• Paragon Tech., Inc. v. Cryan

    Publication Date: 2023-12-11
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom | Transportation
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen E. Jenkins, Richard D. Heins, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Renee M. Zaytsev, Constance M. Boland, Ned Babbitt, Thompson Hine LLP, New York, NY; Thomas Palmer, Thompson Hine LLP, Columbus, OH; Ryan Blackney, Thompson Hine LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Michael A. Pittenger, Christopher N. Kelly, Tyler J. Leavengood, David A. Seal, Callan R. Jackson, Christopher D. Renaud, Ryan M. Ellingson, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: 2023-1013-LWW

    Court denied stockholder's motion for a preliminary injunction to require company to allow stockholder's nominees to stand for election to the board and to grant the stockholder's request for exemption from a rights plan, where stockholder failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate its likelihood of prevailing on its breach of fiduciary duty claims against the board.

  • Maginn v. Maginn

    Publication Date: 2023-10-30
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Software
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Neil R. Lapinski, Phillip A. Giordano, Madeline R. Silverman, Gordon, Fournaris & Mammarella, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Garrett B. Moritz, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Thad J. Bracegirdle, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants. Albert H. Manwaring, IV & Kirsten A. Zeberkiewicz, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE for nominal defendant.

    Case Number: 2023-0805-LWW

    Reasoning that the master's report in the parties' divorce proceeding had not yet been adopted by the probate court and the defendant had not been removed as a general partner of the Family LP, plaintiff, acting alone, lacked the authority to direct the Family LP through a written consent to remove another board member of nominal defendant.

  • In re ProAssurance Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2023-10-16
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas A. Uebler, McCollom D’Emilio Smith Uebler LLC, Wilmington, DE; Blake A. Bennett, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Melinda A. Nicholson, Nicolas Kravitz, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, New Orleans, LA; Benjamin I. Sachs-Michaels, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, New York, NY; Robert V. Prongay, Pavithra Rajesh, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Kevin M. Gallagher, Nicholas F. Mastria, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Jonathan Youngwood, Janet A. Gochman, Jacob Lundqvist, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: 2022-0034-LWW

    Court dismissed shareholders' derivative complaint for failure to plead demand futility where plaintiffs' fiduciary claims against the company's directors and officers failed to set forth a prima facie case of personal liability such that the board could not independently consider a litigation demand.

  • Rem OA Holdings, LLC v. Northern Gold Holdings, LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-10-02
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas W. Briggs, Jr., Alexandra Cumings, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Holmes, Jeffrey Crough, Thomas Mitsch, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, TX; Matthew R. Freidenberg, Vinson & Elkins LLP, New York, NY; Scott B. Czerwonka, D. Charles Vavala, III, Wilks Law, LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Martin S. Lessner, Elisabeth S. Bradley, M. Paige Valeski, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant. John D. Hendershot, Matthew W. Murphy, Angela Lam, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for nominal defendant.

    Case Number: 2022-0582-LWW

    Noting that a contracting party is obligated to read any contract it signs including any documents incorporated by reference, the court denied defendant relief because it could have discovered the challenged loan terms by exercising ordinary care.

  • Cleveland-Cliffs Burns Harbor LLC v. Boomerang Tube, LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-09-18
    Practice Area: Business Torts
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Manufacturing
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin M. Capuzzi, Kate Harmon, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew G. Fiorella, Nathan H. Boninger, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, Cleveland, OH for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Joseph B. Cicero, Thomas A. Youngman, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeffrey H. Zaiger, Judd Linden, Zaiger LLC, New York, NY; David E. Ross, S. Michael Sirkin, Thomas C. Mandracchia, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: 2022-0378-LWW

    Although unsecured creditor could not pierce the corporate veil as to the controller, it adequately pled fraudulent transfer and successor liability claims against an affiliate that acquired all of a fellow affiliate's assets, when the circumstances of the sale supported an inference that the transfer was designed to place assets out of creditors' reach.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New Jersey Estate Litigation 2014

    Authors: Michael R. Griffinger, Paul F. Cullum III

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Frontline Tech. Parent, LLC v. Murphy

    Publication Date: 2023-09-04
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Education | Software | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Laurence C. Cronin, Kelly A. Green, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; William J. Leahy, Tanner McCarron, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Philadelphia, PA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Richard P. Rollo, Travis S. Hunter, Tyler E. Cragg, Griffin A. Schoenbaum, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: 2023-0546-LWW

    Former employees did not breach non-compete agreements where the agreements specifically defined competition as in the business lines of the employer's parent company rather than the employer that the employees worked for.

  • Alchemy LTD LLC v. FANchise League Co., LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-07-31
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Entertainment and Leisure
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: F. Troupe Mickler IV, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Edgar G. Sargent, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Seattle, WA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Sarah E. Delia, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: 2021-0476-LWW

    Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to enforce an option right for which it bargained to pay $1,000 but did not make payment was denied and defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted.

  • In re Baker Hughes, a GE Co., Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2023-05-02
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael J. Barry, Jason M. Avellino, Kelly L. Tucker, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer, David M. Sborz, Andrew J. Peach, Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jeremy S. Friedman, David F.E. Tejtel, Christopher M. Windover, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC, Bedford Hills, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, Matthew L. Miller, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Karl Stern, Elizabeth M. Devaney, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Houston, TX for defendant.

    Case Number: 2019-0201-LWW

    Although special litigation committee had a defect in consisting of only one director, that director's independence and the thoroughness of their investigation supported finding that its judgment to terminate derivative litigation was made following diligent and good-faith analysis.

  • Ogus v. SportTechie, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-04-18
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ryan M. Ernst, David M. Klauder, Bielli & Klauder, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Charles J. Hecht, Charles Hecht P.C., New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Michael C. Heyden, Jr., Joseph E. Brenner, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Wilmington, DE; Samuel T. Hirzel, II, Elizabeth A. DeFelice, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sarah Lightdale, Christopher L. Martin, Jr., Cooley LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: 2018-0869-LWW

    Board member and their investment firm were entitled to summary judgment on fraud and fiduciary duty claims brought by terminated officer, where the record reflected defendants had a limited role in the alleged fraud and the board member's decision to approve termination was protected by the business judgment rule.

  • Laidlaw v. GigAcquisitions2, LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-03-14
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael J. Barry, Grant & Eisenhoffer, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael Klausner, Stanford, CA, attorneys for plaintiff;
    for defendant: John L. Reed, Ronald N. Brown & Kelly L. Freund, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE; Melanie E. Walker & Gaspard Rappoport, DLA Piper LLP (US), Los Angeles, CA, attorneys for defendants.

    Case Number: 2021-0821-LWW

    Breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from SPAC merger could proceed where plaintiff plausibly pled claims under entire fairness review by asserting that proxy statement contained material misstatements and omissions.