Filter This View

  • Harris v. Junger

    Publication Date: 2022-06-07
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Food and Beverage | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen E. Jenkins, Richard D. Heins, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Donald J. Enright, Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Brian D. Stewart, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Washington, D.C.; D. Seamus Kaskela, Kaskela Law LLC, Newtown Square, PA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Brock E. Czeschin, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; John P. Stigi III, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants.
    Case Number: D69840

    Breach of fiduciary claims not dismissed where director who later pled conflict of interest continued to participate in board discussions over merger.

  • White Winston Select Asset Funds, LLC v. Good Times Rest., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-06-07
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Food and Beverage
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Bibas
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: D69842

    Letter of intent merely binding the parties to negotiate in good faith without any binding agreement on key terms of final agreement only entitled purchasing party to reliance damages.

  • Fowler v. Perdue Farms, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-03-29
    Practice Area: Occupational Safety and Health
    Industry: Food and Beverage
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Primos
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Walt F. Schmittinger, Schmittinger & Rodriguez, PA, Dover, DE for claimant below/appellant.
    for defendant: Andrea C. Panico, Megan E. Traynor, Tybout, Redfearn & Pell, Wilmington, DE for employer below/appellee.
    Case Number: D69761

    The court held that the Industrial Accident Board 1) improperly considered extrajudicial sources, 2) rejected unrebutted tes-timony of both experts and the claimant when it rejected claimant's claim that he contracted COVID-19 at his workplace, and 3) imposed a higher burden of proof on claimant than was appropriate.

  • Gonzalez v. Perdue Farms, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-02-01
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Food and Beverage | State and Local Government
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Green-Streett
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: James R. Donovan, Doroshow, Pasquale, Krawitz & Bhaya, Dover, DE for appellant.
    for defendant: Andrea C. Panico, Tybout, Redfearn & Pell, Wilmington, DE for appellee.
    Case Number: D69694

    The court held that the Industrial Board's decision to accept one medical expert's testimony over contradictory testimony from a different medical expert was within the purview of the Board and would not be changed on appeal.

  • United States v. U.S. Sugar Corp.

    Publication Date: 2022-02-01
    Practice Area: Antitrust
    Industry: Agriculture | Food and Beverage
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Laura D. Hatcher, Chief, Civil Division, Shamoor Anis, United States Attorney’s Office, Wilmington, DE; Brian Hanna, Jonathan Y. Mincer, Jenigh Garrett, Jill Ptacek, United States Department Of Justice, Antitrust Division, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Brian P. Egan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lawrence E. Buterman, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Amanda P. 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: D69700

    Court declined to transfer government's Clayton Act suit where the government had filed suit in the state of incorporation of the parties to the challenged transaction, where the corporate parties had also agreed to hear claims arising from their transaction, such that the government's of forum was entitled to substantial deference.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New Jersey Estate Litigation 2014

    Authors: Michael R. Griffinger, Paul F. Cullum III

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Murphy Marine Serv., Inc. v. Dole Fresh Fruit Co.

    Publication Date: 2022-01-25
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Cargo and Shipping | Food and Beverage
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Bibas
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Geoffrey G. Grivner, Andrew Hope, Craig Mills, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney P.C., Wilmington, DE; George R. Zacharkow, Deasey, Mahoney & Valentini, LTD, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Frank P. DeGiulio, Kevin G. O’Donovan, Michael B. McCauley, Palmer, Biezup & Henderson, Wilmington, DE; Michael B. McCauley, Palmer, Biezup & Henderson, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: D69690

    The court held that plaintiff successfully pled a cause of action for promissory estoppel where it alleged defendant promised to pay the new tariff, that plaintiff relied on that promise, and that plaintiff suffered harm when Dole refused to pay. Motion to dismiss denied. However, plaintiff's claim for promissory fraud and punitive damages failed to state the mandatory requirements that defendant knew their statements about reimbursement were false and that defendant had a meritorious defense such that punitive damages were not applic

  • The Am. Bottling Co. v. BA Sports Nutrition, LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-01-04
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Distribution and Wholesale | Food and Beverage
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge LeGrow
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Garrett B. Moritz, Elizabeth M. Taylor, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE, Robert C. Walters, Russell H. Falconer, Sophie C. Rohnke, Andrew H. Bean, Megan Z. Hulce, Emily A. Jorgens, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dallas, TX for plaintiff.
    for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, Daniel J. McBride, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE, David H. Bernstein, Jyotin Hamid, Jared I. Kagan, Matthew J. Petrozziello, Danielle Vildostegui, Sebastian Dutz, Debevoise & Plimpton, New York, NY; Rolin P. Bissell, James M. Yoch, Jr., Michael A Laukaitis II, Kevin P. Rickert, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE, Michael C. Holmes, Craig E. Zieminski, Andrew E. Jackson, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, TX, for defendants.
    Case Number: D69665

    The court ruled on three motions for summary judgment.

  • In re Kraft Heinz Co.

    Publication Date: 2021-12-28
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Food and Beverage | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey Gorris, Christopher M. Foulds, Friedlander & Gorris P.A., Wilmington, DE; P. Bradford deLeeuw, Deleeuw Law LLC, Wilmington, DE; David A. Jenkins, Robert K. Beste III, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Eduard Korsinsky, Gregory M. Nespole, Nicholas I. Porritt, Daniel Tepper, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, New York, NY; Jeffrey S. Abraham, Mitchell M. Z. Twersky, Atara Hirsch, Michael J. Klein, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, New York, NY; Lawrence P. Eagel, W. Scott Holleman, Melissa A. Fortunato, Marion C. Passmore, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., New York, NY; Michael VanOverbeke, Vanoverbeke, Michaud & Timmony, P.C., Detroit, MI; Deborah Sturman, Sturman LLC, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Michael A. Pittenger, Jacqueline A. Rogers, Caneel Radinson-Blasucci, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sandra C. Goldstein, Stefan Atkinson, Kevin M. Neylan, Jr., Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY; Matthew D. Stachel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Daniel J. Kramer, Andrew J. Ehrlich, William A. Clareman, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
    Case Number: D69657

    The court held that plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient allegations that a majority of the demand board was interested in a stock sale transaction such that demand would be excused.

  • White Winston Select Asset Funds, LLC v. Good Times Rest., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-11-09
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Food and Beverage
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Bibas
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard A. Barkasy, Kristi J. Doughty, Stephen A. Fogdall, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis LLP, Wilmington, DE; Daniel M. Pereira, Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Catherine A. Gaul, Michael Dean Walker, Jr. Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Peter L. Loh, Davis G. Mosmeyer III, Sara A. Brown, Foley & Lardner LLP, Dallas, TX for defendant.
    Case Number: D69605

    Motion for leave to amend granted where the new proposed claims were based in part on facts that were not known to plaintiff until revealed during discovery.

  • Aveanna Healthcare, LLC v. Epic/Freedom, LLC

    Publication Date: 2021-08-25
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Food and Beverage | Health Care
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge LeGrow
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard L. Renck, Tracey E. Timlin, Duane Morris LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert M. Castle, III, Randy D. Gordon, Duane Morris LLP, Dallas, TX for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Kenneth J. Nachbar, Miranda N. Gilbert, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; R. Todd Cronan, Joseph P. Rockers, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.
    Case Number: D69511

    Buyer could pursue fraud claims against seller of companies, even though the companies made the fraudulent misrepresentations, where an anti-reliance clause could not exculpate liability for intra-contractual fraud and where the seller was plausibly alleged to have known of the falsity of the contractual representations.