Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
Publication Date: 2023-11-13
Practice Area: Damages
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen C. Norman, Aaron R. Sims, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; David G. Januszewski, Sheila C. Ramesh, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Edwin J. Harron, James M. Yoch, Jr., Kevin P. Rickert, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kevin C. Maclay, Todd E. Phillips, Quincy M. Crawford, Nathaniel R. Miller, Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, Washington, D.C.; William M. Kelleher, Neil R. Lapinski, Phillip A. Giordano, Gordon, Fournaris & Mammarella, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Ira S. Zaroff, Richard M. Zaroff, Zaroff & Zaroff LLP, Garden City, NY; P. Clarkson Collins, Jr., K. Tyler O’Connell, Albert J. Carroll, R. Eric Hacker, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 2017-0822-SG
Court dismissed in rem action over limited partnership interest where hearing the action would require the court to hale in defendants it lacked personal jurisdiction over and the proceedings were an attempt to circumvent the dismissal of plaintiff's fraudulent transfer claim against defendants for lack of jurisdiction.
Publication Date: 2023-11-13
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael Hanrahan, Samuel L. Closic, John G. Day, Robert B. Lackey, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Max Huffman, Joseph A. Pettigrew, Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, San Diego, CA; Justin O. Reliford, Jing-Li Yu, Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Edward B. Micheletti, Lauren N. Rosenello, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 2022-0666-KSJM
Stockholder lacked standing to enforce merger agreement, and the agreement did not confer stockholders with third-party beneficiary status to pursue lost-premium damages while the target company pursued specific performance of the merger.
Publication Date: 2023-11-13
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer, David M. Sborz, Andrew J. Peach, Jackson E. Warren, Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, DE; Joshua Fruchter, Wohl & Fruchter LLP, Monsey, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Tammy L. Mercer, James M. Yoch, Jr., Michael A. Laukaitis II, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Craig Zieminski, Andy Jackson, Jeremy Gonzales, Vinson & Elkins, LLP, Dallas, TX for defendants.
Case Number: 2022-0248-MTZ
Court declined to award a substantial success fee to stockholders who obtained supplemental disclosures to merger proxy where the disclosures did not remove an impediment to the stockholders' vote, but the disclosures provided a meaningful corporate benefit by informing stockholders about the transaction committee's affiliations with a controlling stockholder sitting on both sides of the merger transaction.
Publication Date: 2023-11-13
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry: Insurance | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Roger D. Landon, Murphy & Landon, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: James W. Semple, R. Grant Dick IV, Cooch and Taylor P.A., Wilmington, DE; Brooks R. Magratten, Michael J. Daly, Pierce Atwood LLP, Providence, RI for defendant.
Case Number: 23-453-CFC
Court transferred case to Eastern District of Virginia where it involved a dispute over an insurance policy issued to a Virginia-headquartered company and the parties had no connection to Delaware other than the company's state of incorporation.
Publication Date: 2023-11-13
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Manufacturing | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Slomsky
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-00169
Court dismissed claim of misleading proxy statements where allegedly false statements about company's commitment to workforce diversity were non-actionable, aspirational puffery that was immaterial to the investing public.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Michael R. Griffinger, Paul F. Cullum III
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-11-06
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Financial Services and Banking
Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Judge: Judge Horan
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 23-11240 (TMH)
Court denied motion to transfer venue where there was no indication debtors had attempted to "manufacture" venue and transfer would not facilitate the efficient resolution of the case.
Publication Date: 2023-11-06
Practice Area: Tax
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Insurance
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel Charles Herr, Law Office of Daniel C. Herr LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jennifer Marie Kinkus, William Edward Gamgort, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 1:21-cv-00249-SB
Breach of fiduciary duty claim was untimely under statute of limitations where plaintiff was on inquiry notice of his claim no later than his receipt of an IRS audit notice investigating transactions involving defendant.
Publication Date: 2023-11-06
Practice Area: Consumer Protection
Industry: Hospitality and Lodging | State and Local Government
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Karsnitz
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John W. Paradee, Brian V. DeMott, Dover, DE for petitioner.
for defendant: Owen P. Lefkon, Ryan T. Costa, Deputy Attorneys General, State of Delaware Department of Justice Wilmington, DE for respondent.
Case Number: S23M-06-018-CAK
Consumer Protection Unit had statutory authority to issue subpoenas to affiliate of manufactured home community owners where it was not exclusively bound to make civil investigative demands under the Consumer Fraud Act, and the subpoenas were sufficiently tailored to the scope of an investigation into the safety of the community residents.
Publication Date: 2023-11-06
Practice Area: Consumer Protection
Industry: Automotive
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Hughes
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ian Connor Bifferato, The Bifferato Firm, Wilmington, DE; Rosemary M. Rivas, David Stein, Kyla J. Gibboney, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Oakland, CA; William H. Anderson, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Boulder, CO; Rebecca P. Chang, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, New York, NY; Simon Wiener, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Boston, MA; Jon M. Herskowitz, Baron & Herskowitz, Miami, FL for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Patrick M. Brannigan, Jessica L. Reno, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephen A. D’Aunoy, Scott H. Morgan, Thompson Coburn LLP, St. Louis, MO for defendant.
Case Number: 22-00518-TMH
Vehicle purchasers' claims arising from manufacturers destination charge practices failed where federal law only required vehicle window stickers to list the price charged by a manufacturer to a dealer to ship vehicles from the factory to the dealer lot and there was no evidence that allegedly inflated destination charges caused consumers to pay more for vehicles as ultimate purchase prices were set by dealerships.
Publication Date: 2023-11-06
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: Mining and Resources
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David A. Felice, Bailey & Glasser, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew St. Laurent, Harris St. Laurent & Wechsler LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: John M. Seaman, E. Wade Houston, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Chelsea Corey, King & Spalding LLP, Charlotte, NC; Carl D. Neff, FisherBroyles, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Aurora Cassirer, Christina H. Bost Seaton, FisherBroyles, LLP, New York, NY; Karen E. Keller, Andrew E. Russell, Nathan R. Hoeschen, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; Justin L. Ormand, Allen & Overy, New York, NY; Patrick W. Pearsall, Allen & Overy, Washington, D.C. for defendants.
Case Number: 2022-0665-SG
Plaintiffs were former equity holders in an Australian rare-earth mining company, whose primary asset was interest in a mining project in West Texas. Defendants transferred the company's assets to a new Delaware entity. Plaintiffs' fourteen causes of action alleged that defendants promised that plaintiffs would each receive an equivalent amount of equity in the Delaware entity as each had previously held in the mining company, however, they alleged that the transactions had diminished their ownership interests. Defendants' motions to
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read