Filter This View

  • Post Holdings, Inc. v. NPE Seller Rep LLC

    Publication Date: 2018-11-14
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities | Deals and Transactions
    Industry: Food and Beverage
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor Bouchard
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rodger D. Smith II, Ryan D. Stottmann and Alexandra M. Cumings of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Richard B. Walsh, Jr. and Evan Z. Reid of Lewis Rice LLC, St. Louis, MO for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Kevin R. Shannon, Christopher N. Kelly and Jay G. Stirling of Potter, Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wil-mington, DE; William C. O'Neil, Jeffrey J. Huelskamp and Michael A. Meneghini of Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL for defendants.
    Case Number: D68356

    Plaintiffs could not enjoy benefits under the contract while refusing to perform their obligations under it.

  • Flood v. Synutra Int'l, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-10-24
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance | Mergers and Acquisitions | Securities Litigation
    Industry: Food and Beverage
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Strine
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ryan M. Ernst, Daniel P. Murray,O'Kelly Ernst & Joyce, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald J. Enright, Eliza-beth K. Tripodi, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Washington, D.C., attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Matthew E. Fischer, Matthew R. Dreyfuss, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Roger A. Cooper, Rishi N. Zutshi, Vanessa C. Richardson, Hana Choi, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for defendants Synutra, Jinrong Chen, Lei Lin and Yalin Wu; William M. Laf-ferty, John P. DiTomo, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lawrence Portnoy, Re-becca L. Martin, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, New York, NY, for defendants Liang Zhang, Xiuqing Meng and Beams Power Investment Ltd.
    Case Number: D68329

    The business judgment rule applied, even though a controller's initial offer did not contain the required condi-tions, because he provided a second letter containing those conditions prior to any action by the special com-mittee.

  • Marchand v. Barnhill

    Publication Date: 2018-10-10
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Food and Beverage
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Vera G. Belger, Michael Hawash and Jourdain Poupore, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Timothy R. Dudderar, Travis R. Dunkelberger,; Srinivas M. Raju and Kelly L. Freund, attorneys for defendants.
    Case Number: D68312

    Derivative breach of fiduciary duty claim failed where plaintiff failed to make or excuse pre-suit litigation demand upon the board, the majority of whom were sufficiently disinterested to exercise independent judgment of such demand, and where plaintiff had failed to plead the requisite scienter for a failure of oversight claim levied against directors.

  • In re RMH Franchise Holdings, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-10-10
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy | Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Food and Beverage
    Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
    Judge: Judge Shannon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: D68317

    A creditor's extension of the time for curing defaults under a franchise agreement did not contain a clear and unambiguous notice of termination.

  • Morrison v. Berry

    Publication Date: 2018-07-25
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Food and Beverage | Investments and Investment Advisory | Retail
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Valihura
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris, Christopher P. Quinn, Randall J. Baron and Christopher H. Lyons for plaintiff
    for defendant: John L. Reed, Ethan H. Townsend, Harrison S. Carpenter and David Clarke, Jr. for Berry defendants; Rudolf Koch, Matthew D. Perri, Ryan P. Durkin, Adam L. Sisitsky, Lavinia M. Weizel, Robert I Bodian and Scott A. Rader for remaining defendants.
    Case Number: D68226

    The board provided misleading information to stockholders prior to a vote, so the business judgment rule did not apply.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Florida Construction Defect Litigation 2022

    Authors: Gary L. Brown

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Wenske v. Blue Bell Creameries, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-07-18
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Food and Beverage
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jessica Zeldin and Scott G. Burdine for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Timothy R. Dudderar and Travis R. Dunkelberger for Blue Bell Creameries, Inc. and Blue Bell Creameries, U.S.A; Jim E. Kruse, Howard W. Kruse, Richard Dickson, William J. Rankin, Diana Markwardt, John W. Barnhill, Jr., Paul A. Ehlert, Doro-thy McLeod MacInerney and Patricia Ryan for Blue Bell Creameries, L.P.; Srinivas M. Raju and Kelly L. Freund for individual defendants.
    Case Number: D68221

    Limited partners stated a claim for breach of the partnership agreement by the entity that was responsible for overseeing the company's operations, and pre-suit demand was excused.

  • Two Farms, Inc. v. Davis, Bowen & Friedel, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-06-20
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry: Food and Beverage | Retail
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Primos
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Shawn P. Tucker, Richard L. Abbott and Patrick McGrory.
    for defendant: N/A
    Case Number: D68189

    Defendant was not entitled to recover on its counterclaim for libel because plaintiff had an absolute privilege to allege matters in its complaint which related to its fraud claim.

  • City of N. Miami Beach Gen. Emps.' Ret. Plan v. Dr Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-06-13
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Food and Beverage
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor Bouchard
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael J. Barry, Jeff A. Almeida, and Laina M. Herbert, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, DE; Mark Lebovitch and John Vielandi, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for plaintiffs
    for defendant: S. Mark Hurd, Melissa A. DiVincenzo, Eric S. Klinger-Wilensky, and Alexandra Cumings, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brian A. Herman, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, New York, NY; Jason H. Wilson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Paul J. Lockwood, Joseph O. Larkin, Sarah R. Martin, Alyssa S. O'Connell, and Michelle L. Davis, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendants.
    Case Number: D68175

    Stockholders were not entitled to statutory right of appraisal where their stock was not in a constituent corporation as the merger was being effected by a merger subsidiary and where stockholders would retain their shares following merger.

  • World Class Wholesale, LLC v. Star Indus., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-06-06
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Distribution and Wholesale | Food and Beverage
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Johnston
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John G. Harris, Sean A. Meluney for plaintiff
    for defendant: Adam Balick for defendant.
    Case Number: D68173

    An oral contract for an indefinite term included a provision which allowed termination for good cause, so this made it possible for the contract to be performed within one year, rendering the statute of frauds inapplicable.

  • Bridev One, LLC v. Regency Ctrs., LP

    Publication Date: 2018-05-02
    Practice Area: Creditors' and Debtors' Rights | Landlord Tenant Law
    Industry: Food and Beverage | Real Estate
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Streett
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: D68122

    Superior court continued to possess jurisdiction to issue charging orders to execute judgments against LLC membership interests, where the statutory vesting the chancery court with jurisdiction to issue charging orders did not vest exclusive jurisdiction or divest the superior court of jurisdiction to issue such orders.