Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
136 results for '* topic:"Corporate Entities"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
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.
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.
Publication Date: 2018-11-28
Practice Area: Corporate Entities | Deals and Transactions | Securities Litigation
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor Bouchard
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer, and David M. Sborz, Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jeffrey Norton and Roger A. Sachar, Newman Ferrara LLP, New York, NY; Peter Safirstein and Elizabeth S. Metcalf, Safirstein Metcalf LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff
for defendant: Blake Rohrbacher, Kevin M. Gallagher, and John M. O'Toole, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; P. Clarkson Collins, Jr., Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Garrett B. Moritz and Roger S. Stronach, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D68366
Derivative complaint arising from related-party transactions dismissed after board exercised business judgment to decline stockholder's litigation demand, where stockholder failed to plead that demand was made in reliance on company's inaccurate representations or that a majority of the directors were not disinterested or independent.
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.
Publication Date: 2018-11-21
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes | Corporate Entities
Industry: Consulting | Defense | Manufacturing
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Davis
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Oderah C. Nwaeze and Ryan E. Borneman of Duane Morris LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for plaintiff.
for defendant: Philip Trainer, Jr. and Hayley Lenahan of Ashby & Geddess, Wilmington, DE; Kenneth J. Pfaehler of Dentons US LLP, Washington, DC, attorneys for defendant.
Case Number: D68363
Defendant adequately alleged its breach of contract counterclaims, but it failed to state a viable claim for fraud and matters relating to alter ego liability had to be filed in another court.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: SHARI L. KLEVENS, ALANNA G. CLAIR
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2018-11-21
Practice Area: Corporate Entities | Private Equity and Venture Capital
Industry: Accounting | Agriculture
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel K. Hogan of Hogan McDaniel, Wilmington, DE, attorney for plaintiff.
for defendant: Patrick M. McGrory of Tighe & Cottrell, P.A., Wilmington, DE attorney for defendant.
Case Number: D68364
The court lacked personal jurisdiction over a foreign entity where the facts did not meet the requirements of the long-arm statute, and did not comport with due process.
Publication Date: 2018-11-21
Practice Area: Corporate Entities | Occupational Safety and Health
Industry: Aerospace | Federal Government
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Paul D. Brown, Joseph B. Cicero and Stephanie H. Dallaire of Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wil-mington, DE; Cynthia S. Arato and Daniel J. O'Neill of Shapiro Arato LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for plaintiff
for defendant: Francis G.X. Pileggi and Alexandra D. Rogin of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Wilmington, DE, Edward J. Longosz, II of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Washington, DC, attorneys for de-fendant.
Case Number: D68362
A pilot was entitled to indemnification under the bylaws of an aircraft charter company in connection with le-gal expenses incurred in a drug testing matter.
Publication Date: 2018-11-14
Practice Area: Corporate Entities | Deals and Transactions
Industry: Food and Beverage
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor Bouchard
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rodger D. Smith II, Ryan D. Stottmann and Alexandra M. Cumings of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Richard B. Walsh, Jr. and Evan Z. Reid of Lewis Rice LLC, St. Louis, MO for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Kevin R. Shannon, Christopher N. Kelly and Jay G. Stirling of Potter, Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wil-mington, DE; William C. O'Neil, Jeffrey J. Huelskamp and Michael A. Meneghini of Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL for defendants.
Case Number: D68356
Plaintiffs could not enjoy benefits under the contract while refusing to perform their obligations under it.
Publication Date: 2018-10-17
Practice Area: Corporate Entities | Deals and Transactions
Industry: Real Estate
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard P. Rollo, Anthony M. Calvano, Courtney A. Carvill, Alan S. Loewinsohn and Kerry Schonwald, attorneys for plaintiffs
for defendant: Brian E. Farnan , Michael J. Farnan and Marc L. Newman, attorneys for defendants.
Case Number: D68319
Plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunction precluding defendants from further litigating action in another jurisdiction where parties had valid forum selection clauses conferring exclusive jurisdiction on Delaware.
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.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read