Filter This View

  • Pacira Biosciences, Inc. v. Fortis Advisors LLC

    Publication Date: 2021-11-09
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Biotechnology | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Lisa A. Schmidt, Raymond J. DiCamillo, Megan E. O’Connor, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randy M. Mastro, Declan T. Conroy, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: R. Judson Scaggs, Jr., Lauren K. Neal, Sarah P. Kaboly, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Christopher J. Marino, Davis Malm & D’agostine, P.C., Boston, MA; Henry E. Gallagher, Jr., Shaun Michael Kelly, Jarrett W. Horowitz, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: D69603

    Claims that former owners and employees of acquired company improperly interfered with acquirer's operation of the business were dismissed where the parties' merger agreement contained no express non-compete/non-interference language and defendants' cited actions did not rise to the level of bad faith interference or communication with the acquirer's employees.

  • Chertok v. Zillow, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-11-02
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory | Real Estate
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael J. Maimone, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Geoffrey G. Grivner, Kody M. Sparks, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
    Case Number: D69590

    Complaint seeking contractual remedies from a merger, filed six years after the closing of the merger transaction, was patently untimely under the applicable statute of limitations.

  • Totta v. CCSB Fin. Corp.

    Publication Date: 2021-11-02
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin H. Davenport, John G. Day, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Art. C. Aranilla, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Brett A. Scher, Patrick M. Kennell, Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP, New York, NY for defendant.
    Case Number: D69591

    Motion to dismiss challenge to board election denied where motion referred to documents outside of the pleadings, requiring conversion of the motion to one for summary judgment, under which standard the court determined that further factfinding was required.

  • In Re: Altaba, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-10-27
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Paul J. Lockwood, Arthur R. Bookout, Matthew P. Majarian, Kathryn S. Bartolacci, Gregory P. Ranzini, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; David E. Ross, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE for petitioner.
    for defendant: Michael A. Pittenger, Berton W. Ashman, Jr., David A. Seal, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; William Savitt, Adam M. Gogolak, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, NY for claimants.
    Case Number: D69582

    During the process of sale and dissolution, company failed to provide sufficient security to cover potential indemnification claims incurred by buyer.

  • Ocean Bay Mart, Inc. v. The City of Rehoboth Beach

    Publication Date: 2021-10-27
    Practice Area: Land Use and Planning
    Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard A. Forsten, Pamela J. Scott, Elizabeth S. Fenton, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Max B. Walton, Lisa R. Hatfield, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Newark, DE for defendant.
    Case Number: D69584

    Plaintiff did not reasonably rely on previous city ordinances such that his rights did not become vested.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New York Attorney Discipline: Practice and Procedure 2024

    Authors: Hal R. Lieberman, J. Richard Supple, Jr., Harvey Prager

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Firemen's Ret. Fund of St. Louis v. Sorenson

    Publication Date: 2021-10-20
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Hospitality and Lodging | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Samuel L. Closic, Eric Juray, Prickett, Jones & Elliot, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Brian J. Robbins, Craig W. Smith, Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Emily R. Bishop, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiff
    for defendant: Raymond J. DiCamillo, John M. O’Toole, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Jason J. Mendro, Jeffrey S. Rosenberg, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, D.C.; Adam H. Offenhartz, Laura Kathryn O’Boyle, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
    Case Number: D69575

    The court dismissed breach of fiduciary duty claims brought against directors arising out of a data breach because certain claims were time-barred, and plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts of failure of oversight by directors.

