• In re Edgio, Inc. Stockholders' Litig.

    Publication Date: 2023-05-16
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions | Telecommunications
    Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory
    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, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, New York, NY; Jeremy Friedman, David Tejtel, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC, Bedford Hills, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Rudolf Koch, Kyle H. Lachmund, John M. O’Toole, Kevin M. Kidwell, Richards Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Deborah Birnbach, Tucker DeVoe, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.

    Case Number: 2022-0624-MTZ

    Corwin cleansing could not apply to injunctive relief claim against entrenching/defensive measures in stockholders' agreement, and plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to support inference that company board negotiated those measures for itself to protect against stockholder activism.

  • Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts, Inc

    Publication Date: 2022-10-31
    Practice Area: Telecommunications
    Industry: E-Commerce
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Circuit Judge Ambro
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-2203

    District court erred in holding third-party marketing company was exempt from liability under Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act for rerouting appellant's communications with gift company's website to its own servers because there was no sweeping direct-party exception to civil liability under WESCA and marketing company intercepted appellant's communications at the point at which the signals were rerouted to marketing company's servers. Vacated and remanded.

  • Crown Castle Fiber LLC v. City of Wilmington

    Publication Date: 2022-10-18
    Practice Area: Telecommunications
    Industry: State and Local Government | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Wallace
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Geoffrey G. Griver, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC, Wilmington, DE; Shawn N. Gallagher, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Gary W. Lipkin, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Charles A. Zdebski, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Washington, DC; Bradley S. Eaby, Deputy Attorney General, State of Delaware Department of Justice, Dover, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: N21C-08-126 PRW

    Court denied wireless infrastructure company summary judgment in action challenging city-mandated franchise agreements for node installation, where there were outstanding issues of material fact regarding whether the franchise agreements were exempted from the preemptive effect of the Federal Telecommunications Act.

  • Nexstar Media Inc. v. Spectrum Mgmt. Holding Co., LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-01-25
    Practice Area: Telecommunications
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Bibas
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: A. Thompson Bayliss, Daniel John McBride, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mitchell A. Kamin, Mark Chen, Covington & Burling LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Lindsay Barnhart, Covington & Burling LLP, Palo Alto, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Wilmington, DE; Howard J. Symons, Jenner & Block LLP, New York, NY; Megan B. Poetzel, Lina R. Powell, Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, IL for defendant.

    Case Number: D69691

    Federal court lacked federal jurisdiction over breach of contract claim where FCC antitrust regulations were not sufficiently substantial enough to the case to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction.

  • Perrong v. Liberty Power Corp., L.L.C.

    Publication Date: 2019-10-16
    Practice Area: Telecommunications
    Industry: Energy | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Chad J. Toms, Whiteford Taylor Preston LLC, Wilmington, DE; Aytan Y. Bellin, Bellin & Assoc. LLC, White Plains, NY for plain-tiff.
    for defendant: Alexandra Rogin, Charles A. Zdebski and Jeffrey P. Brundage, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Wilmington, DE and Washington, DC for defendant. David C. Weiss, Chad A. Readler, Eric R. Womack, Anjali Motgi and Laura D. Hatcher, U.S. Department of Justice.

    Case Number: D68739

    Plaintiff stated a claim for relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and defendant's challenge to plaintiff's standing to seek injunctive relief was premature.

  • 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 "*"

  • IDT Corp. v. U.S. Specialty Ins. Co.

    Publication Date: 2019-02-27
    Practice Area: Insurance Litigation | Telecommunications
    Industry: Insurance | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Wallace
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian M. Rostocki and Benjamin P. Chapple, Reed Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robin L. Cohen and Keith McKenna, McKool Smith, P.C., New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: John C. Phillips, Jr. and David A. Bilson, Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A. Wilmington, DE; Alexander R. Karam and Addison Draper, Clyde & Co. US LLP, Washington, DC for U.S. Specialty Ins. Co.; Henry duPont Ridgely, John L. Reed, Ethan H. Townsend, Joseph G. Finnerty III, Megan Shea Harwick and Eric S. Connuck, DLA Piper LLP, Wilmington, DE and New York, NY for Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. Timothy Jay Houseal and Jennifer M. Kinkus, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Charles C. Lemley , Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC for XL Specialty Ins. Co.

    Case Number: D68474

    The court granted and denied portions of insurers' cross-motions for summary judgment regarding their duty to defend parties in an underlying shareholder action.

  • J&J Sports Prod., Inc. v. M&I Hospitality of Delaware Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-12-05
    Practice Area: Entertainment and Sports Law | Telecommunications
    Industry: Entertainment and Leisure
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Charles J. Brown, III of Gellert Scali Busenkell & Brown, LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: N/A

    Case Number: D68377

    Plaintiff was entitled to damages against a corporate entity for intercepting a cable transmission, but the court denied judgment against the individual defendants.

  • US HF Cellular Communications, LLC v. Stiegler

    Publication Date: 2017-10-25
    Practice Area: Contracts | Contractual Disputes | Telecommunications
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Counsel: Michael W. McDermott, David B. Anthony, William M. “B.J.” Lyon, Jr. and Patricia Clotfelter for plaintiff
    for defendant: Geoffrey G. Grivner for defendants.

    Case Number: D67916

    The court granted defendants motion for summary judgment because the unambiguous terms of the parties agreement included a waiver within the definition of maritime business. With regard to the exercise of certain options, defendants failed to timely act, so the court granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on that issue.

  • EZLinks Golf, LLC v. PCMS Datafit, Inc., DEFAX Case No. D67669 (Del. Super. March 13, 2017), Wallace, J. (20 pages).

    Publication Date: 2017-03-29
    Practice Area: Telecommunications
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge:
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: D67669

    A fraudulent inducement claim and a breach of contract claim, though sufficiently distinct in their allegations and particular enough to meet the heightened pleading standard for fraud, could not be