Perkins, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Philip Trainer, Jr. and Marie M. Degnan, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Mark D. Cahill, Phoebe Fischer-Groban and Christina G.T. Lau, Choate Hall & Steward LLP, Boston, MA for defendant.

    Case Number: D68397

    Plaintiff did not establish that defendant breached the parties' sale agreement by failing to disclose non-renewals by some of its major customers, because the agreement did not require such notice.

  • In re Tangoe, Inc. Stockholders Litig.

    Publication Date: 2018-12-05
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance | Securities Litigation
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kurt M. Heyman and Melissa N. Donimirski, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jason M. Leviton and Joel A. Fleming, Block & Leviton LLP, Boston, MA; Jeremy S. Friedman, Spencer Oster, and David F.E. Tejtel, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC, New York, NY for plaintiff
    for defendant: Catherine G. Dearlove and Sarah A. Galetta, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; William H. Paine, Timothy J. Perla, Peter A. Spaeth, and Alexandra C. Bourdreau, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.

    Case Number: D68375

    Stockholder's derivative complaint not dismissed where he adequately pled company failed to inform stockholders prior to their approval and asserted a reasonable claim for breach of duty of loyalty.

  • Zalmanoff v. Hardy

    Publication Date: 2018-11-28
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance | Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ronald A. Brown, Jr., J. Clayton Athey and Samuel L. Closic of Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilming-ton, DE; Jeffrey S. Abraham of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff
    for defendant: David J. Teklits and D. McKinley Measley of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Howard S. Suskin, Elizabeth A. Edmondson, Lorenzo Di Silvio and Rémi J.D. Jaffré of Jenner & Block LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: D68372

    Corporate directors did not breach their fiduciary duty of disclosure when they provided stockholders with two documents which together contained all material information in connection with a stockholder vote.

  • Wenske v. Blue Bell Creameries, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-11-28
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes | Corporate Entities
    Industry: Food and Beverage
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jessica Zeldin of Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Scott G. Burdine and David E. Wayne of Burdine Wynne LLP, Houston, TX for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Timothy R. Dudderar and Travis R. Dunkelberger of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP for Blue Bell de-fendants; Srinivas M. Raju and Kelly L. Freund of Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants Bridges and Kruse.

    Case Number: D68371

    Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to rebut the presumption of corporate separateness between a parent company and its subsidiary, and their conclusory allegations did not support theories for piercing the corporate veil or joint venture liability.

  • Tilden v. Cunningham

    Publication Date: 2018-11-07
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Chad J. Toms, Kaan Ekiner, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLC, Wilmington, DE; Ian S. Birk, Keller Rodr-back, L.L.P. Seattle, WA; Chelsea L. Mam, David M. Simmonds of Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell, Se-attle, WA, attorneys for plaintiff.
    for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, Michael A. Barlow, Daniel J. McBride, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Daniel J. Dunne, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Seattle, WA, attorneys for defendants Cunningham, Chung, Dunn, Hooper, Huebner, Waters and Zappone. D. McKinley Measley, Lauren Neal Bennett, Mor-ris Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Cristopher B. Durbin, Jeff Lombard, Cooley LLP, Se-attle, WA, attorneys for defendant Ruckelshaus. Rudolf Koch, Diana M. Joskowicz of Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Paul H. Beattie, Rimon P.C., Seattle, WA, attorneys for defendant GCA Advisors, LLC. Garrett B. Moritz, R. Garrett Rice, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter L. Simmons, Michael P. Sternheim, Fried, Frank, Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for defendants Cambridge Information Group, Snyder and Allen. Bradley D. Sorrels, Lori W. Will, An-drew D. Berni, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Barry M. Kaplan, Gregory L. Watts of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Seattle, WA, attorneys for nominal defendant Blu-cora, Inc.

    Case Number: D68350

    Plaintiff in this derivative action failed to demonstrate demand futility, and even if he had, the court concluded he did not state a claim on which relief could be granted.

  • Marchand v. Barnhill

    Publication Date: 2018-10-10
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Food and Beverage
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Vera G. Belger, Michael Hawash and Jourdain Poupore, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Timothy R. Dudderar, Travis R. Dunkelberger,; Srinivas M. Raju and Kelly L. Freund, attorneys for defendants.

    Case Number: D68312

    Derivative breach of fiduciary duty claim failed where plaintiff failed to make or excuse pre-suit litigation demand upon the board, the majority of whom were sufficiently disinterested to exercise independent judgment of such demand, and where plaintiff had failed to plead the requisite scienter for a failure of oversight claim levied against directors.

  • Mesirov v. Enbridge Energy Co., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-09-12
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance | Deals and Transactions
    Industry: Energy
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris, Christopher P. Quinn, Jessica Zeldin, Lawrence P. Eagel, Jeffrey H. Squire and David J. Stone for plaintiff
    for defendant: Thomas W. Briggs, Jr., Richard Li, Kevin C. Logue, Kevin P. Broughel, J. Jeanette Kang and Molly L. Leiwant for Enbridge Energy Co., Inc. defendants; Raymond J. DiCamillo, Sarah A. Galetta, Lisa A. Schmidt, Michael H. Steinberg, Lauren M. Cruz, Zachary A. Sarnoff and Penny Shane, Yuliya Neverova for Enbridge, Inc. defendants; T. Brad Davey, Matthew F. Davis, Jacqueline A. Rogers and Abby F. Rudzin for defendant Piper Jaffray & Co.

    Case Number: D68282

    The law of the case determined resolution of certain matters raised in defendants' motions to dismiss.