• In re TransPerfect Global, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-07-02
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Legal Services | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jeremy D. Eicher, Eicher Law LLC, Wilmington, DE; Frank E. Noyes, II, Offit Kurman, P.A., Wilmington, DE for petitioner.
    for defendant: Douglas D. Herrmann, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jennifer C. Voss, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Wilmington, DE for respondent.

    Case Number: 9700-CM, 10449-CM

    Court overruled corporation's objections to custodian's legal fee petitions where court had already ruled on custodian's entitlement to fees and found no basis to support corporations' challenges to the reasonableness of the fees.

  • DPML Jamison Corner, LLC v. New Castle County

    Publication Date: 2024-06-25
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: A. Kimberly Hoffman, R. Eric Hacker, Alena V. Smith, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Max B. Walton, Lisa R. Hatfield, Erica K. Sefton, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Newark, DE, attorneys for defendant.

    Case Number: 2024-0403-KSJM

    Court allowed parties to enter a status quo order staying the proceedings where necessary to protect plaintiff's interest in mandamus proceeding to challenge expiration of land development plan.

  • Tornetta v. Musk

    Publication Date: 2024-06-11
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Automotive | Manufacturing | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory V. Varallo, Glenn R. McGillivray, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer, David M. Sborz, Andrew J. Peach, Jackson E. Warren, Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, DE; Catherine A. Gaul, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE; John L. Reed, Ronald N. Brown, III, Caleb G. Johnson, Daniel P. Klusman, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: David E. Ross, Garrett B. Moritz, Thomas C. Mandracchia, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; William M. Lafferty, Susan W. Waesco, Ryan D. Stottmann, Miranda N. Gilbert, Jacob M. Perrone, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Rudolf Koch, John D. Hendershot, Kevin M. Gallagher, Andrew L. Milam, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: 2018-0408-KSJM

    Court denied plaintiff's motions to expedite resolution of post-trial issues based on defendants' assertion that an upcoming shareholder proxy vote would not affect the litigation.

  • In re Carvana Co. Stockholders Litig.

    Publication Date: 2024-04-08
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Automotive | 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; Kimberly A. Evans, Robert Erikson, Irene R. Lax, Block & Leviton LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jason M. Leviton, Amanda R. Crawford, Block & Leviton LLP, Boston, MA; Ned Weinberger, Mark Richardson, Jiahui (Rose) Wang, Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP, Wilmington, DE; Domenico Minerva, John Vielandi, Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Joseph R. Slights III, Brad D. Sorrels, Shannon E. German, Leah E. León, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Wilmington, DE; 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 granted special litigation committee's motion to dismiss derivative action where members were sufficiently independent and disinterested and conducted a seven-month-long investigation that uncovered sufficient evidence to support the decision to move to dismiss.

  • AP-fonden v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-04-01
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael Hanrahan, Corinne Elise Amato, Kevin H. Davenport, Stacey A. Greenspan, Christine N. Chappelear, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Lee D. Rudy, Eric L. Zagar, J. Daniel Albert, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor, PA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Edward B. Micheletti, Lauren N. Rosenello, Michelle L. Davis, Peyton V. Carper, Claire K. Atwood, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; Elena C. Norman, Daniel M. Kirshenbaum, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephen P. Blake, Laura Lin, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Sareen K. Armani, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants.

    Case Number: 2022-1001-KSJM

    Although the Delaware General Corporation Law only required a corporate board to approve and recommend an essentially complete version of a merger agreement, the draft version approved by defendants failed to meet this standard by omitting key terms and ancillary documents repeatedly referenced throughout the agreement.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Chester County Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Javice v. JPMorgan Chase Bank. N.A.

    Publication Date: 2024-02-26
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Legal Services
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Michael A. Pittenger, Hayden J. Driscoll, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael A. Barlow, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Samuel D. Cordle, Peter C. Cirka, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: 2022-1179-KSJM

    Court sustained objection to request for advancement of two categories of fees where plaintiff failed to seek advancement of those fees in her original complaint and could not raise them in a subsequent motion for payment.

  • In re Mindbody, Inc., Stockholder Litig.

    Publication Date: 2023-11-27
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory | Software
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris, Christopher M. Foulds, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Gregory V. Varallo, Andrew E. Blumberg, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Lisa A. Schmidt, Robert L. Burns, Matthew D. Perri, John M. O’Toole, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Matthew Solum, P.C., John Del Monaco, Jeffrey R. Goldfine, Jacob M. Rae, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: 2019-0442-KSJM

    Stockholders in fiduciary class action who also petitioned for appraisal were entitled to elect between continuing with appraisal or taking the class remedy, even though the law required the corporation's approval for withdrawal of the petition for appraisal.

  • Crispo v. Musk

    Publication Date: 2023-11-13
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael Hanrahan, Samuel L. Closic, John G. Day, Robert B. Lackey, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Max Huffman, Joseph A. Pettigrew, Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, San Diego, CA; Justin O. Reliford, Jing-Li Yu, Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Edward B. Micheletti, Lauren N. Rosenello, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: 2022-0666-KSJM

    Stockholder lacked standing to enforce merger agreement, and the agreement did not confer stockholders with third-party beneficiary status to pursue lost-premium damages while the target company pursued specific performance of the merger.

  • Kroll v. City of Wilmington

    Publication Date: 2023-10-02
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Robert C. McDonald, Adrienne M. McDonald, Silverman McDonald & Friedman, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Robert M. Goff, Jr., City of Wilmington Law Department, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: 2019-0969-KSJM

    Chancery court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction over former police officer's complaint challenging his termination for failure to comply with later-voided revised residency requirement, where declaratory judgment or certiorari review would be unlikely to afford relief given city's continued assertion, despite the striking down of the revised policy, that officer's termination was proper.

  • Anderson v. Magellan Health, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-07-17
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory | Legal Services
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ryan M. Ernst, Bielli & Klauder, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Michael A. Rogovin, Weiss Law, Atlanta, GA for plaintiff
    for defendant: Paul J. Lockwood, Arthur R. Bookout, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: 2021-0202-KSJM

    Supplemental proxy disclosures that were only marginally helpful to shareholders and were not clearly material to their analysis only supported a minimal award of legal fees and costs to plaintiff stockholder.