• 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.

  • Jaroslawicz v. M&T Bank Corp.

    Publication Date: 2024-02-19
    Practice Area: Securities Litigation
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Wallach
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Francis J. Murphy, Jr., Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon, Wilmington, DE; Steven M. Coren, Benjamin M. Mather, Matthew R. Williams, Kauffman, Coren & Ress, P.C, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Brian M. Rostocki, Anne M. Steadman, Justin M. Forcier, Reed Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jonathan K. Youngwood, Janet A. Gochman, Tyler A. Anger, Katherine A. Hardiman, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, New York, NY; Kevin R. Shannon, Daniel Rusk, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Tracy Richelle High, Scott A. Foltz, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: 15-00897-EJW

    Although plaintiffs' experts' report in support of their damages theory for class certification used sufficiently reliable methodologies under the Daubert standard, the evidence was wholly speculative to demonstrate economic loss or proximate causation, such that plaintiffs could not meet the commonality or predominance standards.

  • Rheault v. Halma Holdings Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-11-27
    Practice Area: Securities Litigation
    Industry: Electronics | Health Care | Software
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Bryson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 23-700-WCB

    Court declined to dismiss securities and common law fraud claims where acquirer failed to disclose the existence of its obligations under a competing earnout agreement when negotiating acquisition of a company.

  • Jaroslawicz v. M&T Bank Corp.

    Publication Date: 2023-09-11
    Practice Area: Securities Litigation
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Wallach
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Francis J. Murphy, Jr., Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon, Wilmington, DE; Steven M. Coren, Benjamin M. Mather, Matthew R. Williams, Kauffman, Coren & Ress, P.C, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Brian M. Rostocki, Anne M. Steadman, Justin M. Forcier, Reed Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jonathan K. Youngwood, Janet A. Gochman, Tyler A. Anger, Katherine A. Hardiman, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, New York, NY; Kevin R. Shannon, Jonathan A. Choa, Daniel Rusk, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Tracy Richelle High, Scott A. Foltz, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: 15-00897-EJW

    Court declined to exclude expert report in support of class certification where unreliability of trading model was not fatal to the reliability and admissibility of the report's event study, but plaintiffs' theories of damages in their expert report did not encompass some damages experienced by certain sophisticated investors.

  • City of Warren Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. Prudential Fin., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-07-17
    Practice Area: Securities Litigation
    Industry: Insurance | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Phipps
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joseph D. Daley, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, San Diego, CA; Peter S. Pearlman, Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf, Saddle Brook, NJ; Daniel J. Pfefferbaum, Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, San Francisco, CA; Douglas Wilens, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Boca Raton, FL for appellant.
    for defendant: David D. Cramer, Tricia B. O’Reilly, Walsh Pizzi O’Reilly & Falanga, Newark, NJ; Maeve L. O’Connor, Susan R. Gittes, Aasiya F.M. Glover, Debevoise & Plimpton, New York, NY for appellees.

    Case Number: 21-1147

    Stockholder sufficiently alleged false or misleading corporate statements where life insurance company reported normal or slightly negative mortality experience only weeks prior to announcing massive increase in reserves, and stockholder had confidential internal information indicating the company had already been contemplating increasing reserves.

  • 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 "*"

  • Huntley v. VBit Tech. Corp.

    Publication Date: 2023-06-06
    Practice Area: Securities Litigation
    Industry: E-Commerce
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Fallon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-1164-CFC-SRF

    Court granted motion for leave to amend securities complaint where no scheduling order had been entered in the case and no defendant had raised a claim that amendment would result in undue prejudice.

  • Huntley v. VBit Tech. Corp.

    Publication Date: 2023-05-23
    Practice Area: Securities Litigation
    Industry: E-Commerce
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Fallon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-1164-CFC-SRF

    Court granted motion for leave to amend securities lawsuit where the motion was made prior to the issuance of a scheduling order and no defendant argued that the amended pleading was futile or would cause them undue prejudice.

  • SLF Holdings LLC v. Uniti Holdings Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-08-30
    Practice Area: Securities Litigation
    Industry: Retail | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Greenaway
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: D69937

    Court affirmed district court's dismissal of claims under federal and state securities law finding that a failure to disclose the possibility that legal action could result as a part of an asset acquisition did not qualify as a material fact for the purposes of omission arguments.

  • Lentz v. Mathias

    Publication Date: 2022-07-26
    Practice Area: Securities Litigation
    Industry: Construction | Investments and Investment Advisory | Transportation
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew W. Lentz, plaintiff pro se
    for defendant: Shah Mathias, defendant pro se; Debra Mathias, defendant pro se; Robert Choiniere, defendant pro se; Bryan Elicker, defendant pro se; Robert Todd Reynold, defendant pro se; James Becker, defendant pro se; Steve Trout, defendant pro se; John W. Thompson, defendant pro se; Shahjahan C. Mathias, defendant pro se; Donald E. Williams, Jr., defendant pro se; Keith Doyle, defendant pro se; Suhail Matthias, defendant pro se; James Kingsborough, defendant pro se; Joseph Silbaugh, defendant pro se; Kevin Eisenhart, defendant pro se; Kurt Bauer, defendant pro se.

    Case Number: D69894

    Court issued temporary injunction barring tender offer after finding that controllers provided misleading and false disclosures in connection with the offer and had made coercive threats to induce non-tendering stockholders to tender.

  • Innovate 2 Corp. v. Motorsport Games Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-04-12
    Practice Area: Securities Litigation
    Industry: Entertainment and Leisure | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Bibas
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joseph Benedict Cicero, Aidan T. Hamilton, Gregory Erich Stuhlman, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Matthew J. Reynolds, Sara G. Wilcox, Huth Reynolds LLP, New York, NY & Denver, CO; Ned C. Weinberger, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Daniel A. O’Brien, Brian L. Schwalb, Venable LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: D69779

    Minority stockholders plausibly alleged that controlling shareholder used insider knowledge to mislead the minority stockholders into being bought out for an unfair price where the now wholly owned company represented almost all the attributed value of the controlling shareholder, which soon after went public for a much higher price than the minority stockholders sold out for.