• Himawan v. Cephalon, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-01-09
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes | Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Biotechnology
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard L. Renck, Oderah C. Nwaeze, John J. Soroko, Wayne A. Mack, Jessica Priselac and Joseph J. Pangaro of Duane Mor-ris LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Kevin Shannon and J. Matthew Belger of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jay P. Lefkowitz, Matthew So-lum, Shireen A. Barday, Amanda B. Elbogen and Z. Payvand Ahdout of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: D68417

    The court allowed a breach of contract claim to proceed where it was unclear whether a defendant used commercially reason-able efforts, but plaintiffs failed to state a claim for tortious interference and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

  • 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.

  • Great Hill Equity Partners IV, LP v. SIG Growth Equity Fund I, LLLP

    Publication Date: 2018-12-19
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions | Private Equity and Venture Capital
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | E-Commerce
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory V. Varallo, Rudolf Koch, and Robert L. Burns, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Stephen D. Poss and Adam Slutsky, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: William B. Chandler III, Ian R. Liston, and Jessica A. Hartwell, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Mark A. Kirsch, Scott A. Edelman, Aric H. Wu, Jeremy W. Stamelman, and Laura K. O'Boyle, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY; Lewis H. Lazarus and Meghan A. Adams, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter N. Flocos and Joanna A. Diakos, K&L Gates LLP, New York, NY; David S. Eagle and Sean M. Brennecke, Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael K. Coran, William T. Hill, Monica Clarke Platt, and Gregory R. Sellers, Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP, Philadelphia, PA for defendants.

    Case Number: D68390

    Plaintiff granted judgment on its claim of breach of representations and warranties in merger agreement where defendants were found to have concealed the circumstances of their company's termination by a partner and violation of card merchant rules.

  • 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.

  • New York Law Journal

    Recent Decisions Indicate There Is Leeway for Controllers When Determining Whether to Structure a Transaction to Be 'MFW'-Compliant

    October 26, 2018

    The seminal 'MFW' decision, in 2014, ushered in an era of even further expanded deference. MFW provides a pathway for early dismissal of challenges to M&A transactions under the business judgment rule standard of review even in the context of a transaction between a corporation and its controlling shareholder. Prior to 'MFW', the more stringent entire fairness standard of review has been applicable in this context.

  • Flood v. Synutra Int'l, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-10-24
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance | Mergers and Acquisitions | Securities Litigation
    Industry: Food and Beverage
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Strine
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ryan M. Ernst, Daniel P. Murray,O'Kelly Ernst & Joyce, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald J. Enright, Eliza-beth K. Tripodi, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Washington, D.C., attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Matthew E. Fischer, Matthew R. Dreyfuss, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Roger A. Cooper, Rishi N. Zutshi, Vanessa C. Richardson, Hana Choi, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for defendants Synutra, Jinrong Chen, Lei Lin and Yalin Wu; William M. Laf-ferty, John P. DiTomo, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lawrence Portnoy, Re-becca L. Martin, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, New York, NY, for defendants Liang Zhang, Xiuqing Meng and Beams Power Investment Ltd.

    Case Number: D68329

    The business judgment rule applied, even though a controller's initial offer did not contain the required condi-tions, because he provided a second letter containing those conditions prior to any action by the special com-mittee.

  • In Re Appraisal of Columbia Pipeline Grp., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-09-12
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Energy
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen E. Jenkins, Andrew D. Cordo, Marie M. Degnan, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Marcus E. Montejo, Kevin H. Davenport, John G. Day, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Mark Lebovitch, Jeroen van Kwawegen, Christopher J. Orrico, John Vielandi, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for petitioners
    for defendant: Martin S. Lessner, James M. Yoch, Jr., Paul J. Loughman, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brian J. Massengill, Linda X. Shi, Mayer Brown LLP, Chicago, IL, attorneys for respondent.

    Case Number: D68280

    Motion for continued confidential treatment of litigation records denied where moving party failed to demonstrate good cause to overcome the presumption in favor of the right of public access to judicial records.

  • QC Holdings, Inc. v. Allconnect, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-09-12
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes | Corporate Entities | Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: S. Mark Hurd, Alexandra M. Cumings, Danny David, Benjamin Sweet and Kelly Hanen for plaintiff
    for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, Cameron T. Kirby, Matthew L. DiRisio and Thomas G. Weber for defendant.

    Case Number: D68283

    A party properly exercised its rights under a put agreement, so the company was contractually obligated to pay the put price.

  • Almond v. Glenhill Advisors LLC

    Publication Date: 2018-08-29
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor Bouchard
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Peter B. Ladig, Bayard, P.A, Wilmington, DE; David H. Wollmuth and Michael C. Ledley, Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP, New York, NE; Norman M. Monhait and P. Bradford deLeeuw, Rosenthal Monhait & Goddess, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Scott J. Watnkid, Wilk Auslander LLP, New York, NY; Thomas A. Brown, Morea Schwartz Bradham Friedman & Brown LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Andrew D. Cordo and F. Troupe Mickler IV, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Adrienne M. Ward and Brian Katz, Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP, New York, NY; John B. Horgan, Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP, New York, NY; Douglas D. Herrmann, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Wilmington, DE; Paul B. Carberry, Joshua Weedman, and Erin Smith, White & Case LLP, New York, NY; Frederick B. Rosner, Scott J. Leonhardt, and Jason A. Gibson, The Rosner Law Group LLC, Wilmington, DE; S. Preston Ricardo, Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP, New York, NY; John D. Hendershot, Susan M. Hannigan, and Brian F. Morris, Richards, Layton & Finger P.A., Wilmington, DE; Bryan B. House, Foley & Lardner LLP, Milwaukee, WI, attorneys for defendants.

    Case Number: D68262

    Overpayment claims challenging merger transaction were derivative claims extinguished by merger where defendant was a controlling stockholder and enjoyed no increase in its economic stake or voting power.

  • Triumph Aerostructures-Tulsa, LLC v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-08-22
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes | Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Aerospace
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Johnson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David J. Margules, Evan W. Krick, David H. Pittinsky and Burt M. Rublin for plaintiff
    for defendant: Robert W. Whetzel, Travis S. Hunter, Eric Fishman and Anne Catharine Lefever for defendant.

    Case Number: D68261

    An asset purchase agreement contained clear and unambiguous language regarding which party was respon-sible for certain liabilities.