Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III determined Tuesday that criticism of the shareholders' team appeared to have been brought up as leverage in the leadership bid, not as a concern significant enough to warrant an interlocutory appeal.
3 minute read
Totta v. CCSB Fin. Corp.
Publication Date: 2021-11-02Practice Area:Corporate Governance
Industry: Financial Services and Banking
Court: Court of ChanceryJudge: Chancellor McCormickAttorneys:For plaintiff: Kevin H. Davenport, John G. Day, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.For defendant: Art. C. Aranilla, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Brett A. Scher, Patrick M. Kennell, Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP, New York, NY for defendant.Case number: D69591
Motion to dismiss challenge to board election denied where motion referred to documents outside of the pleadings, requiring conversion of the motion to one for summary judgment, under which standard the court determined that further factfinding was required.
Feurer v. Zuckerberg
Publication Date: 2021-10-20Practice Area:Corporate Governance
Industry:E-Commerce |
Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of ChanceryJudge: Vice Chancellor SlightsAttorneys:For plaintiff: Daniel K. Astin, Ciardi Ciardi & Astin, Wilmington, DE; Richard D. Greenfield, Marguerite R. Goodman, Ann M. Caldwell, Greenfield & Goodman LLC, Philadelphia, PA; Albert A. Ciardi III, Walter W. Gouldsbury III, Ciardi, Ciardi & Astin, Philadelphia, PA; Kevin H. Davenport, Samuel L. Closic, John G. Day, Elizabeth Wang, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Peter B. Andrews; Craig J. Springer, David M. Sborz, Andrews & Springer, LLC; Geoffrey M. Johnson, Scott+Scott Attorneys At Law LLP, Cleveland Heights, OH; Donald A. Broggi, William C. Fredericks, Scott R. Jacobsen, Jing-Li Yu, Scott+Scott Attorneys At Law LLP, New York, NY; Daniel B. Rehns, Frank R. Schirripa, Kurt M. Hunciker, Kathryn Hettler, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP, New York, NY; Brian J. Robbins, Stephen J. Oddo, Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Rob-bins LLP, San Diego, CA; Thomas J. McKenna, Gregory M. Egleston, Gainey McKenna & Egleston, New York, NY; Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Daniel E. Barenbaum, Berman Tabacco, San Francisco, CA; Joseph W. Cotchett, Mark Molumphy, Julia Peng, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP; Thaddeus J. Weaver, Dilworth Paxson LLP, Wilmington, DE; Frederic S. Fox, Laurence D. King, Hae Sung Nam, Donnie Hall, Aaron Schwartz, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, New York, NY; Kathleen A. Herkenhoff, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Oakland, CA; Catherine Pratsinakis, Dilworth Paxson LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Nathan A. Cook, Mae Oberste, Block & Leviton LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kurt M. Heyman, Melissa N. Donimirski, Aaron M. Nelson, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jason M. Leviton, Joel Fleming, Lauren G. Milgroom, Block & Leviton LLP, Boston, MA for plaintiffs.For defendant: David E. Ross, R. Garrett Rice, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Orin Snyder, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY; Brian M. Lutz, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA; Paul J. Collins, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Joshua S. Lipshutz, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.Case number: D69574
The court held that consolidation of cases was not appropriate where one case's derivative plaintiffs made no demand on the corporate board and the other case's single plaintiff chose to make a demand that was subsequently refused.
In re Cellular Tel. P'ship Litig.
Publication Date: 2021-10-13Practice Area:Corporate Entities
Industry:Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of ChanceryJudge: Vice Chancellor LasterAttorneys:For plaintiff: Carmella P. Keener, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Thomas R. Ajamie, David S. Siegel, Ryan van Steenis, Ajamie LLP, Houston, TX; Michael A. Pullara, Houston, Texas; Marcus E. Montejo, Kevin H. Davenport, John G. Day, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiffsFor defendant: Maurice L. Brimmage, Jr., Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Dallas, TX; Todd C. Schiltz, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Wilmington, DE; William M. Connolly, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Zoë K. Wilhelm, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants.Case number: D69570
Court declined to award dissociation damages where controlling partner failed to comply with provisions of agreement between partnership and another affiliate of the controlling partner, but where such failure did not constitute a breach of the partnership agreement.
The decision is one of two involving Facebook's third-party access to users' data issued by Chancery Court on Tuesday, with the other determining one case bringing similar allegations should be kept separate from the consolidated action.
4 minute read
Micro Focus (US), Inc. v. Ins. Serv. Office, Inc.
Publication Date: 2021-09-22Practice Area:Contractual Disputes
Industry:Insurance |
Software |
Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of DelawareJudge: District Judge AndrewsAttorneys:For plaintiff: J. Clayton Athey, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Hugh J. Marbury, Ryan P. Bottegal, Cozen O’Connor, Washington, DC; Stuart M.G. Seraina, Baldwin Seraina, Baltimore, MD for plaintiffs.For defendant: Brian Lemon, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Scott S. Christie, McCarter & English, LLP, Newark, NJ for defendant.Case number: D69545
Significant factual disputes precluded summary judgment in this case involving end user licensing agreements for plaintiffs' software products.
Ligos v. Isramco, Inc.
Publication Date: 2021-09-15Practice Area:Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry:Energy
Court: Court of ChanceryJudge: Vice Chancellor GlasscockAttorneys:For plaintiff: Corinne Elise Amato, Kevin H. Davenport, Samuel L. Closic, Stephen D. Dargitz, Jason W. Rigby, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Eric L. Zagar, J. Daniel Albert, Justin O. Reliford, Christopher M. Windover, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor, PA for plaintiff.For defendant: William B. Chandler III, Bradley D. Sorrels, Daniyal M. Iqbal, Nora M. Crawford, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Steven Guggenheim, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Palo Alto, CA; S. Mark Hurd, Daniel T. Menken, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnel, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Danny David, Amy Pharr Hefley, Baker Botts L.L.P., Houston, TX; Bradley R. Aronstam, Adam D. Gold, Anthony M. Calvano, Ross Aronstam & Moritz, Wilmington, DE for defendants.Case number: D69535
Business judgment review at the pleadings stage denied where minority stockholders were not informed that controller standing on both sides of cash-out merger transaction had also participated in an arbitration that would affect the value assets that made up a critical component of the company's overall value, thereby supporting an inference that the stockholder approval was uninformed.
Flannery v. Genomic Health, Inc.
Publication Date: 2021-09-01Practice Area:Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry:Biotechnology
Court: Court of ChanceryJudge: Vice Chancellor SlightsAttorneys:For plaintiff: Samuel L. Closic, Eric J. Juray, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Stephen J. Oddo, Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Eric M. Carrino, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiff.For defendant: Robert S. Saunders, Stefania A. Rosca, Matthew R. Conrad, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; C. Barr Flinn, Emily V. Burton, Peter J. Artese, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Douglas A. Rappaport, Kaitlin D. Shapiro, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, New York, NY; Daniel A. Mason, Brendan W. Sullivan, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Daniel J. Toal, Geoffrey Chepiga, Caitlin E. Grusauskas, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY; William M. Lafferty, Daniel T. Menken, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Tariq Mundiya, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York, NY for defendants.Case number: D69521
The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claims, because plaintiff did not establish any improper conduct in connection with a merger.