• National Law Journal

    Supreme Court Keeps a Tight Lid on PTAB Appeals

    June 17, 2019

    The justices turned away two cases Monday that would have let more petitioners appeal unsuccessful validity challenges at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

  • Delaware Business Court Insider

    TrueCar Investors Resist Pause in Delaware Lawsuit While MDL Panel Mulls Consolidating Actions

    May 23, 2019

    Investors in TrueCar Inc. are resisting a bid by the Santa Monica-based car-pricing company's directors to temporarily halt a Delaware derivative lawsuit over allegedly inflated stock prices while a federal panel mulls whether to consolidate shareholder claims into multidistrict litigation.

  • The Legal Intelligencer

    Environmental Contamination Claims Discharged in Bankruptcy

    April 16, 2019

    One of the powerful benefits of bankruptcy is the ability to obtain a “fresh” start by obtaining a discharge of most, but not all claims that arose prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case.

  • Delaware Business Court Insider

    TrueCar Targeted in Derivative Suit Over Allegedly Inflated Stock Price

    April 02, 2019

    According to the complaint, Santa Monica, California-based TrueCar, which operates an internet-based platform for car pricing, disclosed the possibility of changes as merely a risk to its bottom line for nearly a year, when in fact it knew that they were already underway.

  • Heritage Handoff Holdings, LLC v. Fontanella

    Publication Date: 2019-03-20
    Practice Area: Business Torts | Securities Litigation
    Industry: Automotive | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John A. Sensing, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Dylan P. Kletter and Kelsey D. Bond, Brown Rudnick LLP, Hartford, CT for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Dominick T. Gattuso and Aaron M. Nelson, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Marc J. Kurzman; Peter M. Nolin and Damian K. Gunningsmith, Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP, Stamford, CT and New Haven, CT for defendant.

    Case Number: D68501

    Purchaser was entitled to recover on its securities fraud claim based on evidence of misrepresentations and omissions, but its common law fraud claim was precluded by the bootstrapping doctrine.

  • Canfield v. FCA US LLC

    Publication Date: 2019-03-20
    Practice Area: Products Liability
    Industry: Automotive
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jeffrey S. Goddess and P. Bradford deLeeuw, Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Nicholas A. Migliaccio and Jason S. Rathod, Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Kenneth L. Dorsney, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kathy A. Wisniewski and Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Thompson Coburn LLP, St. Louis, MO for defendants.

    Case Number: D68496

    Implied warranty claims not dismissed where defendant allegedly engaged in active concealment of defect, which tolled the limitations periods, and where air-outs on the tires on plaintiffs' vehicles established their potentially non-merchantable condition and put defendant on notice when plaintiffs brought their vehicles in for service.

  • Delaware Business Court Insider

    Investors Sue Over Alleged Adviser Conflicts in $218M Tesla Acquisition

    March 05, 2019

    The class-action complaint, filed by Maxwell investor Davis Rodden, targeted the company's board and sought additional discloses about Barclays Capital Inc.'s current and prior engagements outside of the all-stock deal, which was announced last month.

  • Knecht v. Ford Motor Co.

    Publication Date: 2019-02-13
    Practice Area: Occupational Safety and Health
    Industry: Automotive | Chemicals and Materials
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Wharton
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Adam Balick, Michael Collins Smith and Patrick J. Smith, Balick & Balick, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Bar-tholomew J. Dalton, Ipek K. Medford, Andrew C. Dalton and Michael C. Dalton, Dalton & Assoc., Wil-mington, DE; Danny R. Kraft, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Christian J. Singewald and Rochelle L. Gumaspac, White and Williams LLP, Wilmington, DE for de-fendant.

    Case Number: D68457

    Defendant in this asbestos exposure case was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.

  • Delaware Business Court Insider

    Ford Investor Sues for Access to Records on Employee Harassment Allegations

    January 29, 2019

    The books-and-records suit, filed Monday afternoon in Delaware Chancery Court, alleged that Ford and its directors had failed to provide information related to allegations from Ford employees, which resulted in two multimillion settlements, including a $10.1 million payout in 2017 to resolve claims by women and black employees at its two Chicago plants.

  • Wigginton v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-11-14
    Practice Area: Class Actions | Securities Litigation
    Industry: Automotive | Legal Services | Retail
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan of Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Phillip Kim of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., New York, NY; Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer and David M. Sborz of Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, DE; Ira M. Press, David A. Bishop and Thomas E. Elrod of Kirby Mcinerney LLP, New York, NY; Jeffrey M. Gorris and Christopher P. Quinn of Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Danielle S. Myers of Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; P. Bradford deLeeuw of Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A.; Naumon A. Amjed, Darren J. Check and Ryan T. Degnan of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor, PA, attorneys for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Samuel A. Nolen and Katharine L. Mowrey of Richards Layton & Finger, P.A.; Douglas P. Baumstein and Susan L. Grace of White & Case LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for defendants.

    Case Number: D68351

    Institutional investor with largest financial interest in putative securities fraud class action was entitled to presumption as lead plaintiff despite falling afoul of the 5-in-3 Rule due to the statutory preference for institutional investors serving as lead plaintiffs in securities class actions.