Search Results

0 results for 'Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP'

You can use to get even better search results
March 13, 2024 | The Legal Intelligencer

The Legal Intelligencer Announces 2024 Pennsylvania Legal Awards Finalists, Honorees

All honorees will be recognized, and winners in finalist categories announced, at the Pennsylvania Legal Awards event in May.
5 minute read
March 11, 2024 | Delaware Law Weekly

3 Morris Nichols Partners to Co-Present Panels in Las Vegas

From Sunday to Wednesday, the Unclaimed Property Professionals Organization (UPPO) holds its annual conference in Las Vegas, and three Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell partners will co-present panels spanning two days.
2 minute read
Murdick Capital Mgmt. L.P. v. QuarterNorth Energy Inc.
Publication Date: 2024-03-11
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys:
For plaintiff: Bradley R. Aronstam, Roger S. Stronach, Benjamin M. Whitney, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jordan A. Goldstein, Lauren J. Zimmerman, Babak Ghafarzade, Selendy Gay PLLC, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
For defendant: Blake Rohrbacher, Matthew W. Murphy, John M. O’Toole, Edmond S. Kim, Spencer V. Crawford, Margaret Rockey, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Harry P. Susman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, TX; Thomas W. Briggs, Jr., Kirk Andersen, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew K. Glenn, Glenn Agre Bergman & Fuentes LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case number: 2024-0106-LWW

Court declined to preliminarily enjoin invocation of drag-along rights where the invocation was not inconsistent with the terms of the proposed merger agreement or the minority securityholders' agreements and the minority could obtain monetary relief if the court ultimately found an improper invocation.

Bailey v. Tektronix, Inc.
Publication Date: 2024-03-11
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: E-Commerce | Manufacturing | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys:
For plaintiff: Robert Karl Beste, III, Jason Z. Miller, Smith, Katzenstein, & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
For defendant: Anthony David Raucci, Donna Lynn Culver, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case number: 21-1268-GBW

Retention holdback agreement breached where reasonable interpretation of definition of qualifying revenue meant that the acquiring company hit the revenue goals to trigger the payout.

March 08, 2024 | Delaware Business Court Insider

A Legal 'Doomsday'?: Delaware Faces Criticism at Tulane Conference

Merger and acquisition practitioners are having a difficult time figuring out how best to counsel their clients, and litigators are left with questions on how best to make their case to the Court of Chancery.
4 minute read
March 04, 2024 | Delaware Law Weekly

Morris Nichols Partner to Moderate 36th Tulane Corporate Law Institute Panel

Tulane University Law School is scheduled to hosts its 36th Annual Corporate Law Institute from Thursday to Friday, and conference co-chair, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell partner Bill Lafferty, is to be actively involved.
2 minute read
February 26, 2024 | Delaware Law Weekly

Morris Nichols Partner to Speak at PLI Program

Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell corporate counseling partner Melissa DiVincenzo is scheduled to speak at the Practising Law Institute's (PLI) full-day program titled "The Art of M&A Transactional Practice" on Wednesday.
2 minute read
W. Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Moelis & Co.
Publication Date: 2024-02-26
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys:
For plaintiff: Thomas Curry, Taylor D. Bolton, Saxena White P.A, Wilmington, DE; David Wales, Saxena White P.A., White Plains, NY; Adam Warden, Saxena White P.A; Boca Raton, FL for plaintiff.
For defendant: John P. DiTomo, Miranda N. Gilbert, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; William Savitt, Anitha Reddy, Getzel Berger, Emma S. Stein, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, NY for defendant.
Case number: 2023-0309-JTL

Court denied summary judgment dismissal of complaint challenging legality of stockholders' agreement provisions on grounds of laches and ripeness, where equitable defenses could not validate a void contractual provision and where stockholder could launch a facial attack against challenged provisions without having to wait for company controllers to breach fiduciary duties.

February 20, 2024 | Delaware Law Weekly

Morris Nichols Partners Present at Connecticut Bar Association's 2024 Delaware Business Law Update

On Feb. 13, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell partners David Harris and Patricia Vella presented a "Delaware Business Law Annual Update" to the Connecticut Bar Association's Business Law Section.
2 minute read
Conte v. Greenberg
Publication Date: 2024-02-19
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Consumer Products | Manufacturing
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
Attorneys:
For plaintiff: Thomas A. Uebler, Terisa A. Shoremoun, McCollom D’Emilio Smith Uebler LLC, Wilmington, DE; Melinda A. Nicholson, Nicolas Kravitz, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, New Orleans, LA; Roger A. Sachar, Newman Ferrara LLP, New York, NY; Domenico Minerva, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
For defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, E. Wade Houston, Eliezer Y. Feinstein, Daniel G. Paterno, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brad D. Brian, John M. Gildersleeve, Abraham B. Dyk, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Kenneth J. Nachbar, Susan W. Waesco, Miranda N. Gilbert, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Abby F. Rudzin, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY; Matthew F. Davis, Tyler J. Leavengood, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kenneth A. O’Brien, Jr., Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants.
Case number: 2022-0633-MTZ MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff failed to plead demand futility due to the lack of directors' personal liability for oversight and corporate waste claims, as the failure to implement a formal policy governing executives' personal use of corporate aircraft did not, by itself, amount to bad faith, and any financial loss from personal use constituted a fraction of a percentage of the company's expenses and profits.

TRENDING STORIES

    Resources

    • Corporate Transparency Act Resource Kit

      Brought to you by Wolters Kluwer

      Download Now

    • Revenue, Profit, Cash: Managing Law Firms for Success

      Brought to you by Juris Ledger

      Download Now

    • Law Firm Operational Considerations for the Corporate Transparency Act

      Brought to you by Wolters Kluwer

      Download Now

    • The Ultimate Guide to Remote Legal Work

      Brought to you by Filevine

      Download Now