• Shareholder Representative Serv. LLC v. HPI Holdings, LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-05-09
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard L. Renck, Michael B. Gonen, Duane Morris, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael P. Gallagher, Duane Morris, LLP, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Lisa A. Schmidt, Matthew W. Murphy, Nicole M. Henry, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; David P. Whittlesey, Jacob Fields, Shearman & Sterling LLP, Austin, TX for defendant.

    Case Number: 2022-0166-PAF

    Earn-out provision requiring successor company to secure new agreement was not triggered where company merely amended its existing agreement with a customer by rescinding the customer's notice of termination.

  • Rust v. Rust

    Publication Date: 2023-05-09
    Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Sean J. Bellew, Bellew LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Kenneth J. Nachbar, Lauren K. Neal, Michael J. Slobom, Jr., Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: 2020-0762-SG

    Court enforced memorandum of settlement as parties' settlement agreement where it contained all material terms to resolve the parties' dispute and any remaining terms for a final settlement agreement were ancillary or non-material.

  • 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.

  • Merck & Co., Inc. v. Bayer AG

    Publication Date: 2023-04-18
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Consumer Products | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Cook
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: James D. Taylor, Jr., Saul Ewing LLP, Wilmington, DE; Amy S. Kline, Saul Ewing LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Joseph D. Lipchitz, Saul Ewing LLP, Boston, MA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Rudolf Koch, Kyle H. Lachmund, Kevin M. Kidwell, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Dustin F. Guzior, Y. Carson Zhou, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY for defendant.

    Case Number: 2021-0838-NAC

    Asset purchase agreement unambiguously gave seller of product lines perpetual liability for product liability claims for product sold prior to closing, such that the contract's clause sunsetting certain indemnification rights did not apply to the provision allocating third-party liabilities.

  • 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.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Connecticut Appellate Practice & Procedure, 8th Edition

    Authors: HON. ELIOT D. PRESCOTT, JULIE A. LAVOIE

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Lebanon County Employees' Ret. Fund v. Collis

    Publication Date: 2023-04-04
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Distribution and Wholesale | Investments and Investment Advisory | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Samuel L. Closic, Eric J. Juray, Robert B. Lackey, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Gregory V. Varallo, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lee D. Rudy, Eric L. Zagar, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor, PA; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Eric J. Riedel, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Frank R. Schirripa, Daniel B. Rehns, Kurt Hunciker, Hillary Nappi, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP, New York, NY; Gregory Mark Nespole, Daniel Tepper, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, New York, NY; Brian J. Robbins, Craig W. Smith, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Stephen C. Norman, Jennifer C. Wasson, Tyler J. Leavengood, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael S. Doluisio, Carla Graff, Dechert LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Matthew L. Larrabee, Hayoung Park, Dechert LLP, New York, New York; Michael D. Blanchard, Amelia Pennington, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.

    Case Number: 2021-1118-JTL

    Court denied relief from dismissal of action, after a state court found defendant directors and officers had not violated the law, where newly-filed DOJ complaint against the company remained unsubstantiated and did not contain allegations against defendants specifically.

  • Hyde Park Venture Partners Fund III, L.P. v. Fairxchange, LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-03-21
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: A. Thompson Bayliss, Daniel J. McBride, Anthony R. Sarna, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE for petitioners.
    for defendant: Paul J. Lockwood, Jenness E. Parker, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; Patricia L. Enerio, Jamie L. Brown, Aaron M. Nelson, Elizabeth A. DeFelice, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephen J. Senderowitz, Dentons, Chicago, IL; Douglas W. Henkin, Dentons, New York, NY for respondents.

    Case Number: 2022-0344-JTL

    Court granted motion to compel on the grounds that defendant corporation could not invoke the attorney-client privilege as a means to withhold materials within a certain time frame spanning over two years. The court did however hold that the corporation could assert the privilege regarding communications that were related to books and records that the director had intentionally released, thus removing it from the circle of confidentiality.

  • 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.

  • Mehra v. Teller

    Publication Date: 2023-03-14
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Consumer Products
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John L. Reed, Peter H. Kyle, Kelly L. Freund, DLA Piper LLP, Wilmington, DE; Patrick J. Smith, Brian T. Burns, Smith Zillazor LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Jon E. Abramczyk, D. McKinley Measley, Alexandra Cumings, Elizabeth A. Mullin, Sebastian Van Oudenallen, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: 2019-0812-KSJM

    Although LLC agreement entitled member to continued economic distribution rights after Holdco distributed the shares it held in its subsidiary, the subsidiary was not an indispensable party where its manager and preferred members were already parties to the action and had authority to amend the subsidiary's LLC agreement.

  • Golden v. ShootProof Holdings, LP

    Publication Date: 2023-03-14
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: E-Commerce
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael A. Barlow, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Rollo C. Baker, IV, Margaret Schmidt, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Bradley R. Aronstam, S. Reiko Rogozen, Holly E. Newell, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Yehudah L. Buchweitz, Joshua S. Amsel, Andrew Cauchi, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: 2022-0434-MTZ

    Complaint based on false representations made during merger negotiations barred by antireliance and integration clauses of the parties' merger agreement, which did not run afoul of Washington state antiwaiver laws.