Filter This View

  • In Re Carvana Co. Stockholders Litig.

    Publication Date: 2022-09-13
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Christine M. Mackintosh, Rebecca A. Musarra, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, DE; Ned Weinberger, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jason M. Leviton, Joel A. Fleming, Lauren Godles Milgroom, Amanda R. Crawford, Block & Leviton LLP, Boston, MA; Domenico Minerva, John Vielandi, David MacIsaac, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: David E. Ross, Adam D. Gold, R. Garrett Rice, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brian M. Lutz, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA; Colin B. Davis, Katie Beaudin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Irvine, CA; John L. Reed, Ronald N. Brown III, Peter H. Kyle, Kelly L. Freund, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE, for defendants.
    Case Number: 2020-0415-KSJM

    Court denied defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction finding that defendant was the majority stockholder and controller over the company at the time the forum selection clause was incorporated into the articles of incorporation.

  • In re Match Group Inc. Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2022-09-13
    Practice Area: Deals and Transactions
    Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael Hanrahan, J. Clayton Athey, Corinne E. Amato, Kevin H. Davenport, Jason W. Rigby, Stacey A. Greenspan, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Eric L. Zagar, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor, PA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Blake K. Rohrbacher, Matthew W. Murphy, Sandy Xu, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Maeve O’Connor, Susan R. Gittes, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York, NY; William M. Lafferty, John P. DiTomo, Elizabeth A. Mullin, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, DE; Theodore N. Mirvis, Alexandra P. Sadinsky, Canem Ozyildirim, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz LLP, New York, NY; David E. Ross, Adam D. Gold, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Blaire Connelly, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
    Case Number: 2020-0505-MTZ

    The court granted a motion to dismiss a complaint challenging a multi-step spinoff initiated by a corporation's controller.

  • Rivest v. Hauppauge Digital, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-09-13
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Electronics | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Marcus E. Montejo, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff;
    for defendant: Douglas J. Cummings, DCummings Law, LLC, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
    Case Number: 2019-0848-PWG

    Court overruled master's recommendations for confidentiality for financial records produced under §220 request where company only managed to cite generalized concerns about loss of customers and suppliers, and shareholder had prevailing interest in obtaining valuation of his shares in long-dark company.

  • Pharmacy Corp. of Am. v. Askari

    Publication Date: 2022-09-13
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Bibas
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-2800

    Increases in line of credit under existing working capital agreement did not require founder's consent as a "major decision" since it did not create a new lien or encumbrance, as lender already had security interest in company's existing and after-acquired assets under original working capital agreement.

  • Griffith v. Stein

    Publication Date: 2022-09-06
    Practice Area: Deals and Transactions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Seitz
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Anthony A. Rickey, Margrave Law LLC, Wilmington, DE; Raffi Melkonian, Wright Close & Bargar, LLP, Houston, TX for appellant.
    for defendant: Brian Farnan, Michael Farnan, Rosemary Piergiovanni, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; A. Arnold Gershon, Michael A. Toomey, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, New York, NY; Kevin G. Abrams, J. Peter Shindel, Jr., Matthew L. Miller, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert J. Giuggra, Jr., David M.J. Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY; Kevin M. Gallagher, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for appellees.
    Case Number: D69949

    Court reversed the chancery court's decision approving a litigation settlement which included forward-looking statements that bound absent interested parties from bringing claims in the future, in violation of the Due Process Clause.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New Jersey Employment Law 2024

    Authors: Rosemary Alito

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Paul Capital Advisors, LLC v. Stahl

    Publication Date: 2022-08-30
    Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Ross, Eric D. Selden, A. Gage Whirley, Ross Aronstam & Moritz, LLP, Wilmington, DE; John F. Hartmann, P.C., Ravi Subramanian Shankar, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Stephen C. Norman, Ellis H. Huff, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Norman M. Powell, Emily V. Burton, Lauren Dunkle Fortunato, Michael E. Neminski, Nehama L. Hanoch, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brett M. McCartney, Elizabeth A. Powers, Sarah T. Andrade, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael K. Hurst, Sara H. Chelette, Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann, Dallas, TX for defendants.
    Case Number: D69936

    Sophisticated transactional arrangement did not list plaintiffs as beneficiaries or holders of beneficial interest in certain exchange trusts, therefore causing plaintiffs to lack standing to seek removal of the trust advisor of the exchange trusts.

