Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
Publication Date: 2024-03-04
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Judge: Judge Horan
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-10541 (TMH)
Court required pro se litigants to submit filings for court screening as a sanction for litigants' abusive litigation conduct in the form of repeated meritless pleadings and filings.
Publication Date: 2024-03-04
Practice Area: Intellectual Property
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Martina Tyreus Hufnal, Douglas E. McCann, Gregory R. Boofer, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; Philip K. Chen, Fish & Richardson P.C., Boston, MA; Brian Coggio, Excylyn Hardin-Smith, Fish & Richardson P.C., New York, NY; Megan A. Chacon, Madelyn McCormick, Bernard Cryan, Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA, for plaintiffs.
for defendant: John C. Phillips, Jr., David A. Bilson, Phillips McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael Nutter, McGuireWoods LLP, Chicago, IL; Corinne S. Hockman, McGuireWoods LLP, Raleigh, NC; Daniel Withers, McGuireWoods LLP, Dallas, TX; Merritt Westcott, McGuireWoods LLP, Houston, TX; Dennis D. Gregory, McGuireWoods LLP, Austin, TX for defendants.
Case Number: 22-434-RGA
Court rejected proposed claim construction for testing method where patent language had failed to establish lexicography or disavowal to require specific test conditions.
Publication Date: 2024-03-04
Practice Area: Products Liability
Industry: Electronics | Manufacturing | Retail
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Wharton
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David C. Malatesta, Jr., Shelsby & Leoni, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Donald M. Ransom, Daniel P. Daly, Casarino Christman Shalk Ransom & Doss, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Christopher T. Logullo, Cobb & Logullo, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: N23C-03-193 FWW
Court dismissed case where plaintiff was on inquiry notice that retaining or using product constituted agreement to binding arbitration with manufacturer, with the arbitration agreement delegating questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
Publication Date: 2024-02-26
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas Curry, Taylor D. Bolton, Saxena White P.A, Wilmington, DE; David Wales, Saxena White P.A., White Plains, NY; Adam Warden, Saxena White P.A; Boca Raton, FL for plaintiff.
for defendant: John P. DiTomo, Miranda N. Gilbert, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; William Savitt, Anitha Reddy, Getzel Berger, Emma S. Stein, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, NY for defendant.
Case Number: 2023-0309-JTL
Court denied summary judgment dismissal of complaint challenging legality of stockholders' agreement provisions on grounds of laches and ripeness, where equitable defenses could not validate a void contractual provision and where stockholder could launch a facial attack against challenged provisions without having to wait for company controllers to breach fiduciary duties.
Publication Date: 2024-02-26
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Consulting | Manufacturing | Retail
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Wallace
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Christopher P. Simon, David G. Holmes, Cross & Simon, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jed M. Schwartz, Christopher Almon, Michael T. Frieda, Milbank LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Steven T. Margolin, Bryan T. Reed, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: N21C-12-077
Conspiracy and aiding and abetting fraud claims against corporate officers failed where there were no allegations that officers acted out of some personal motivation rather than in their officer roles, precluding an exception to the rule that a corporation cannot conspire with its officers.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Jonathan H. Lomurro, Gary L. Riveles, Abbott S. Brown
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2024-02-26
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: Accounting | Consulting | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Adams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John M. LaRosa, LaRosa & Associates LLC, Wilmington, DE; Lawrence P. Schaefer, Bert Black, Mack H. Reed, Timothy S. Christensen, Anne C. Bolgert, Schaeffer Halleeen, LLC, Minneapolis, MN for plaintiff.
for defendant: Peter H. Kyle, John L. Reed, Daniel P. Klusman, DLA Piper, LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: N20C-08-249 MAA CCLD
Court denied parties' cross-motions for summary judgment where finding cause for termination was a condition precedent to employer's option to repurchase employee's equity at original cost and where there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether cause existed.
Publication Date: 2024-02-26
Practice Area: Insurance Law
Industry: Insurance | Pharmaceuticals
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Wallace
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel M. Silver, Benjamin A. Smith, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robin L. Cohen, Cynthia M. Jordano, David J. Matulewicz-Crowley, Cohen Ziffer Frenchman & McKenna LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Marc S. Casarino, Kennedys CMK LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeanette L. Dixon, Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramriez, Trester LLP, New York, NY; John C. Phillips, Jr., David A. Bilson, Phillips McLaughlin & Hall, Wilmington, DE; James Sandnes, Sarah F. Voytryas, Skarzynski Marick & Black, LLP, New York, NY; Bruce W. McCullough, Bodel Bové, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Ronald P. Schiller, Thomas N. Brown, Daniel J. Layden, Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, Philadelphia, PA; R. Grant Dick, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Courtney E. Scott, Tressler LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: N22C-10-340
Court found that coverage exclusion in defendants' insurance tower for insured's securities action was not triggered where prior SEC subpoena was, at best, tangentially related to the action as the subpoena and the action focused on two different types of alleged improper conduct.
Publication Date: 2024-02-26
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Consulting | Entertainment and Leisure | Retail
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joseph L. Christensen, Christensen & Dougherty LLP, Wilmington, DE; Edward Totino, Nancy Nguyen Sims, Michael T. Boardman, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: John M. Seaman, E. Wade Houston, Christopher Fitzpatrick Cannataro, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Trey Cox, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dallas, TX for defendant.
Case Number: 22-363-CJB
Court granted partial dismissal of breach of contract claim where parties reached written agreement on only one set of figures for three of their projects, meaning the parties had not reached a complete written agreement.
Publication Date: 2024-02-26
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Legal Services
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Michael A. Pittenger, Hayden J. Driscoll, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael A. Barlow, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Samuel D. Cordle, Peter C. Cirka, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: 2022-1179-KSJM
Court sustained objection to request for advancement of two categories of fees where plaintiff failed to seek advancement of those fees in her original complaint and could not raise them in a subsequent motion for payment.
Publication Date: 2024-02-19
Practice Area: Real Estate
Industry: Real Estate
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Paul G. Enterline, Georgetown, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Brian J. Ferry, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: 2022-1211-MTZ
Option contract with firm deadline for exercise effectively contained a "time is of the essence" provision regardless of whether the contract used that specific phrase.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read