  • Feurer v. Zuckerberg

    Publication Date: 2021-10-20
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel K. Astin, Ciardi Ciardi & Astin, Wilmington, DE; Richard D. Greenfield, Marguerite R. Goodman, Ann M. Caldwell, Greenfield & Goodman LLC, Philadelphia, PA; Albert A. Ciardi III, Walter W. Gouldsbury III, Ciardi, Ciardi & Astin, Philadelphia, PA; Kevin H. Davenport, Samuel L. Closic, John G. Day, Elizabeth Wang, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Peter B. Andrews; Craig J. Springer, David M. Sborz, Andrews & Springer, LLC; Geoffrey M. Johnson, Scott+Scott Attorneys At Law LLP, Cleveland Heights, OH; Donald A. Broggi, William C. Fredericks, Scott R. Jacobsen, Jing-Li Yu, Scott+Scott Attorneys At Law LLP, New York, NY; Daniel B. Rehns, Frank R. Schirripa, Kurt M. Hunciker, Kathryn Hettler, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP, New York, NY; Brian J. Robbins, Stephen J. Oddo, Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Rob-bins LLP, San Diego, CA; Thomas J. McKenna, Gregory M. Egleston, Gainey McKenna & Egleston, New York, NY; Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Daniel E. Barenbaum, Berman Tabacco, San Francisco, CA; Joseph W. Cotchett, Mark Molumphy, Julia Peng, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP; Thaddeus J. Weaver, Dilworth Paxson LLP, Wilmington, DE; Frederic S. Fox, Laurence D. King, Hae Sung Nam, Donnie Hall, Aaron Schwartz, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, New York, NY; Kathleen A. Herkenhoff, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Oakland, CA; Catherine Pratsinakis, Dilworth Paxson LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Nathan A. Cook, Mae Oberste, Block & Leviton LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kurt M. Heyman, Melissa N. Donimirski, Aaron M. Nelson, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jason M. Leviton, Joel Fleming, Lauren G. Milgroom, Block & Leviton LLP, Boston, MA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: David E. Ross, R. Garrett Rice, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Orin Snyder, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY; Brian M. Lutz, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA; Paul J. Collins, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Joshua S. Lipshutz, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.
    Case Number: D69574

    The court held that consolidation of cases was not appropriate where one case's derivative plaintiffs made no demand on the corporate board and the other case's single plaintiff chose to make a demand that was subsequently refused.

  • Patel v. Duncan

    Publication Date: 2021-10-13
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen E. Jenkins, F. Troup Mickler IV, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Eduard Korsinsky, Gregory M. Nespole, Daniel Tepper, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Kevin R. Shannon, Matthew F. Davis, Justin T. Hymes, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; David M. Zensky, Brian Carney, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, New York, NY; Scott Barnard, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Dallas, TX; David E. Ross, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew B. Clubok, J. Christian Word, Stephen P. Barry, Latham & Watkins, LLP, Washington, DC; Rudolf Koch, Matthew D. Perri, Richards Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Bruce Birenboim, Susanna M. Buergel, Christopher L. Filburn, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, New York, NY; William B. Chandler, III, Andrew D. Cordo, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Wilmington, DE; Mark A. Kirsch, Randy M. Mastro, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, New York, NY for defendants.
    Case Number: D69573

    The court dismissed plaintiff's derivative claims because he failed to adequately plead the existence of a control group, and plaintiff also failed to demonstrate demand futility.

  • Intel Corp. v. Fortress Inv. Group, LLC

    Publication Date: 2021-10-13
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Software
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Kenneth J. Nachbar, Ryan D. Stottmann, Elizabeth A. Mullin, Miranda N. Gilbert, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jeffrey L. Moyer, Kelly E. Farnan, Blake Rohrbacher, Valerie A. Caras, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ben Hattenbach, Iian D. Jablon, Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants.
    Case Number: D69572

    The court dismissed this action for declaratory relief because plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law in other pending patent lawsuits.

  • Genworth Fin., Inc. Consol. Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2021-10-13
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Insurance | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: P. Bradford deLeeuw, deLeeuw Law LLC, Wilmington, DE; David R. Scott, Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Colchester, CT; Thomas L. Laughlin IV, Scott Jacobsen, Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, New York, NY; Robert C. Schubert, Willem F. Jonckheer, Dustin L. Schubert, Schubert Jonckheer & Kilbe LLP, San Francisco, CA; Robert B. Weiser, James M. Ficaro, The Weiser Law Firm P.C., Berwyn, PA; Brett D. Stecker, Shuman, Glenn & Stecker, Ardmore, PA; Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Johnson & Weaver, LLP, Marietta, GA; Corey D. Holzer, Holzer & Holzer, LLC, Atlanta, GA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Srinivas M. Raju, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Greg A. Danilow, Caroline Hickey Zalka, John A. Neuwirth, Evert J. Christensen, Jr., Amanda K. Pooler, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
    Case Number: D69571

    Plaintiffs in this derivative action failed to adequately plead demand futility and they also failed to allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty against officers and directors, so the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss.