Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
42 results for '* industry:"Entertainment and Leisure"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
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: 2024-01-08
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Entertainment and Leisure
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Davis
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jamie L. Brown, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ian M. Ross, Sidley Austin LLP, Miami, FL for plaintiff.
for defendant: Lisa Zwally Brown, Brian T. Reed, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: N23C-03-304 EMD CCLD
Although affirmative defenses of credits for excess payments or set-off were insufficiently pled, they were enough to put plaintiff on notice that defendants were contesting the amounts due, thereby precluding judgment on the pleadings.
Publication Date: 2023-12-04
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Entertainment and Leisure | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 15-611-GBW
Court granted leave to supplement damages expert report where, although supplementation would cause defendants to incur additional discovery expenses, there would be no delay of trial and the report was critical to plaintiff's ability to prove damages at trial.
Publication Date: 2023-08-07
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Entertainment and Leisure
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory V. Varallo, Daniel E. Meyer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark Lebovitch, Edward Timlin, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, New York, NY; Michael J. Barry, Kelly L. Tucker, Jason M. Avellino, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Thomas Curry, Saxena White P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Kevin M. Gallagher, Matthew W. Murphy, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; John A. Neuwirth, Joshua S. Amsel, Tanner S. Stanley, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 2023-0215-MTZ
The court declined to approve a proposed settlement on behalf of a putative class of common stockholders noting that the release would release not only claims associated with the common stock but also claims related to the ownership of preferred equity units, even though plaintiffs had not brought an action on behalf of a class of preferred equity unitholders.
Publication Date: 2023-07-31
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Entertainment and Leisure
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: F. Troupe Mickler IV, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Edgar G. Sargent, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Seattle, WA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Sarah E. Delia, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: 2021-0476-LWW
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to enforce an option right for which it bargained to pay $1,000 but did not make payment was denied and defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: George Bochetto, David P. Heim, John A. O’Connell, Robert S. Tintner
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-05-23
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | E-Commerce | Entertainment and Leisure
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas Curry, Tayler D. Bolton, Saxena White P.A., Wilmington, DE; David Wales, Sara DiLeo, Saxena White P.A., White Plains, NY; Adam Warden, Jonathan Lamet, Saxena White P.A., Boca Raton, FL for plaintiff.
for defendant: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Kevin M. Gallagher, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Colin B. Davis, Katie Beaudin, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Irvine, CA; Brian M. Lutz, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA; Lissa M. Percopo, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.
Case Number: 2022-0091-KSJM
Stockholder failed to plead demand futility where transaction committee who approved acquisition of failing company did not act in bad faith and therefore would not be subject to a substantial risk of personal liability for the acquisition.
Publication Date: 2023-04-11
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Consulting | Entertainment and Leisure
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas A. Uebler, Joseph L. Christensen, McCollom D’Emilio Smith Uebler LLC, Wilmington, DE; Edward Totino, Nancy Nguyen Sims, Michael T. Boardman, Baker & Mckenzie LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: John M. Seaman, E. Wade Houston, Abrams & Bayliss, Wilmington, DE; Trey Cox, Paulette C. Miniter, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dallas, TX for defendants.
Case Number: 22-363-CJB
Where contract detailed procedure by which parties were to negotiate undefined variable compensation fees, the contract created a duty to negotiate in good faith and allegations that customer failed to lodge reasoned objections or otherwise participate in the negotiation process was sufficient to state a claim for breach.
Publication Date: 2022-11-08
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: E-Commerce | Entertainment and Leisure | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; James R. Hannah, Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Aaron M. Frankel, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Cameron P. Clark, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Aaron E. Hankel, B. Trent Webb, John Garretson, Jordan T. Bergsten, Maxwell C. McGraw, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kansas City, MO for defendant.
Case Number: 16-453-RGA
Doctrine of equivalents claim was collaterally estopped where plaintiff had unsuccessfully attempted in another suit to attempt to read out claim elements to prove that product function in both cases satisfied a claim limitation under the doctrine.
Publication Date: 2022-08-30
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Entertainment and Leisure | Real Estate
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Krause
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D69941
Court dismissed appellant's claim under the Helms-Burton Act arguing that he was the beneficiary of property seized during the Castro Regime.
Publication Date: 2022-08-23
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Entertainment and Leisure
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: R. Crain Martin, Matthew S. Sama, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE; Brett Ingerman, DLA Piper LLP (US), Baltimore, MD; Rachel Ehrlich Albanese, DLA Piper LLP (US), New York, NY for appellant.
for defendant: Robert S. Chapman, Sauer & Wagner LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Adam G. Landis, Kerri K. Mumford, Landis Rath & Cobb LLP, Wilmington, DE for appellee.
Case Number: D69931
Bankruptcy court correctly interpreted asset purchase agreement as entitling affiliate to payment on his participation interest where APA expressly identified the interest as a permitted lien that purchaser remained subject to, and thus the broader, general exclusion of obligations to debtor's affiliates did not control.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read