Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
105 results for '* industry:"Federal Government"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-02-21
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Distribution and Wholesale | Legal Services | Manufacturing
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Jones
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Aman Kaushik Sharma, The Sharma Law Firm, LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: David A. Felice, Bailey & Glasser LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ari S. Casper, Ralph S. Tyler, The Casper Firm, LLC, Baltimore, MD for defendants.
Case Number: N22C-09-799 FJJ
Court could exercise personal jurisdiction over parties who had been afforded certain rights and benefits under a settlement agreement, even though they were not signatories to the settlement.
Publication Date: 2022-10-11
Practice Area: Antitrust
Industry: Federal Government | Food and Beverage
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Laura Hatcher, Shamoor Anis, United States Attorney’s Office, Wilmington, DE; Brian Hanna, Jonathan Y. Mincer, Jenigh Garrett, Jill Ptacek, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jack Blumenfeld, Brian Egan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lawrence Buterman, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Amanda Reeves, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Elyse M. Greenwald, Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel K. Hogan, Daniel C. Kerrick, Hogan McDaniel, Wilmington, DE; Peter J. Schwingler, Stinson LLP, Minneapolis, MN; Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Amanda L. Wait, Vic Domen, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Washington, DC; Darryl Wade Anderson, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Houston, TX; Christine A. Varney, David R. Marriott, Peter T. Parbur, Timothy G. Cameron, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 21-1644 (MN)
Court denied a request by plaintiff to enjoin an acquisition of a sugar company the Government argued would result in a monopoly of the sugar market in the southeastern United States. The court reviewed evidence from trial noting that the markets for industrial consumers were different from retail consumers, thus broadening the base and the market. The court further found that plaintiff's argument was undermined by the fact that they control the sugar supply within the United States.
Publication Date: 2022-09-20
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry: Federal Government | Health Care
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Stark
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-103-LPS
The court rejected the government's restitution request as untimely filed, and imposed an amount of mandatory restitution based on the limited record evidence of the victims' lost financial assets and loss of income.
Publication Date: 2022-07-26
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Construction | Energy | Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Hughes
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Washington, DC; David C. Weiss, United States Attorney for the District of Delaware, Wilmington, DE; Ruth A. Harvey, Michael J. Quinn, John R. Kresse, Tiffiney Carney, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Michael J. Gottlieb, Martin J. Weinstein, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Washington, DC; Natalia T. Sorgente, Adam Dec, Baker Botts, L.L.P., Washington, DC; Kenneth J. Nachbar, Alexandra M. Cumings, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69900
Guarantors lacked standing to sue under prime contract where guarantors were not parties to the agreement and their surety status did not mean they were third-party beneficiaries under the prime contract.
Publication Date: 2022-06-21
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
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, 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: D69856
Company's selection to a primate study of its proposed vaccine did not constitute material information to the stockholders' approval of amendments to the equity incentive plan that allowed directors to issue themselves options.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
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: 2022-04-05
Practice Area: Immigration Law
Industry: Federal Government
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jeremy F. Ahlijak, pro se plaintiff.
for defendant: Shammor Anis, Assistant US Attorney, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69770
The court held that it did not have jurisdiction to review decisions about resident status because the decisions were not final deportation orders and, in the case of the Form I-485 denial, it was properly appealable withing the removal proceedings.
Publication Date: 2022-03-15
Practice Area: Deals and Transactions
Industry: Energy | Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Stark
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Jeffrey L. Moyer, Travis S. Hunter, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Robert L. Weigel, Jason W. Myatt, Rahim Moloo, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY Miguel A. Estrada, Lucas C. Townsend, Adam M. Smith, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Kenneth J. Nachbar, Alexandra M. Cumings, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael J. Gottlieb, David J. L. Mortlock, Samuel G. Hall, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Washington, DC; Nathan P. Eimer, Lisa S. Meyer, Daniel D. Birk, Gregory M. Schweizer, Eimer Stahl LLP, Chicago, IL;. Samuel Taylor Hirzel, II, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Joseph D. Pizzurro, Julia B. Mosse, Kevin A. Meehan, Juan 0. Perla, Curtis, Mallet-Provost, Colt & Mosse LLP, New York, NY; A. Thompson Bayliss, Stephen C. Childs, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Elaine J. Goldberg, Ginger D. Anders, Brendan B. Gants, Jacobus P. van der Ven, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Washington, DC; George M. Garvey, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA for the Venezuela parties.
Case Number: D69749
Initial steps of a sale process of shares blocked under U.S. sanctions could begin without first obtaining a transfer license from the Office of Foreign Assets Control, although the actual bidding process should not commence in the absence of clear regulatory guidance from OFAC.
Publication Date: 2022-03-15
Practice Area: Creditors' and Debtors' Rights
Industry: Energy | Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Stark
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jody C. Barillare, Kelsey A. Bomar, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sabin Willett, Jonathan Albano, Christopher L. Carter, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Boston, MA; Edward H. Davis, Jr., Fernando J. Menendez, Cristina Vicens Beard, Sequor Law, P.A., Miami, FL; Garrett B. Moritz, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael S. Kim, Marcus J. Green, Josef M. Klazen, Kobre & Kim LLP, New York, NY; Michael Sherwin, Kobre & Kim LLP, Washington, DC; Laura Davis Jones, Peter J. Keane, Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, Wilmington, DE; Alexander A. Yanos, Rajat Rana, Robert Poole, Alston & Bird, LLP, New York, NY; Marie M. Degnan, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Joshua S. Bolian, Keane A. Barger, Riley Warnock & Jacobson, PLC, Nashville, TN for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Marie M. Degnan, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Joshua S. Bolian, Keane A. Barger, Riley Warnock & Jacobson, PLC, Nashville, TN; a. Thompson Bayliss, Stephen C. Childs, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sergio J. Galvis, Joseph E. Neuhaus, James L. Bromley, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY; Angeles N. Ellis, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Washington, DC; Samuel Taylor Hirzel, II, Aaron M. Nelson, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Joseph D. Pizzurro, Julia B. Mosse, Kevin A. Meehan, Juan 0. Perla, Curtis, Mallet-Provost, Colt & Mosle LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69748
Government sanctions that blocked the transfer of shares did not preclude the court from authorizing the eventual issuance of writs of attachment, pending government approval, as mere authorization did not alter sanctioned body's continued ownership of the shares and therefore did not effect a prohibited transfer.
Publication Date: 2022-03-01
Practice Area: Health Care Law
Industry: Federal Government | Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Stark
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel M. Silver, Alexandra M. Joyce, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Allon Kedem, Jeffrey L. Handwerker, Sally L. Pei, and Stephen K. Wirth, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Brian D. Netter, Michelle R. Bennett, Rachael L. Westmoreland, Kate Talmor, Jody Lowenstein, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for defendants.
Case Number: D69731
Court overturned agency violation letter based on previously-withdrawn advisory opinion, such that the letter constituted shifting regulatory guidance and did not comply with rulemaking requirements under THE Administrative Procedure Act.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read