• In re Tesla Motors, Inc. Stockholders Litig.

    Publication Date: 2018-04-11
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance | Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Automotive | Energy | Manufacturing
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jay W. Eisenhofer, James J. Sabella, Michael Hanrahan, Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Samuel L. Closic, Ned Weinberger, Ryan T. Keating, Thomas, Curry, Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris, Justin S. Brooks, Randall J. Baron, David T. Wissbroecker, Maxwell R. Huffman, Lee D. Rudy, Eric L. Zagar, Robin Win-chester, Kristen L. Ross, Mark Lebovitch and Jeroen van Kwawegen for plaintiffs
    for defendant: David E. Ross, Garrett B. Moritz, Benjamin Z. Grossberg, William Savitt, Graham W. Meli, Steven Winter and David E. Kirk for defendants.

    Case Number: D68107

    Plaintiffs in this derivative action alleged sufficient facts to show that a minority stockholder was actually a controlling stockholder due to the amount of influence he had over the company and the board.

  • In re Rouse Prop. Inc., Fiduciary Litig.,

    Publication Date: 2018-03-21
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance | Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Real Estate
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stuart M. Grant, Cynthia A. Calder, Nathan A. Cook, and Michael T. Manuel, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, DE; Jason M. Leviton and Bradley Vettraino, Block & Leviton LLP, Boston, MA, attorneys for plaintiffs;
    for defendant: Stephen C. Norman, Kevin R. Shannon, and Jaclyn C. Levin, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew W. Stern, Jon W. Muenz, and Leah R. Milbauer, Sidley Austin LLP, New York, NY; Kevin G. Abrams, Daniel R. Ciarrocki, Matthew L. Miller, Abrams & Bayliss, LLP, Wilmington, DE; John A. Neuwirth, Seth Goodchild, Evert J. Christensen, Matthew S. Connors, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for defendants.

    Case Number: D68080

    Stockholders breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from merger transaction with alleged controlling minority stockholder brought against board and alleged controller failed where allegations insufficient to find that alleged controller exerted control or dominance over board or directors or special committee designated to negotiate merger.

  • KT4 Partners LLC v. Palantir Tech., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-03-07
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Software
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Bartholomew J. Dalton, Andrew C. Dalton, Barry S. Simon and Jonathan B. Pitt for plaintiff
    for defendant: Blake Rohrbacher, Kevin M. Gallagher, Kelly L. Freund, Kevin J. Orsini and Rory A. Leraris for defend-ant.

    Case Number: D68069

    A shareholder was not entitled to inspect corporate books or records where no valuation purpose was stated in the request, but the court found that the shareholder established a credible basis for obtaining records for an investigative purpose.

  • Cumming v. Edens

    Publication Date: 2018-03-07
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance | Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jeffrey Gorris, Christopher Foulds, and Christopher Quinn, Friedlander & Gorris P.A., Wilmington, DE; David Wales, David MacIssac, and John Vielandi, Bernstein Litowtiz Berger & Grossman LLP, New York, NY; Adam Warden, Saxena White P.A., Boca Raton, FL; Steven B. Singer and Joshua H. Saltzman, Saxena White P.A., White Plains, NY; J. Elazar Fruchter, Wohl & Fruchter LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Robert S. Saunders, Ronald N. Brown, III, Sarah R. Martin, and Elisa M.C. Klein, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendants.

    Case Number: D68064

    Derivative complaint not dismissed where plaintiff pled facts of directors conflicts of interest with corporation on the other side of the challenged transaction supporting a reasonable doubt as to whether board was disinterested or independent, which constituted a non-exculpated claim.

  • Reid v. Siniscalchi

    Publication Date: 2018-02-21
    Practice Area: Business Torts | Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David W. deBruin, Thomas I. Sheridan, III and Derek Y. Brandt for plaintiff
    for defendant: Thomas A. Beck, Rachel E. Horn, Paul J. Vincenti and Elyse C. Pillitteri for defendants.