  • HUMC Holdco, LLC v. MPT of Hoboken TRS, LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-08-16
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael Busenkell, Margaret F. England, Bradley P. Lehman, Gellert Scali Busenkell & Brown LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Patricia L. Enerio, Jamie L. Brown, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Christopher J. Sullivan, Nutter, McClennan & Fish LLP, New York, NY; Thomas A. Uebler, Joseph Christensen, McCollom D’Emilio Smith Uebler LLC, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: D69919

    Laches barred contract, fraud, and waste claims arising from the payment of management fees where rejection of claimant's request for books/records/information meant that it could no longer be "blamelessly ignorant" of any alleged wrongdoing and therefore the running of the limitations period was triggered.

  • City Pension Fund for Firefighters & Police Officers in the City of Miami v. The Trade Desk, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-08-16
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory V. Varallo, Andrew E. Blumberg, Daniel E. Meyer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark Lebovitch, Reuben Gottlieb, Jeroen van Kwawegen, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Jeremy Friedman, David Tejtel, Julie Palley, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC, Bedford Hills, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: William M. Lafferty, Ryan D. Stottmann, Sabrina Hendershot, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Jacqueline A. Rogers, Abraham C. Schneider, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Matthew Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Colleen Smith, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Diego, CA; Kristin Murphy, Latham & Watkins LLP, Costa Mesa, CA; Brad D. Sorrels, Shannon E. German, Benjamin M. Potts, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Wilmington, DE; David J. Berger, Steven M. Guggenheim, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Palo Alto, CA; S. Toni Wormald, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., San Francisco, CA for defendants.
    Case Number: D69918

    Interested transaction benefitting controlling stockholder was subject to business judgment review under MFW framework where special committee had a majority of disinterested directors and proxy adequately disclosed the controller's motivation for proposing the transaction.

  • In re: TPC Group. Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-08-09
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jennifer Selendy, Andrew R. Dunlap, Oscar Shine, Max H. Siegel, Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC, New York, NY; Laura Davis Jones, Timothy P. Cairns, Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, Wilmington, DE for appellants.
    for defendant: James R. Prince, Kevin Chiu, Baker Botts LLP, Dallas, TX; Scott R. Bowling, Baker Botts LLP, New York, NY; David R. Eastlake, Lauren N. Randle, Baker Botts LLP, Houston, TX; Robert J. Dehney, Curtis S. Miller, Daniel B. Butz, Matthew 0. Talmo, Brian Loughnane, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kristopher M. Hansen, Kenneth Pasquale, Jonathan D. Canfield, Paul Hastings LLP, New York, NY; Matthew B. Lunn, Robert F. Poppiti, Jr., Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP for appellees.
    Case Number: D69911

    Emergency stay of bankruptcy court's adverse grant of judgment in adversary proceeding denied where appellants were unlikely to prevail on the merits of their appeal and where harm to Chapter 11 debtor outweighed the harm that might come from the reduction of appellants' claims.

  • NVIDIA Corp. v. City of Westland Police & Fire Ret. Sys.

    Publication Date: 2022-08-02
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Montgomery-Reeves
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory P. Williams, Brock E. Czeschin, Christian C.F. Roberts, Richards, Layton, & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; John C. Dwyer, Patrick E. Gibbs, Claire A. McCormack, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA for appellant.
    for defendant: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Gina M. Serra, Herbert W. Mondros, Rigrodsky Law, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Frank R. Schirripa, Hillary Nappi, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP, New York, NY; Gregory Mark Nespole, Daniel Tepper, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, New York, NY; Travis E. Downs III, Erik W. Luedeke, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; Thomas J. McKenna, Gregory M. Egleston, Gainey McKenna & Egleston, New York, NY; Beth A. Keller, Monteverde & Associates PC, New York, NY for appellees.
    Case Number: D69906

    Stockholders in §220 action could not rely on their own hearsay evidence to prove proper purpose where they refused to identify potential witnesses to permit the company the opportunity to conduct depositions.