Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
282 results for '* industry:"Technology Media and Telecom"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2019-08-14
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
Attorneys: For plaintiff: C. Barr Flinn, Emily V. Burton and Elisabeth S. Bradley,Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Nicholas M. Oertel, Richard C. Kraus and James B. Jensen, Jr., Foster Swift Collins & Smith PC, Lansing, MI for plaintiffs.
for defendant: William J. Lafferty, Kevin M. Coen and Jarrett W. Horowitz, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Craig S. Primis and K. Winn Allen, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC for defendant.
Case Number: D68665
The court granted summary judgment on buyer's claims for indemnification of tax payments because those claims were not ripe for adjudication.
Publication Date: 2019-07-24
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Scott
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Josiah R. Wolcott, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Newark, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Matthew P. Ward and Nicholas T. Verna, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Wilmington, DE; Usher Winslett, Winslett Stud-nicky McCormick & Bomser LLP, New York, NY for defendant.
Case Number: D68645
The court concluded defendant's interpretation of a contract clause was not reasonable, because it would have relieved de-fendant from liability for its own failure to comply with the terms of the contract.
Publication Date: 2019-07-17
Practice Area: Business Torts
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Matthew E. Fischer, Jacob R. Kirkham and Jacqueline A. Rogers, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE for plain-tiffs.
for defendant: Peter L. Frattarelli, Archer & Greiner, P.C., Wilmington, DE; James Rosenfeld and Jeremy A. Chase, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, New York, NY for defendant.
Case Number: D68634
The Court of Chancery lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate defamation claims, so the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, subject to plaintiff's right to transfer the case to Superior Court.
Publication Date: 2019-07-10
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John L. Reed, Matthew Denn, Peter H. Kyle, Robert M. Hoffman and James C. Bookhout, DLA Piper LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Daniel A. Mason, Brenda W. Sullivan, Jay Cohen and Daniel H. Levi, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wil-mington, DE and New York, NY; Kevin G. Abrams and J. Peter Shindel, Jr., Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE for de-fendants.
Case Number: D68625
The disputed terms of a merger agreement were ambiguous, and plaintiffs adequately stated their claim for promissory es-toppel.
Publication Date: 2019-07-03
Practice Area: Expert Witnesses | Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kelly E. Farnan and Katharine L. Mowery, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Lawrence J. Gotts, Saswat Mis-ra, Kevin L. Mallen and Gabriel S. Gross, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, New York, NY, and Menlo Park, CA; Stephanie N. Solomon, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; David S. Benyacar and Daniel L. Reisner, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Shanti M. Katona and Christina M. Belitz, Polsinelli PC, Wilmington, DE; Robert Reckers, David Morehan, Christine A. Guas-tello, Jordan T. Bergsten, Colman D. McCarthy and Thomas M. Patton, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Houston, TX and Kansas City, MO for defendants.
Case Number: D68620
The court granted several aspects of the parties' various motions to limit expert testimony where the experts did not tie their opinions to the facts of the case.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Trey Cox, Jason Dennis
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2019-06-26
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Johnston
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Geoffrey G. Grivner, Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, PC; Ekwan E. Rhow, Sharon Mayer, and Patricia H. Jun, Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C. for plaintiff
for defendant: Justin K. Victor, Michael L. Banks, and Vishal H. Shah, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP for defendants.
Case Number: D68608
Implied covenant and conversion claims dismissed as duplicative of breach of contract claims where contract expressly defined expectations of the parties and where conversion of contractually-promised assets had to be brought as a contractual claim.
Publication Date: 2019-06-05
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rudolf Koch, Susan M. Hannigan and Matthew W. Murphy, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Christopher F. Robertson and Alison K. Eggers, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Boston, MA for plaintiffs and third-party defendants
for defendant: John P. DiTomo and Jarrett W. Horowitz, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Roberto M. Braceras, Adam Slutsky and Ezekiel L. Hill, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA for defendants/third-party plaintiffs
Case Number: D68588
In this merger litigation, defendants named only some stockholders in their third-party complaint, but the court dismissed de-fendants' request for rescission because all of the stockholders were indispensable parties. Defendants' unjust enrichment claim survived a motion to dismiss.
Publication Date: 2019-05-08
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael A. Weidinger and Joanne P. Pinckney, Pinckney, Weidinger, Urban & Joyce LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: William M. Lafferty, Susan W. Waesco, and Sabrina M. Hendershot, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Bruce C. Doeg, John S. Hicks, and Christopher E. Thorsen, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Nashville, TN for defendants.
Case Number: D68552
Claim to company equity dismissed pursuant to laches where company repeatedly provided plaintiff over an 11-year period with documentation explicitly demonstrating that company did not acknowledge plaintiff's ownership of the equity at issue.
Publication Date: 2019-05-01
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Distribution and Wholesale | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Judge: Judge Walrath
Attorneys: For plaintiff: R. Grant Dick, IV and Robert W. Pedigo, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Dennis A. Meloro, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Wilmington, DE, Annapoorni R. Sankaran, Holland & Knight LLP, Houston, TX for defendant.
Case Number: D68544
Stipulation between debtor and secured creditor required dismissal of bankruptcy trustee's avoidance action where transfers were made in ordinary course of business and parties would likely have no difficulty in collection at time of stipulation.
Publication Date: 2019-05-01
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stamatios Stamoulis, Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, DE; David R. Bennett, Direction IP Law, Chicago, IL, for plaintiff.
for defendant: Melanie K. Sharp, James L. Higgins, and Michelle M. Ovanesian, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Guy Ruttenberg and Michael Eshaghian, Ruttenberg IP Law, P.C., Los Angeles, CA, for defendant.
Case Number: D68542
Dismissal of direct, contributory, and induced infringement claims denied to the extent plaintiff alleged defendant provided its employees with all the components of the infringing system and that it provided defendant's parent with notice of infringement in plaintiff's original complaint against the parent.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read