• Certisign Holding, Inc. v. Kulikovsky

    Publication Date: 2018-06-20
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael A. Pittenger, Jaclyn C. Levy, Jay G. Stirling, and Tyson J. Prisbrey, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: David J. Margules, Elizabeth A. Sloan, and Suzanne O. Lufadeju, Ballard Spahr LLP, Wilmington, DE; William B. Igoe, Ballard Spahr LLP, Philadelphia, PA, attorneys for defendant.

    Case Number: D68182

    Directors' demand for transfer of stock ownership and repayment of personal loan in exchange for agreeing to ratify defective corporate acts constituted breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty.

  • Edinburgh Holdings, Inc. v. Educ. Affiliates, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-06-20
    Practice Area: Contracts | Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Education
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ryan P. Newell and Kyle Evans Gay, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lee M. Whitman and Samuel A. Slater, Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton LLP, Raleigh, NC, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Douglas D. Herrmann and Christopher B. Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendants.

    Case Number: D68183

    Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent inducement, and breach of fiduciary duty claims dismissed as improperly duplicative of breach of contract claim where alleged implied covenants, fiduciary duties, and fraudulent inducement solely involved opposing party's contractual obligations.

  • Steinberg v. Bearden

    Publication Date: 2018-06-13
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Software
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor Bouchard
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Brian D. Long, Gina M. Serra and Jeremy J. Riley for plaintiff
    for defendant: Elena C. Norman, Jordan Eth, Anna Erickson White and Ryan Keats for defendants.

    Case Number: D68179

    In this derivative action, the shareholder failed to demonstrate that pre-suit demand was excused.

  • City of N. Miami Beach Gen. Emps.' Ret. Plan v. Dr Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-06-13
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Food and Beverage
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor Bouchard
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael J. Barry, Jeff A. Almeida, and Laina M. Herbert, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, DE; Mark Lebovitch and John Vielandi, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for plaintiffs
    for defendant: S. Mark Hurd, Melissa A. DiVincenzo, Eric S. Klinger-Wilensky, and Alexandra Cumings, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brian A. Herman, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, New York, NY; Jason H. Wilson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Paul J. Lockwood, Joseph O. Larkin, Sarah R. Martin, Alyssa S. O'Connell, and Michelle L. Davis, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendants.

    Case Number: D68175

    Stockholders were not entitled to statutory right of appraisal where their stock was not in a constituent corporation as the merger was being effected by a merger subsidiary and where stockholders would retain their shares following merger.

  • The Marilyn Abrams Living Trust v. Pope Inv. LLC

    Publication Date: 2018-06-13
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas E. Hanson, Jr. and Jeffrey R. Blackwood for plaintiff
    for defendant: Jonathan M. Stemerman for defendants.

    Case Number: D68180

    A party that was awarded expenses under the bad faith exception to the American Rule was not entitled to re-cover expenses incurred on a subsequent appeal, nor was it able to recover additional fees incurred at the trial level.

  • WNYH, LLC v. AccuMED Corp.

    Publication Date: 2018-06-13
    Practice Area: Contracts | Deals and Transactions
    Industry: Biotechnology
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin G. Abrams, Matthew L. Miller, Christopher R. Rodi and Brian J. Capitummino for plaintiff
    for defendant: Gregory v. Varallo and Susan M. Hannigan for defendants.

    Case Number: D68181

    The parties to a sale agreement did not condition the transaction on tax-free status, so the seller did not have a breach of contract claim against the buyer, but the court refused to dismiss a claim relating to an escrow ac-count, because the parties' escrow settlement agreement was ambiguous.

  • The Dow Chem. Co. v. Organik Kimya Holding A.S.

    Publication Date: 2018-06-06
    Practice Area: Commercial Law | Trade Secrets
    Industry: Chemicals and Materials
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rodger D. Smith II, Ryan D. Stottmann, Charles K. Verhoeven, Raymond N. Nimrod and James E. Baker for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Kathleen Furey McDonough, John A. Sensing, Ryan C. Cicoski, J. Robert Robertson and Benjamin Holt for defendants.

    Case Number: D68171

    In this trade secret matter, plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to provide defendants with notice of its claims, and the court held it was premature to determine choice of law and preemption issues.

  • In re Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. Unitholder Litig.

    Publication Date: 2018-05-30
    Practice Area: Class Actions | Mergers and Acquisitions | Securities Litigation
    Industry: Energy
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael Hanrahan, Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Kevin H. Davenport, Samuel L. Closic, and Eric J. Juray, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Marc A. Topaz, Lee D. Rudy, Eric L. Zagar, Michael C. Wagner, and Grant D. Goodhart, III, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor, PA, attorneys for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Rolin P. Bissel, James M. Yoch, Jr., and Benjamin M. Potts, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Holmes, John C. Wander, Craig E. Zieminski, and Andrew E. Jackson, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, TX; David E. Ross and Benjamin Z. Grossberg, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; M. Scott Barnard, Michelle Reed, and Lauren E. York, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Dallas, TX, attorneys for defendants.

    Case Number: D68160

    Unitholders' complaint challenging private issuance of securities to insiders established unfairness of transaction, but did not warrant equitable relief cancelling the transaction where partnership was not injured by transaction.

  • MHS Capital LLC v. Goggin

    Publication Date: 2018-05-23
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Mining and Resources
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip Trainer, Jr., Marie M. Degnan, Stanley S. Arkin, Robert C. Angelillo and Alex Reisen for plaintiff
    for defendant: Gregory V. Varallo, Susan M. Hannigan, David L. Katsky, Adrienne B. Koch and Joseph Weiner for de-fendants Goggin and Goodwin; Michael Busenkell and Michael T. Leigh for defendant Collins.

    Case Number: D68153

    Where an operating agreement contained an exculpatory provision, plaintiff was entitled to proceed only on its breach of contract claim.

  • PR Acquisitions, LLC v. Midland Funding LLC

    Publication Date: 2018-05-16
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Garvan F. McDaniel, Daniel K. Hogan, Eric D. Herschmann, Michael P. Bowen and Olga Lucia Fuentes Skinner for PR Acquisi-tions, LLC and Operating Partners Co., LLC
    for defendant: Matthew F. Boyer, Ryan P. Newell, Mary I.. Akhimien, Alan F. Kaufman and Joseph G. Silver for Midland Funding, LLC.

    Case Number: D68147

    Defendant failed to provide notice of claims as required by the parties agreement, and the court rejected defendants actual notice argument.