0 results for 'null'
Parsons Denies Motion for Reargument in PharmAthene Case
Delaware Chancery Court Vice Chancellor Donald F. Parsons Jr. denied Siga Technologies' motion for a reargument in its dispute with PharmAthene Inc., which was decided in September. Siga filed the motion seeking to vacate Parsons' order that the company share half of its profits from a smallpox drug with PharmAthene once the product reaches $40 million in sales.In Drafting Plan Releases, Consider Your Enemies and Don't Be Greedy
A recent decision by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware may cause many Chapter 11 debtors to take a more measured approach in seeking plan releases, at least when the plan is contested.Chandler Influence Seen in Glasscock's Opinions, Temperament
Sam Glasscock's corporate governance judicial philosophy still remains a mystery to many even after the completion of his first year as a Delaware Court of Chancery vice chancellor. While legal analysts say it often takes several years for a vice chancellor's views to be apparent, they can see the influence of Glasscock's mentor, former Chancellor William B. Chandler, in both his decisions and temperament.Court of Chancery Issues New Rule to Govern Confidential Filings
On Monday, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a new rule governing confidential filings with the court - Court of Chancery Rule 5.1 - to replace the longstanding Rule 5(g). Rule 5.1 will become effective January 1, 2013. This overhaul of Rule 5(g) reflects the court's historical concern with balancing the public's right of access to judicial proceedings with parties' interests in maintaining the confidentiality of certain information. (See the memorandum from the Delaware Court of Chancery, "Protecting Public Access to the Courts: Chancery Rule 5.1.") Rule 5.1 emphasizes at the outset that "proceedings in a civil action are a matter of public record," and, subject to the limitations outlined in the rule, all filings in the Court of Chancery "shall be available for public access." Notably, Rule 5.1 does not affect the practice of entering into confidentiality stipulations to govern discovery, and is unlikely to affect the designation of confidential and highly confidential material. Instead, Rule 5.1 focuses on confidential information that parties file with the court. Below is a description of the key provisions of Rule 5.1, including where the new rule deviates from the prior Rule 5(g).
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Pennsylvania Causes of Action, 12th Edition
Authors: GAETAN J. ALFANO, RONALD J. SHAFFER, JOSHUA C. COHAN
View this Book
View more book results for the query "*"
What to Expect From Your Delaware Counsel
Recently, the Delaware Court of Chancery has set out what it expects from Delaware lawyers serving as co-counsel in litigation controlled by non-Delaware attorneys. The court explained: "The concept of 'local counsel' whose role is limited to administrative or ministerial matters has no place in the Court of Chancery. The Delaware lawyers who appear in a case are responsible to the court for the case and its presentation." This raises the related issues of what non-Delaware law firms should expect from their Delaware co-counsel in Delaware litigation and what the Delaware counsel should in turn expect from their non-Delaware co-counsel. Treating these issues openly can only help those relationships.A Great Migration of M&A Cases Out of Delaware?
Editor's note: This is the first in a two-part series examining the notion that cases arising under the Delaware General Corporation Law are increasingly being decided elsewhere.Appeals Court Dismisses Fraud Suit Over Failure to Prove Scienter
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to dismiss all claims against a transportation company, ruling that the plaintiffs were unable to prove material misrepresentation with scienter.Chancery Dismisses Shareholder Suit Over Falsified Verifications
The Delaware Court of Chancery has dismissed a lawsuit filed against a medical device company by two of its shareholders because the plaintiffs, including a Philadelphia attorney, filed three verifications that were improperly notarized by a notary public who did not personally witness the second plaintiff sign the documents.TRENDING STORIES
More from ALM
- Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference Midwest 2024: Mike Andolina, Partner, White & Case 1 minute read
- Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference Midwest 2024: Carolyn Burbrink, Uber Director of Volume Mobility Safety and Insurance Litigation 1 minute read
- Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference Midwest 2024: Vaishali Rao, Hinshaw & Culbertson Partner 1 minute read
Resources
How to Build Efficiency at Your Advisory Practice
Brought to you by Morningstar, Inc.
Download Now
How to Build Trust Between Advisors and Clients
Brought to you by Morningstar, Inc.
Download Now
The Future of Payments for Credit Unions
Brought to you by Alogent
Download Now
How to Build Trust Between Advisors and Clients
Brought to you by Morningstar, Inc.
Download Now