Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
2,522 results for '* court:"Court of Chancery"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2021-12-21
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry: Software
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Emily V. Burton, Alberto E. Chávez, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Srinivas M. Raju, Angela Lam, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Holmes, Margaret Dunlay Terwey, Meredith S. Jeanes, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, TX; Christopher E. Duffy, David A. Hoffman, W. Logan Lewis, Vinson & Elkins LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69646
The court held that 1) defendant's challenge to venue was not persuasive, 2) plaintiff did indeed state a claim for inversion under rules for notice pleading, and 3) plaintiff failed to state a claim for voiding the stock agreement under §205.
Publication Date: 2021-12-14
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Corinne Elise Amato, Kevin H. Davenport, Jason W. Rigby, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Eric L. Zagar, Matthew C. Benedict, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor, PA; Patrick C. Lynch, Lynch & Pine, Providence, RI, for plaintiff.
for defendant: Paul J. Lockwood, Jenness E. Parker, Jacob J. Fedechko, Trevor T. Nielsen, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Wilmington, DE; John L. Reed, Ronald N. Brown, III, Peter H. Kyle, Kelly L. Fruend, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE; Rudolf Koch, Matthew D. Perri, Andrew L. Milam, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Roberto M. Braceras, Caroline H. Bullerjahn, John A. Barker, Dylan E. Schweers, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA; Kurt M. Heyman, Gillian L. Andrews, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hir-zel, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brandon F. White, Euripides Dalmanieras, Leah S. Rizkallah, Foley Hoag LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.
Case Number: D69638
The court held in this derivative suit that demand was not excused where there was no showing that at least five members of a nine-member board of directors were unable to consider a pre-suit demand. Motions to dismiss granted.
Publication Date: 2021-12-14
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Biotechnology | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen E. Jenkins, F. Troupe Mickler, IV, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Gregory V. Varallo, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Daniel E. Meyer, Margaret Sanborn-Lowing, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Gustavo F. Bruckner, Samuel J.Adams, Daryoush Behbood, Pomerantz LLP, New York, NY; Sascha N. Rand, Rollo C. Baker, IV , Silpa Maruri, Jesse Bernstein, Charles H. Sangree, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; Stanley D. Bernstein, Matthew Guarnero, Bernstein Liebhard LLP, New York, NY; William J. Fields, Christopher J. Kupka, Samir Shukurov, Fields Kupka & Shukurov LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Brock E. Czeschin, Andrew L. Milam, Richards Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Riccardo DeBari, Renee Zaytsev, Mendy Pie-karski, Thompson Hine, New York, NY; Matthew F. Davis, Abraham C. Schneider, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Douglas A. Rappaport, Kaitlin D. Shapiro, Elizabeth C. Rosen, Madeleine R. Freeman, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69639
The court held that plaintiff shareholders were required to make a demand on the board prior to filing suit. Because they did not make a demand, their claims failed. Motion to dismiss granted.
Publication Date: 2021-12-14
Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
Industry:
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Luke W. Mette, Jonathan M. Stemerman, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Wilmington,DE; John A. Sten, Jason C. Moreau, Allison McFar-land, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Boston, MA for petitioner.
for defendant: Henry E. Gallagher, Jr., Gregory J. Weinig, Shaun M. Kelly, Jarrett W. Horowitz, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lazar P. Raynal, Michael A. Lombardo, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Chicago, IL, for respondents.
Case Number: D69640
The court held that petitioner succeeded in stating a claim for reformation of trust agreement based on both mistake and knowing silence on the part of petitioner's brother. Motion to dismiss these claims denied. However, petitioner failed to state a claim for removal of fiduciary and for an accounting. Motion to dismiss these claims granted.
Publication Date: 2021-12-07
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Neal C. Belgam, Jason Z. Miller, Michael C. Wagner, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Christopher M. Caparelli, Torys LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Thomas G. Macauley, Macauley LLC, Wilmington, DE; Euripides D. Dalmanieras, Foley Hoag LLP, Boston, MA for defendant.
