• Maverick Therapeutics, Inc. v. Harpoon Therapeutics, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-05-12
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jody C. Barillare, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE; Rollin B. Chippey II, Benjamin P. Smith, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, San Francisco, CA; John P. DiTomo, Elizabeth A. Mullin, Aubrey J. Morin, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; John Ruskusky, Lisa C. Sullivan, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Gregory P. Williams, Steven J. Fineman, Nicole K. Pedi, Angela Lam, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Martin S. Schenker, Lilia Lopez, Cooley LLP, San Francisco, CA; Jeffrey Karr, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA for defendant.

    Case Number: D69392

    Purchaser of spin-off entitled to damages for fraudulent misrepresentation by seller who subsequently engaged in competition with spin-off, equal to both the half the value due to the splitting of the market and a further discount to reflect the seller's position as the pioneer of the technology that gave it a competitive advantage.

  • Yeransian v. Markel Corp.

    Publication Date: 2021-03-31
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Insurance | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Laurence V. Cronin, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; James D. Sherrets, Diana J. Bogt, Sherrets Bruno & Vogt, LLC, Omaha, NE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: John M. Seaman, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kristine Maher, Thomas Prewitt, Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP, Cincinnati, OH; Russell C. Silberglied, Travis S. Hunter, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Joseph M. Pastore, III, Pastore & Dailey LLC, Stamford, CT for defendants.

    Case Number: D69349

    The court granted a motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims based on res judicata and lack of standing.

  • Valley Joist BD Holdings, LLC v. EBSCO Indus., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-03-24
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Johnston
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joseph B. Cicero, Aidan T. Hamilton, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeffrey H. Zaiger, Judd Lindenfeld, Zaiger LLC, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: John P. DiTomo, Sara Toscano, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: D69341

    The parties' agreement unambiguously provided for a shortened limitations period and plaintiff failed to meet the heightened pleading standard for fraud, so the court dismissed plaintiff's breach of contract claim and fraud in the inducement claims.

  • In re Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc. Merger Litig.

    Publication Date: 2021-03-17
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Energy
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ned Weinberger, Derrick Farrell, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gregory V. Varallo, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Christopher J. Orrico and Alla Zayenchik, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Stephen E. Jenkins, Marie M. Degnan, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Martin S. Lessner, James M. Yoch, Jr., Paul J. Loughman, Kevin P. Rickert, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brian J. Massengill, Matthew C. Sostrin, Linda X. Shi, Mayer Brown LLP, Chi-cago, IL for defendants.

    Case Number: D69329

    Neither collateral estoppel nor the doctrine of stare decisis precluded plaintiffs' claims.

  • Dieckman v. Regency GP LP

    Publication Date: 2021-03-10
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Energy
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor Bouchard
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Christine M. Mackintosh, Vivek Upadhya, Michael D. Bell, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, DE; Gregory V. Varallo, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Edward G. Timlin, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Rolin P. Bissell, Tammy L. Mercer, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Holmes, John C. Wander, Craig E. Zieminski, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, TX for defendants.

    Case Number: D69320

    Although board member was placed on conflicts committee prior to merger when the member did not meet qualifications under the company's partnership agreement, the evidence was insufficient to find that the merger was unfair or unreasonable to the company or its limited partners, and the lack of evidence of bad faith or willful misconduct also triggered application of an exculpation from money damages.

  • Blattman v. C3, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-03-03
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Software
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Scirica
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Timothy J. Houseal, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, Wilmington, DE; John M. McNichols, Stephen D. Raber, Williams & Connolly, Washington, DC for appellants.
    for defendant: Jesse Bernstein, Michael B. Carlinsky, Kathleen M. Sullivan, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, New York, NY; Kevin P.B. Johnson, David E. Myre, III, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Redwood Shores, CA; Derek Shaffer, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Washington, DC; Kenneth J. Nachbar, Lauren Neal, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, DE for appellees.

    Case Number: D69311

    Arbitrary company valuation used to calculate share exchange in merger transaction did not constitute adequate evidence to support damages for a breach of contract claim.

  • Firefighters' Pension Sys. of the City of Kansas City, Missouri Trust v. Presidio, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-02-24
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael Hanrahan, Samuel L. Closic, Stephen D. Dargitz, Jason W. Rigby, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Lee D. Rudy, J. Daniel Albert, Stacey A. Greenspan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor, PA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Kevin R. Shannon, Berton W. Ashman, Jr., Daniel M. Rusk, IV, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ryan A. McLeod, Alexandra P. Sadinsky, Wilfred T. Beaye, Jr., Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, NY; William M. Lafferty, John P. DiTomo, Alexandra M. Cumings, Sara Toscano, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Scott B. Luftglass, Rebecca L. Martin, Anne S. Aufhauser, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York, NY; Raymond J. DiCamillo, Kevin M. Gallagher, Megan E. O’Connor, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A, Wilmington, DE; John L. Hardiman, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY; A. Thompson Bayliss, E. Wade Houston, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Matthew Solum, Courtney A. Carvill, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: D69302

    CEO held personal interest in proposed acquisition transaction that he was not entitled to exculpation for, and company's financial advisor and winning bidder aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by exchanging information regarding the company's bidding process.

  • Golden Rule Fin. Corp. v. Shareholder Representative Serv. LLC

    Publication Date: 2021-02-17
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael Maimone, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Wilmington, DE; Randall E. Kahnke, Peter C. Mag-nuson, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Minneapolis, MN for plaintiff.
    for defendant: David E. Ross, Elizabeth M. Taylor, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Erin C. Johnston, P.C.; McClain Thompson, Mariel A. Brookins, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY for defendant.

    Case Number: D69297

    In this post-merger dispute, the court granted the seller's motion for dismissal of plaintiff's complaint be-cause the merger agreement specifically identified the accounting principles applicable to the post-closing price adjustment.

  • Morris v. Spectra Energy Partners (DE) GP, LP

    Publication Date: 2021-02-10
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Seitz
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael J. Barry, Rebecca A. Musarra, Grant & Eisenhoffer P.A., Wilmington, DE; Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer, David M. Sborz, Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jeremy S. Friedman, Spencer Oster, David F.E. Tejtel, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC, Bedford Hills, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Robert S. Saunders, Ronald N. Brown, III, Ryan M. Linsay, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; Noelle M. Reed, Daniel S. Mayerfeld, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Hou-ston, TX for defendant.

    Case Number: D69293

    The trial court erred in applying a litigation risk discount on a motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

  • IMEG Corp. v. Patel

    Publication Date: 2021-02-03
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Construction
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Mary Sikra Thomas, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Scott Commerson, John P. LeCrone, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Los Angelels, CA for petitioner.
    for defendant: Ryan Patrick Newell, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Richard J. Frey, David M. Prager, Brock J. Seraphin, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. , Los Angeles, CA for respondent.

    Case Number: D69283

    Defendant was judicially estopped from asserting a position that was inconsistent with one taken in prior litigation.