Filter This View

  • 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.

  • City of Dearborn Police & Fire Revised Ret. Sys. v. Brookfield Asset Mgmt. Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-04-08
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Valihura
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ned Weinberger, Mark Richardson, Brendan W. Sullivan, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer, David M. Sborz, Jackson E. Warren, Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, DE; John Vielandi, Labtaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY; Jeremy Friedman, David Tejtel, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC, Bedford Hills, NY; Douglas E. Julie, W. Scott Holleman, Garam Choe, Julie & Holleman LLP, New York, NY; Brian J. Robbins, Stephen J. Oddo, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for appellants.
    for defendant: Kevin G. Abrams, Eric A. Veres, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; John A. Neuwirth, Stefania D. Venezia, Amanda K. Pooler, Elizabeth M. Sytsma, Tanner S. Stanley, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY for appellees.
    Case Number: 241, 2023

    Chancery court erred in reviewing squeeze-out merger under business judgment review where proxy statement failed to disclose potential conflicts of interest of the special committee's financial and legal advisors.

  • 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.

  • White Winston Select Asset Funds, LLC v. Good Times Rest., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-18
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Food and Beverage | Hospitality and Lodging | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Restrepo
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 23-1297

    Seller did not breach implied covenant of good faith in negotiations simply by increasing its asking price, as non-binding letter of intent allowed parties to terminate negotiations except to breach exclusivity provision.

  • Graciano v. Abode Healthcare, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-18
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Christopher J. Day, Day Law Group, LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Michael J. Maiomone, Gabriella Mouriz, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: 2022-0728-SG

    Chancery court lacked jurisdiction over complaint seeking specific performance where the relief sought by plaintiff was legal in nature and the parties' contract could not confer jurisdiction.

  • 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 "*"

  • Jacam Chem. Co. 2013, LLC v. Jacam Chem. Co., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-18
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Chemicals and Materials | Energy | Manufacturing
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Paul D. Brown, Joseph B. Cicero, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Janet A. Hendrick, Michele C. Spillman, Angela M. Buchanan, Phillips Murrah P.C., Dallas, TX for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: P. Clarkson Collins, Jr., K. Tyler O’Connell, Kirsten Zeberkiewicz, Morris James, Wilmington, DE; Sean D. Walsh, Scott R. Schillings, Matthew K. Holcomb, Hinkle Law Firm, Wichita, KS for defendants.
    Case Number: 2021-0659-SG

    Contractual limitations period rendered breach of asset purchase agreement facially untimely, and there were no allegations of misconduct by defendants that would warrant tolling the limitation period.

  • Urvan v. AMMO, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-11
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Manufacturing | Retail
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Judge Wallace
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin M. Coen, Rachel R. Tunney, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Nicholas Cutaia, Jaclyn Grodin, Goulston & Storrs PC, New York, NY; Joshua M. Looney, Nora A. Saunders, Goulston & Storrs PC, Boston, MA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, Peter C. Cirka, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: 2023-0470 PRW

    Although claimant had potentially known about facts underlying fraud/misrepresentation claims for some time, the court declined to apply laches to bar the claims where they were filed within the analogous statutes of limitations. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss denied; defendants' motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part.

  • Murdick Capital Mgmt. L.P. v. QuarterNorth Energy Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-11
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Bradley R. Aronstam, Roger S. Stronach, Benjamin M. Whitney, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jordan A. Goldstein, Lauren J. Zimmerman, Babak Ghafarzade, Selendy Gay PLLC, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Blake Rohrbacher, Matthew W. Murphy, John M. O’Toole, Edmond S. Kim, Spencer V. Crawford, Margaret Rockey, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Harry P. Susman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, TX; Thomas W. Briggs, Jr., Kirk Andersen, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew K. Glenn, Glenn Agre Bergman & Fuentes LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
    Case Number: 2024-0106-LWW

    Court declined to preliminarily enjoin invocation of drag-along rights where the invocation was not inconsistent with the terms of the proposed merger agreement or the minority securityholders' agreements and the minority could obtain monetary relief if the court ultimately found an improper invocation.

  • 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.

  • RGIS Int'l Transition Holdco, LLC v. Retail Serv. WIS Co.

    Publication Date: 2024-02-26
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Consulting | Manufacturing | Retail
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Wallace
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Christopher P. Simon, David G. Holmes, Cross & Simon, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jed M. Schwartz, Christopher Almon, Michael T. Frieda, Milbank LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Steven T. Margolin, Bryan T. Reed, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: N21C-12-077

    Conspiracy and aiding and abetting fraud claims against corporate officers failed where there were no allegations that officers acted out of some personal motivation rather than in their officer roles, precluding an exception to the rule that a corporation cannot conspire with its officers.