Case Number: D69631
Where a corporation failed to update its stock ledger after acknowledging a convertible note holder's conversion into preferred stock, court could look to extrinsic evidence beyond the ledger to determine standing for a §220 demand.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: William T. Lifland
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2021-11-30
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: A. Thompson Bayliss, J. Peter Shindel, Jr., Daniel G. Paterno, Eric A. Veres, Samuel D. Cordle, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Srinivas M. Raju, Blake Rohrbacher, Matthew D. Perri, John M. O’Toole, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Rolin P. Bissell, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE; Daniel A. Mason, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephen P. Lamb, Andrew G. Gordon, Harris Fischman, Robert N. Kravitz, Carter E. Greenbaum, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY; Lawrence Portnoy, Charles S. Duggan, Gina Cora, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, New York, NY, for defendants.
Case Number: D69622
The court held that the General Partner breached the partnership agreement by exercising the call right without first satisfy-ing the Opinion Condition or the Acceptability Condition.
Publication Date: 2021-11-23
Practice Area: Attorney Compensation
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Legal Services | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory V. Varallo, Andrew E. Blumberg, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael Hanrahan, Kevin H. Davenport, Mary S. Thomas, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A.; Mark Lebovitch, Jacqueline Y. Ma, Daniel E. Meyer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Lee D. Rudy, Eric L. Zagar, Christopher M. Windover, Matthew C. Benedict, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Randor, PA; Robert D.Klausner, Klausner Kaufman Jensen & Levinson, P.A., Plantation, FL; Aaron T. Morris, Morris Kandinov LLP, Stowe, VT for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Robert S. Saunders, Joseph O. Larkin, Matthew P. Majarian, Ryan M. Lindsay, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; Richard B. Harper, Thomas E. O’Brien, Vern Cassin, Baker Botts LLP, New York, NY; Kenneth J. Nachbar, Megan W. Cascio, Thomas P. Will, Sarah P. Kaboly, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Douglas D. Herrmann, Emily L. Wheatley, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69614
The court held that plaintiffs were entitled to a mootness fee in the amount of 9 million dollars.
Publication Date: 2021-11-16
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Pharmaceuticals
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Steven J. Purcell, Douglas E. Julie, Robert H. Lefkowitz, Anisha Mirchandani, Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Blake Rohrbacher, Alexander M. Krischik, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Caroline H. Bullerjahn, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA; Peter B. Ladig, Brett M. McCartney, Bayard P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69606
The court held that plaintiffs' amended complaint satisfied pleading requirements for a claim of breach of fiduciary duty concerning board approval and implementation of charter amendments where 1) plaintiffs made a valid demand on the board to correct a violation and 2) the allegations supported an inference that the demand was wrongfully refused.
Publication Date: 2021-11-16
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Consulting | Software
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thad J. Bracegirdle, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE; David A. Battaglia, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jeffrey L. Moyer, Travis S. Hunter, Nicole K. Pedi, Richards Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: D69608
The court held that plaintiff failed to show that defendant engaged in contemptuous conduct constituting a violation of a previously issued court order under the preponderance of the evidence standard for contempt claims.
Publication Date: 2021-11-16
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry: Chemicals and Materials | Manufacturing
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory V. Varallo, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark Lebovitch, Daniel E. Meyer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Robert D. Klausner, Stuart A. Kaufman, Klausner Kaufman Jensen & Levinson, Plantation, FL; Gustavo F. Bruckner, Daryoush Behbood, Pomerantz LLP, New York, NY; Kip B. Shuman, Shuman, Glenn & Stecker, San Francisco, CA; Rusty E. Glenn, Shuman, Glenn & Stecker, Denver, CO; Brett D. Stecker, Shuman, Glenn & Stecker, Ardmore, PA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey Gorris, Christopher Foulds, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Jonathan M. Moses, Ryan A. McLeod, Justin L. Brooke, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69607
Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to support claim of demand futility because it could not show that officers and directors faced substantial liability for approving stock repurchases and dividend payments. Motion to dismiss granted.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read