Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
195 results for '* industry:"Health Care"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2021-12-28
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Bradley R. Aronstam, Roger S. Stronach, Ross, Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Philippe Z. Selendy, Andrew R. Dunlap, Sean P. Baldwin, Joshua S. Margolin, Greg Wolfe, Vivek Tata, Selendy & Gay LLC, New York, NY; Martin S. Schenker, Jeffrey S. Karr, Cooley LLP, San Francisco, CA; Daniel J. Pohlman, Daniel P. Roy III, Cooley LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: William M. Lafferty, Susan W. Waesco, Elizabeth A. Mullin, Morris, Nichols, Arsht, & Tunnel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gary A. Bornstein, Damaris Hernández, LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69655
The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims of common law fraud, breach of implied covenant of good faith, entitlement to recission based upon mutual mistake, and unjust enrichment.
Publication Date: 2021-12-21
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Wallace
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Wilks, Scott B. Czerwonka, Wilks Law, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jordan E. Stern, William H. Newman, Becker, Glynn, Muffly, Chassin & Hosinski, LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Catherine A. Gaul, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; David B. Anthony, Berger Harris LLP, Wilmington, DE; Beth A. Bryan, Taft Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, Cincinnati, OH for defendants.
Case Number: D69649
The court held that plaintiff's claims were not ripe or justiciable and its breach of representations claim failed to state a claim where plaintiff did not and could not plead damages.
Publication Date: 2021-12-14
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Johnston
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Dominick T. Gattuso, Aaron M. Nelson, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Anthony J. O’Malley, Rajeev K. Adlakha, Karey E. Werner, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, Cleveland, OH for plaintiffs
for defendant: D. McKinley Measley, Sabrina M. Hendershot, Michael J. Slobom, Jr., Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Britt K. Latham, Bass Berry & Sims PLC, Nashville, TN; Shayne R. Clinton, Bass Berry & Sims PLC, Knoxville, TN for defendants
Case Number: D69642
The court held that plaintiffs properly pled claims of both breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; at the pleadings stage, plaintiffs were allowed to maintain both claims. Motion to dismiss denied.
Publication Date: 2021-12-14
Practice Area: Products Liability
Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David G. Culley, Tybout, Redfearn & Pell, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff
for defendant: Brian M. Rostocki, Reed Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE; J. David Bickham, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA; Michael K. Brown, Reed Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants
Case Number: D69645
Motion to dismiss amended product liability claim involving medical device denied where the amended complaint asserted new facts further explaining the similarities between the product-in-suit and other products subject to consumer complaints and recalls.
Publication Date: 2021-10-06
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory | Real Estate
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel E. Ross, Bradley R. Aronstam, Ross Aronstam & Moritz, Wilmington, DE; Joshua S. Amsel, Matthew R. Friedenberg, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Joseph H. Huston, Jr., Stevens & Lee P.C., Wilmington, DE; Robert K. Keach, Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, Portland, ME for receiver. Ryan P. Newell, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE for nominal defendants.
Case Number: D69561
Claimant was entitled to indemnification of his litigation expenses, and the court granted his motion to intervene because he had a valid property interest which was not adequately protected by existing parties.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Shari L. Klevens, Alanna G. Clair
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2021-08-25
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Food and Beverage | Health Care
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge LeGrow
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard L. Renck, Tracey E. Timlin, Duane Morris LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert M. Castle, III, Randy D. Gordon, Duane Morris LLP, Dallas, TX for plaintiff.
for defendant: Kenneth J. Nachbar, Miranda N. Gilbert, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; R. Todd Cronan, Joseph P. Rockers, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.
Case Number: D69511
Buyer could pursue fraud claims against seller of companies, even though the companies made the fraudulent misrepresentations, where an anti-reliance clause could not exculpate liability for intra-contractual fraud and where the seller was plausibly alleged to have known of the falsity of the contractual representations.
Publication Date: 2021-07-28
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Health Care
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Theodore A. Kittila, James G. McMillan, III, William E. Green, Halloran Farkas + Kittila LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Stephen B. Brauerman, Sarah T. Andrade, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69483
A company adequately alleged claims for unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty against former di-rectors who obtained a derivative award in favor of the company, but then failed to turn over the funds.
Publication Date: 2021-07-28
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Health Care | Insurance | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John L. Reed, Matthew Denn, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE; Ardith Bronson, Maia Sevilla-Sharon, DLA Piper LLP (US), Miami, FL for plaintiff.
for defendant: Raymond W. Cobb, Law Offices of Raymond W. Cobb, LLC (formerly with O’Hagan Meyer LLP), Wilmington, DE; Kevin F. Berry, O’Hagan Meyer LLP, Philadelphia, PA for defendants.
Case Number: D69479
Failure to disclose the existence of adverse litigation was sufficient to support a claim of fraudulent inducement of joint venture agreement.
Publication Date: 2021-07-07
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor Wallace
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Christopher Viceconte, Gibbons P.C., Wilmington, DE; Anthony J. Rospert, Thomas M. Ritzert, Thompson Hine LLP, Cleveland, OH; Heather M. Hawkins, Thompson Hine LLP, Cincinnati, OH for plaintiff.
for defendant: Peter B. Ladig, Elizabeth A. Powers, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Jordan D. Weiss, Allison R. Klein, Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, NY for defendant.
Case Number: D69454
Breach of earnout payment contractual provision counterclaim was dismissed where contract required arbitration of disputes over calculation and payment, which claims of diversion of funds to avoid triggering payment obligations fell under.
Publication Date: 2021-06-30
Practice Area: Health Care Law
Industry: Federal Government | Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Stark
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael P. Kelly, Daniel M. Silver, Alexandra M. Joyce, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Allon Kedem, Jeffrey L. Handwerker, Sally L. Pei, Stephen K. Wirth, Arnold & Porter Kay Scholer LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Brian D. Netter, Michelle R. Bennett, Rachael L. Westmoreland, Kate Talmor, Jody Lowenstein, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for defendants.
Case Number: D69446
U.S. Department of Health and Human Service's guidance regarding the 340B drug program violated the Administrative Procedure Act due to lack of notice-and-comment where guidance materially altered obligations of drugmakers under the 340B program and constituted a final agency decision.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read