• Deloitte Consulting LLP v. Sagitec Solutions LLC

    Publication Date: 2024-04-22
    Practice Area: Copyrights
    Industry: Consulting | Software | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Bryson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 23-325-WCB

    Court denied renewed motion for stay pending resolution of interlocutory appeal in related criminal matter where no unexpected events had occurred in that matter and the scope of the limited stay would mean the defendants in the criminal matter would remain unavailable to testify due to their Fifth Amendment privilege.

  • In re: BYJU's Alpha, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-04-15
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Education | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
    Judge: Judge Dorsey
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 24-10140 (JTD)

    Court could issue preliminary injunctive relief to freeze funds at issue in a fraudulent transfer claim where state law authorized prejudgment attachment and equitable claims also provided a basis to issue preliminary equitable relief.

  • In re Match Group, Inc. Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2024-04-15
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Seitz
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael Hanrahan, J. Clayton Athey, Corinne Elise Amato, Kevin H. Davenport, Stacey A. Greenspan, Jason W. Rigby, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Lee D. Rudy, Eric L. Zagar, J. Daniel Albert, Maria T. Starling, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor, PA; Robert D. Klausner, Klausner, Kaufman, Jensen & Levinson, Plantation, FL for appellants.
    for defendant: William M. Lafferty, John P. DiTomo, Elizabeth A. Mullin, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Theodore N. Mirvis, Jonathan M. Moses, Ryan A. McLeod, Alexandra P. Sadinsky, Canem Ozyildirim, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, NY; Blake Rohrbacher, Matthew W. Murphy, Sandy Xu, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Maeve O’Connor, Susan R. Gittes, Amy C. Zimmerman, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York, NY; David E. Ross, Adam D. Gold, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Joshua G. Hamilton, Meryn C.N. Grant, Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Blair Connelly, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Michele D. Johnson, Latham & Watkins LLP, Costa Mesa, CA for appellees.

    Case Number: 368, 2022

    Chancery court erroneously applied business judgment rule to review transaction where controlling stockholder stood on both sides and received a non-ratable benefit where not all members of the company's separation committee were independent from the controller.

  • AP-fonden v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-04-01
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael Hanrahan, Corinne Elise Amato, Kevin H. Davenport, Stacey A. Greenspan, Christine N. Chappelear, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Lee D. Rudy, Eric L. Zagar, J. Daniel Albert, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor, PA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Edward B. Micheletti, Lauren N. Rosenello, Michelle L. Davis, Peyton V. Carper, Claire K. Atwood, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; Elena C. Norman, Daniel M. Kirshenbaum, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephen P. Blake, Laura Lin, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Sareen K. Armani, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants.

    Case Number: 2022-1001-KSJM

    Although the Delaware General Corporation Law only required a corporate board to approve and recommend an essentially complete version of a merger agreement, the draft version approved by defendants failed to meet this standard by omitting key terms and ancillary documents repeatedly referenced throughout the agreement.

  • Palkon v. Maffei

    Publication Date: 2024-04-01
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory V. Varallo, Andrew E. Blumberg, Mae Oberste, Daniel E. Meyer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kimberly A. Evans, Lindsay K. Faccenda, Irene R. Lax, Robert Erickson, Block & Leviton LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Jeremy Friedman, David Tejtel, Christopher Windover, Lindsay La Marca, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC, Bedford Hills, NY; Jason Leviton, Block & Leviton LLP, Boston, MA; D. Seamus Kaskela, Adrienne Bell, Kaskela Law LLC, Newtown Square, PA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Kevin R. Shannon, J. Matthew Belger, Jaclyn C. Levy, Christopher D. Renaud, Justin T. Hymes, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Matthew W. Close, Jonathan B. Waxman, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Abby F. Rudzin, Asher Rivner, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, NY, New York; Bradley R. Aronstam, S. Michael Sirkin, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; John A. Neuwirth, Evert J. Christensen, Jr., Stefania D. Venezia, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: 2023-0449-JTL

    Court declined to certify order denying motion to dismiss where the order did not decide novel legal issues or issues of substantial importance and where interlocutory review was unlikely to materially advance the resolution of the litigation.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings and Related Torts in Pennsylvania, Second Edition

    Authors: George Bochetto, David P. Heim, John A. O’Connell, Robert S. Tintner

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Averon US, Inc. v. AT&T Corp.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-26
    Practice Area: Intellectual Property
    Industry: Software | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Hughes
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Tracy L. Pearson, Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC, Wilmington, DE; Joseph Diamante, Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC, New York, NY; Raymond Jones, Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC, Leesburg, VA; William Flachsbart, Mark Magas, Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC, Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Jason James Rawnsley, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Wilmington, DE; David S. Almeling, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA; Timothy S. Durst, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Dallas, TX for defendants.

    Case Number: 1:22-cv-01341-TMH

    Court declined to dismiss trade secret claims where the parties' contracts could be reasonably interpreted to impose a duty of confidentiality upon defendant to protect plaintiff's disclosed proprietary technology.

  • Malkani v. Cunningham

    Publication Date: 2024-03-11
    Practice Area: Securities Litigation
    Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip Trainer, Jr., Marie M. Degnan, Randall J. Teti, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Marcos D. Jimenez, Marcos D. Jimenez, P.A., Miami, FL for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Ryan P. Newell, Lakshmi A. Muthu, Tara C. Pakrouh, Michael A. Carbonara, Jr., Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Heyden, Jr., Joseph E. Brenner, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: 2020-1004-SG

    Although defendant prevailed on some claims asserted by plaintiff, plaintiff was the prevailing party in the overall litigation as the central issue in the case was the validity and enforceability of the parties' contracts, and thus plaintiff was entitled to legal fees and costs under the contractual fee-shifting provisions.

  • Bailey v. Tektronix, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-11
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: E-Commerce | Manufacturing | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Williams
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Robert Karl Beste, III, Jason Z. Miller, Smith, Katzenstein, & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Anthony David Raucci, Donna Lynn Culver, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: 21-1268-GBW

    Retention holdback agreement breached where reasonable interpretation of definition of qualifying revenue meant that the acquiring company hit the revenue goals to trigger the payout.

  • Buck v. Viking Holding Mgmt. Co. LLC

    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.

  • Mercury Partners Mgmt., LLC v. Valo Health, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-02-19
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Rudolf Koch, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: 2023-0318-MTZ

    Court declined interlocutory review where appeal did not raise novel or conflicting issues of law regarding decision to decline specific performance on a best efforts clause.