• Fisher v. Sanborn

    Publication Date: 2021-04-14
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor Bouchard
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Blake A. Bennett, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Brian J. Robbins, Stephen J. Oddo, Emily R. Bishop, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, Joseph A. Sparco, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; James N. Kramer, Alexander K. Talarides, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendants.

    Case Number: D69359

    Derivative complaint dismissed for failure to make pre-suit demand where lack of evidence that a majority of directors acted knowingly and deliberately in permitting the company to violate consumer protection laws or providing false and misleading information to the public meant that directors were exculpated from bad faith claims and therefore faced no substantial likelihood of personal liability and could independently evaluate a litigation demand.

  • Giesecke+Devrient Mobile Security Am., Inc. v. NXT-ID, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-03-31
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Lewis H. Lazarus, K. Tyler O’Connell, Bryan Townsend, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Aryeh S. Portnoy, Emily Alban, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: S. Mark Hurd, Alexandra M. Cummings, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael T. Sullivan, David E. Danovitch, Clark A. Freeman, Sullivan & Worcester LLP, New York, NY for defendant.

    Case Number: D69345

    The plain language of a contract provided that a holder of preferred stock was entitled to dividends at a higher rate in perpetuity.

  • Yeransian v. Markel Corp.

    Publication Date: 2021-03-31
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Insurance | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Laurence V. Cronin, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; James D. Sherrets, Diana J. Bogt, Sherrets Bruno & Vogt, LLC, Omaha, NE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: John M. Seaman, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kristine Maher, Thomas Prewitt, Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP, Cincinnati, OH; Russell C. Silberglied, Travis S. Hunter, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Joseph M. Pastore, III, Pastore & Dailey LLC, Stamford, CT for defendants.

    Case Number: D69349

    The court granted a motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims based on res judicata and lack of standing.

  • Columbus Life Ins. Co. v. Wilmington Trust Co.

    Publication Date: 2021-03-03
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Insurance | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Wallace
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Donald L. Gouge, Jr., Donald L. Gouge, Jr., LLC, Wilmington, DE; Michael J. Miller, Joseph M. Kelleher Philip J. Farinella, Cozen O’Connor, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Steven L. Caponi, Matthew B. Goeller, K&L Gates LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ari Ruben, Susman Godfrey LLP, New York, NY; Steven G. Sklaver, Susman Godfrey LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendant.

    Case Number: D69312

    Although stranger-oriented life insurance policy holder could not maintain void policy under theories of estoppel or waiver, insurance company's acceptance of holder as owner and beneficiary and acceptance of payment of premiums could support fraud claim against insurer.

  • Ophrys LLC v. OneMain Fin., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-03-03
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Ambro
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: D69315

    Plaintiff failed to comply with contractual provisions regarding notice of breach, so it waived any claim it might have had.

  • In re: Washington Mut., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-02-24
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Fisher
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: D69304

    District court properly affirmed bankruptcy court's overruling of preferred securities class member's objection to settlement where examination of the merits demonstrated that liquidating trust properly negotiated and entered into the settlement.

  • Golden Rule Fin. Corp. v. Shareholder Representative Serv. LLC

    Publication Date: 2021-02-17
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael Maimone, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Wilmington, DE; Randall E. Kahnke, Peter C. Mag-nuson, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Minneapolis, MN for plaintiff.
    for defendant: David E. Ross, Elizabeth M. Taylor, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Erin C. Johnston, P.C.; McClain Thompson, Mariel A. Brookins, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY for defendant.

    Case Number: D69297

    In this post-merger dispute, the court granted the seller's motion for dismissal of plaintiff's complaint be-cause the merger agreement specifically identified the accounting principles applicable to the post-closing price adjustment.

  • Columbus Life Ins. Co. v. Wilmington Trust Co.

    Publication Date: 2021-02-03
    Practice Area: Commercial Law
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Insurance
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Donald L. Gouge, Jr., Donald L. Gouge, Jr., LLC, Wilmington, DE; Michael J. Miller, Joseph M. Kelleher, Philip J. Farinella, Cozen O’Connor, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Steven L. Caponi, Matthew B. Goeller, K&L Gates LLP, Wilmington, DE; Steven Sklaver, Susman Godfrey LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Ari Ruben, Susman Godfrey LLP, New York, NY for defendant.

    Case Number: D69281

    Removal to federal court by a non-party was improper, and defendant's attempt to file an amended notice of removal did not relate back to the time of the original notice.

  • Richardson v. Clark

    Publication Date: 2021-01-27
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin H. Davenport, Samuel L. Closic, Jason W. Rigby, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Frank R. Schirripa, Daniel B. Rehns, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, Joseph A. Sparco, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Scott P. Drake, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Dallas, TX; Peter A. Stokes, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Austin, TX for defend-ants.

    Case Number: D69273

    A company's directors failed to adequately address problems identified by federal regulators, but their conduct did not amount to bad faith.

  • Mack v. Rev Worldwide, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-01-20
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: William M. Kelleher, Phillip A. Giordano, Gordon, Fournaris & Mammarella, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Robert A. Giacovas, Lainie E. Cohen, Jacob A. Englander, Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Raymond W. Cobb, O’Hagan Meyer LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kevin M. O’Hagan, Shane M. Bradwell, O’Hagan Meyer LLP, Chicago, IL for defendant.

    Case Number: D69268

    Delaware was an improper forum for plaintiff's claims, because the parties' agreements contained forum selection clauses in favor of other states.