• Gordian Med., Inc. v. Vaughn

    Publication Date: 2024-04-15
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew L. Cole, Stacy L. Newman, Jack M. Dougherty, Cole Schotz P.C., Wilmington, DE; Ryan J. Morley, John W. Hofstetter, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Cleveland, OH for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Daniel C. Herr, Law Office of Daniel C. Herr, LLC, Wilmington, DE; David E. Rothstein, Rothstein Law Firm, PA, Greenville, SC for defendant.

    Case Number: 22-319 (MN)

    Although court found most of former employee's restrictive covenants enforceable as reasonably tailored to protect employer's legitimate economic interests, it granted employee judgment where former employer failed to present evidence at trial proving that employee breached any enforceable covenant.

  • United States v. Walmart Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-26
    Practice Area: Health Care Law
    Industry: Distribution and Wholesale | Federal Government | Retail
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Dylan J. Steinberg, United States Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE; Adam E. Lyons, Amanda N. Liskamm, Joshua Fowkes, Kathleen B. Gilchrist, Katherine M. Ho, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Kelly E. Farnan, Robert W. Whetzel, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Laura Jane Durfee, Jones Day, Columbus, OH; Yaakob M. Roth, Kristen A. Lejnieks, William G. Laxton, Jr., Jones Day, Washington, DC; Andrew J. Junker, Jason S. Varnado, Jones Day, Houston, TX; Karen P. Hewitt, Jones Day, San Diego, CA; David W. Ogden, Charles C. Speth, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.

    Case Number: 20-1744-CFC

    Pharmacy operator did not commit unlawful violations of the Controlled Substances Act where reporting of suspicious drug orders was not yet required by the act and where the allegedly violated regulations promulgated under the CSA were inconsistent with the act's express prohibitions.

  • AstraZeneca Pharm. LP v. Becerra

    Publication Date: 2024-03-18
    Practice Area: Health Care Law
    Industry: Federal Government | Manufacturing | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel M. Silver, Alexandra M. Joyce, McCarter & English LLP, Wilmington, DE; Catherine E. Stetson, Susan M. Cook, Marian Golden, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Jacob Laksin, United States Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE; Brian D. Netter, Brian M. Boynton, Michelle R. Bennett, Alexander V. Sverdlov, Stephen M. Pezzi, Christine L. Coogle, Cassandra M. Snyder, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC for defendants.

    Case Number: 23-931-CFC

    Drug manufacturer lacked standing to challenge Drug Price Reduction Program and associated guidelines due to the lack of a concrete and imminent injury in fact from the program.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 "*"

  • In re: Stimwave Tech. Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-04
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
    Judge: Judge Horan
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-10541 (TMH)

    Court required pro se litigants to submit filings for court screening as a sanction for litigants' abusive litigation conduct in the form of repeated meritless pleadings and filings.

  • 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.

  • DiDonato v. Campus Eye Mgmt., LLC

    Publication Date: 2024-02-12
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Mary F. Dugan, Emily V. Burton, Tanner C. Jameson, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Ethan H. Townsend, Daniel T. Menken, Ryan D. Konstanzer, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: 2023-0671-LWW

    Manager and member of LLC remained the manager of the company where the LLC agreement required his involvement and approval for any amendment, such that the other investors in the company could not unilaterally amend the agreement to remove the manager.

  • 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.

  • Cline v. The Nemours Found.

    Publication Date: 2023-10-23
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry: Health Care | Non-Profit
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Wharton
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jessica Lewis Welch, Doroshaw, Pasquale, Krawitz & Bhaya, Wilmington, DE for appellant.
    for defendant: Keri L. Morris-Johnson, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE for appellee.

    Case Number: N22A-11-003 FWW

    Industrial Accident Board erred in failing to consider claimant's individual circumstances in determining whether claimant had exhausted reasonable conservative treatment and thus had made surgical treatment reasonable and necessary.