    Case Number: D68051

    Plaintiffs theory that defendants engaged in a conspiracy was a sham and the court did not have personal ju-risdiction over non-resident defendants.

  • AIU Ins. Co. v. Philips Elec. N. Am. Corp.

    Publication Date: 2018-01-24
    Practice Area: Insurance Law | Toxic Torts
    Industry: Insurance | Manufacturing
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Marc S. Casarino, White and Williams LLP, Wilmington, DE; John S. Favate, Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto, P.A., Springfield, NJ, attorneys for plaintiffs
    for defendant: David J. Baldwin, Jennifer C. Wasson, and Andrew H. Sauder, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kenneth H. Frenchman, McKool Smith, P.C., New York, NY; Daniel K. Hogan and Garvan F. McDaniel, Hogan McDaniel, Wilmington, DE; Sander L. Esserman, Steven A. Felsenthal, and David A. Klinger, Stutzman, Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka, Dallas, TX, attorneys for defendants.

    Case Number: D68014

    Plaintiffs not entitled to summary judgment for claim for breach of audit rights, where operative agreement failed to define scope of audit or describe types of information to be disclosed in an audit.

  • Lavin v. West Corp.

    Publication Date: 2018-01-10
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance | Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer, David M. Sborz, Randall J. Baron, David T. Wissbroecker, Christopher H. Lyons and W. Scott Holleman for plaintiff
    for defendant: Kevin R. Shannon, Christopher N. Kelly, Daniel M. Rusk, Walter C. Carlson, Nilofer I. Umar and Elizabeth Y. Austin for de-fendant.

    Case Number: D68002

    A stockholder was entitled to request books and records to investigate possible breaches of fiduciary duty by corporate officers and directors where the stockholder presented some evidence of mismanagement or wrongdoing.

  • Sarissa Capital Domestic Fund LP v. Innoviva, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2017-12-27
    Practice Area: Contracts | Corporate Governance
    Industry: Consulting | Health Care
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen E. Jenkins, Richard D. Heins, Peter H. Kyle, Martin L. Seidel and Sameer Advani for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Robert S. Saunders, Sarah Runnells Martin, Alyssa S. O'Connell and Matthew P. Majarian for defendant.

    Case Number: D67989

    Defendants agent had actual or apparent authority to bind defendant to an oral settlement agreement.

  • Capella Holdings, LLC v. Anderson

    Publication Date: 2017-12-20
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: A. Thompson Bayliss and Sarah E. Hickie, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilimington, DE; Jeffrey J. Bushofsky and Nicholas M. Berg, Ropes & Gray LLP, Chicago, IL, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Adam Hiller, Hiller Law, LLC, Wilmington, DE; C. Mark Pickrell, The Pickrell Law Group, P.C. Nashville, TN, attorneys for defendant.

    Case Number: D67975

    Company entitled to summary judgment on breach claim for former officers disclosure of privileged company information, where there was no anti-dilution provision in former officers agreement for company to violate, such that former officers breach by disclosure was unexcused.

  • Zohar II 2005-1, Ltd. v. FSAR Holdings, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2017-12-20
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kenneth J. Nachbar, Megan Ward Cascio, Lauren Neal Bennett, Thomas P. Will, Michael Carlinsky, Jonathan Pickhardt, El-lison Ward Merkel and Blair Adams for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Kevin G. Abrams, J. Peter Shindel, Jr., Daniel R. Ciarrocki, Edward J. Bennett and Ava V. Baker for defendants FSAR Hold-ings, Inc.; Kevin G. Abrams, J. Peter Shindel, Jr., Daniel R. Ciarrocki, Mark A. Kirsch, Robert F. Serio, Susan E. Brune and Erin C. Dougherty for defendant Tilton.

    Case Number: D67981

    Proxies were invalid where they were not coupled with a beneficial interest, and their creation was inconsistent with the un-ambiguous terms of the parties transactional documents.