Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
546 results for '* industry:"Investments and Investment Advisory"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2021-10-13
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory Fischer, Cozen O'Connor, Wilmington, DE; Martin S. Bloor, Michael B. de Leeuw, Matthew L. Elkin, Cozen O'Connor, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: John Klein, Alpine, New Jersey, pro se defendant.
Case Number: D69566
Plaintiffs proved securities fraud under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and a violation of N.J.S.A. §49:3-71(a)(2) and common law fraud where defendant committed multiple misrepresentations during the sale of securities.
Publication Date: 2021-10-06
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Investments and Investment Advisory | Real Estate
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Christine M Mackintosh, Kimberly A. Evans, Michael D. Bell, Vivek Upadhya, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, DE; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Christopher J. Orrico, Andrew E. Blumberg, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Kevin M. Gallagher, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Joseph De Simone, Michelle J. Annunziata, Michael Rayfield, Mayer Brown LLP, New York, NY; Matthew E. Fenn, Mayer Brown LLP, Chicago, IL; C. Barr Flinn, Paul Loughman, Alberto E. Chávez, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Eric Leon, Nathan Taylor, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69563
Genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the issue of demand futility, but the court dismissed claims against two director defendants in this derivative action.
Publication Date: 2021-10-06
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Valihura
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin G. Abrams, Eric A. Veres, Stephen C. Childs, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; John A. Neuwirth, Stefania D. Venezia, Amanda K. Pooler, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY for appellants.
for defendant: Ned Weinberger, Derrick Farrell, Mark Richardson, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer, David M. Sborz, Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, Delaware; Steven J. Purcell, Douglas E. Julie, Robert H. Lefkowitz, Kaitlyn T. Devenyns, Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP, New York, NY; Jeremy S. Friedman, David F.E. Tejtel, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC, Bedford Hills, NY for appellees.
Case Number: D69560
Court overruled the Gentile carve-out doctrine where it created analytical tension with Tooley and other legal doctrines permitted stockholders to pursue direct claims for fiduciary breaches.
Publication Date: 2021-10-06
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory | Real Estate
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel E. Ross, Bradley R. Aronstam, Ross Aronstam & Moritz, Wilmington, DE; Joshua S. Amsel, Matthew R. Friedenberg, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Joseph H. Huston, Jr., Stevens & Lee P.C., Wilmington, DE; Robert K. Keach, Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, Portland, ME for receiver. Ryan P. Newell, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE for nominal defendants.
Case Number: D69561
Claimant was entitled to indemnification of his litigation expenses, and the court granted his motion to intervene because he had a valid property interest which was not adequately protected by existing parties.
Publication Date: 2021-09-29
Practice Area: Insurance Litigation
Industry: Insurance | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge LeGrow
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David J. Baldwin, Peter C. McGivney, Berger Harris LLP, Wilmington, DE; John E. Failla, Nathan R. Lander, Elise A. Yablonski, Tiffany M. Woo, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Elena C. Norman, Michael A. Laukaitis, II, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael F. Perlis, Richard R. Johnson, Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, Woodland Hills, CA; Sebastian Quitmeyer, Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, New York, NY; Carmella P. Keener, Cooch & Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Ronald P. Schiller, Daniel J. Layden, Isabel C. Naviera López, Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, P.C., Philadelphia, PA for defendants.
Case Number: D69552
The court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, because defendant insurers were obligated to provide insurance coverage even though third parties provided some of the funds to pay plaintiffs' settlement.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read