• Council of Ass'n of Unit Owners of Pelican Cove Condo. v. Yeilding

    Publication Date: 2019-06-26
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry: Hospitality and Lodging
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard E. Berl, Jr., Hudson, Jones, Jaywork & Fisher, LLC, Lewes, DE for petitioner
    for defendant: Dean A. Campbell, Law Office of Dean A. Campbell, P.A., Georgetown, DE for respondents.

    Case Number: D68606

    Maximum occupancy restriction in declaration of condominium was enforceable against unit owner where such restriction was facially neutral, did not conflict with local ordinance, and where owner had constructive notice of the restriction.

  • Delaware Business Court Insider

    LLCs Linked to Backpage.com Sex Trafficking Set to Lose Delaware Formations

    June 12, 2019

    The DOJ said in a statement that the LLCs, Backpage.com, Website Technologies, Posting Solutions and Amstel River Holdings, would lose their certificates of formation under a consent judgment, issued Tuesday by the Delaware Court of Chancery.

  • Delaware Business Court Insider

    Payment of Discretionary Bonus Not a Per Se Fraudulent Conveyance

    June 05, 2019

    In Jalbert v. Flanagan (In re F-Squared Investment Management), the trustee of a liquidating trust sought to avoid bonus payments by the debtors as fraudulent conveyances.

  • Ultravision Tech., LLC v. RMG Networks Holding Corp.

    Publication Date: 2019-05-22
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Advertising | Electronics
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen B. Brauerman and Sara E. Bussiere, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Alfred R. Fabricant, Lawrence C. Drucker, Peter Lambrianakos, Vincent J. Rubino, III, Joseph M. Mercadante and Alessandra C. Messing, Brown Rudnick LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brett Charhon, Martin C. Robson and Anthony M. Garza, Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza, PLLC, Dallas, TX for defendant.

    Case Number: D68473

    The court exercised its discretion to transfer this patent infringement action to a federal district court in another state for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and because neither of the parties had their headquarters or operations in Delaware.

  • Mehta v. Mobile Posse, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-05-22
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Advertising | Investments and Investment Advisory | Software
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Marcus E. Montejo and John G. Day, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Rafael X. Zahralddin and Jonathan M. Stemerman, Elliott Greenleaf, P.C., Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: D68470

    In this case involving a corporate merger, the company and its board were not entitled to judgment on the pleadings where they did not comply with statutory notice requirements regarding appraisal rights.

  • Delaware Law Weekly

    New Lawsuit Takes Aim at Promotion of Rival Kidney Transplant Rejection Test

    April 10, 2019

    In a complaint filed Wednesday morning, attorneys for CareDx said Natera, which is based in San Carlos, California, was using a flawed study to launch a "false marketing campaign,"

  • Delaware Business Court Insider

    Facebook Investors Ask Delaware Court for Access to Ad Revenue, Executive Pay Records

    March 25, 2019

    The books-and-records suit, filed March 22 by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority and Boston Retirement System, cited a steep decline in Facebook's market value after the company said last July that it expected to see a slowdown in revenue growth.

  • Delaware Business Court Insider

    Group Urges Congressional Support for National Database for Secretive LLCs

    March 19, 2019

    A government transparency group has urged Delaware's congressional delegation to introduce legislation to create a national database of beneficial owners of corporations and limited liability companies.

  • Citrix Sys., Inc. v. AVI Networks, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-02-27
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Douglas E. McCann and Robert M. Oaks, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; Ruffin B. Cordell and Indranil Mukerji, Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, DC; Adam J. Kessel, Fish & Richardson P.C., Boston, MA; Elizabeth Brenckman , Fish & Richardson P.C., New York. NY; John-Paul Fryckman, Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, and Stephanie E. O'Byrne, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Josh Krevitt and Brian A. Rosenthal, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY; Y. Ernest Hsin, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA; Brian K. Andrea, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC for defendant.

    Case Number: D68470

    Patent claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter where they merely attempted to claim the use of dynamic response times, as opposed to static response times, to improve the determination of availability of network service, without demonstrating how such processes were unique to or improved the functionality of computer networks.

  • Schnatter v. Papa John's Int'l, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-01-30
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Food and Beverage
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor Bouchard
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Peter B. Ladig, Brett M. McCartney and Elizabeth A. Powers, Bayard, P.A. Wilmington, DE; Garland A. Kelley, Glaser Weil LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Blake Rohrbacher, Robert L. Burns, Brian F. Morris and Kevin M. Regan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: D68444

    A company failed to demonstrate that a director's request for records was made for an improper purpose, so the court required the company to provide relevant documents, including emails and text messages.