Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
2,437 results for '* court:"COURT OF DELAWARE"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-04-19
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Consulting
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David B. Anthony, Peter C. McGivney, Berger Harris, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brian Hansen, Clayton O. Knowles, Adams and Reese LLP, Atlanta, GA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Robert A. Penza, Joseph C. Sharp, Stephen J. Kraftschik, Polsinelli PC, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: D69788
The court held that plaintiff failed to state a claim for either fraud or breach of implied covenant.
Publication Date: 2022-04-19
Practice Area: Business Torts
Industry: Legal Services
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kristina D. McKenna, Sheryl Koval Garko, Ryan C. Wooten, Shayan Said, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Boston, MA, Houston, TX, San Francisco, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jonathan A. Choa, Daniel Rusk, Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Eric M. Fishman, Jay. D. Dealy, Max. A. Winograd, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, New York, NY for defendant.
Case Number: D69787
The court held the claim under the Lanham Act was governed by F.R.C.P. 9 that required the plaintiff to plead fraud with heightened specificity.
Publication Date: 2022-04-19
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Seema Nanda, Solicitor of Labor, Oscar L. Hampton III, Regional Solicitor, Matthew R. Epstein, Trial Attorney, United States Department of Labor, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiff.
for defendant: William D. Sullivan, Sullivan Hazeltine Allinson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Wendel V. Hall, The Hall Law Office, PLLC, Washington, DC for defendants.
Case Number: D69789
The court held the jury verdict that found the employees of a landscaping company were not agricultural employees and that the employer was an employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act such that the employees should have been paid overtime was supported by substantial evidence.
Publication Date: 2022-04-12
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Entertainment and Leisure | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joseph Benedict Cicero, Aidan T. Hamilton, Gregory Erich Stuhlman, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Matthew J. Reynolds, Sara G. Wilcox, Huth Reynolds LLP, New York, NY & Denver, CO; Ned C. Weinberger, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Daniel A. O’Brien, Brian L. Schwalb, Venable LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69779
Minority stockholders plausibly alleged that controlling shareholder used insider knowledge to mislead the minority stockholders into being bought out for an unfair price where the now wholly owned company represented almost all the attributed value of the controlling shareholder, which soon after went public for a much higher price than the minority stockholders sold out for.
Publication Date: 2022-04-12
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Sue L. Robinson, Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew J. Entwistle, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Austin, TX; Vincent R. Cappucci, Arthur V. Nealon, Brendan J. Brodeur, Jonathan H. Beemer, Jessica A. Margulis, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, New York, NY; Marc M. Seltzer, Krysta Kauble Pachman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, April M. Kirby, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Alan S. Goudiss, K. Mallory Brennan, Shearman & Sterling LLP, New York, NY; Christina E. Myrold, Shearman & Sterling LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendants.
Case Number: D69781
Motion to dismiss Exchange Act violations denied where plaintiffs plausibly alleged that defendant board had acknowledged that a competing merger offer constituted a better value and would provide stockholders with a higher price, and knew at the time of voting to approve another offer that the competing bidder was willing to continue discussing more favorable terms of merger.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: James S. Bolan, Sara N. Holden
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-04-12
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Pharmaceuticals | State and Local Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Stark
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D69780
Bankruptcy court properly authorized debtors' payment of professional fees incurred under a restructuring support agreement where payment of the fees advanced debtors' interests by facilitating resolution of legal claims against debtors and its Chapter 11 restructuring.
Publication Date: 2022-04-12
Practice Area: Business Torts
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John David Simmons, Panitch Schwarze Belisario & Nadel LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Steven L. Caponi, Megan E. O'Connor, K&L Gates LLP, Wilmington, De; John Ambrogi, Richard Saldinger, Latimer LeVay Fyock LLC, Chicago, IL for defendant.
Case Number: D69778
The court allowed plaintiff to amend its complaint for violation of trade secrets law and deceptive trade practices claims.
Publication Date: 2022-04-12
Practice Area: Insurance Litigation
Industry: Insurance
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Hall
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David J. Baldwin, Peter C. McGivney, Berger Harris LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter M. Gillon, Matthew G. Jeweler, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Robert J. Katzenstein, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ronald P. Schiller, Daniel J. Layden, Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, Philadelphia, PA for defendant.
Case Number: D69777
The court held that plaintiff's complaint sufficiently pled that defense costs were covered by defendant excess insurer.
Publication Date: 2022-04-05
Practice Area: Intellectual Property
Industry: Health Care | Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Hall
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Trevor Q. Coddington, Insigne PC, Carlsbad, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brett M. Schuman, Rachel M. Walsh, Goodwin Procter LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendant.
Case Number: D69773
Court declined to dismiss patent infringement claim for invalidity based on the patent claiming ineligible subject matter, where a reading of the patent's claim language did not plainly reveal that the patent was merely directed towards an abstract idea.
Publication Date: 2022-04-05
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Legal Services | Real Estate
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D69771
Bankruptcy court did not err in issuing a contempt order based on appellant's failure to comply with an order for the disgorgement of fees, where the bankruptcy court had not impermissibly expanded the scope or nature of appellant's status as a fictitious entity, as appellant had previously represented itself as one.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read