Filter This View

  • The Williams Cos., Inc. v. Energy Transfer LP

    Publication Date: 2022-09-06
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Energy
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kenneth J. Nachbar, Susan W. Waesco, Matthew R. Clark, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Antony L. Ryan, Kevin J. Orsini, Michael P. Addis, David H. Korn, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Rolin P. Bissell, James M. Yoch, Jr., Alberto E. Chávez, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Holmes, John C. Wander, Craig E. Zieminski, Andy E. Jackson, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, TX for defendants.
    Case Number: D69942

    Shifting of contingency fee in litigation to recover breakup fee in merger agreement was reasonable where agreement only limited shifted fees to be "reasonable" and contingency fee percentage and supporting lodestar figures were reasonable under the circumstances of the case.

  • Paul Capital Advisors, LLC v. Stahl

    Publication Date: 2022-08-30
    Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Ross, Eric D. Selden, A. Gage Whirley, Ross Aronstam & Moritz, LLP, Wilmington, DE; John F. Hartmann, P.C., Ravi Subramanian Shankar, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Stephen C. Norman, Ellis H. Huff, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Norman M. Powell, Emily V. Burton, Lauren Dunkle Fortunato, Michael E. Neminski, Nehama L. Hanoch, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brett M. McCartney, Elizabeth A. Powers, Sarah T. Andrade, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael K. Hurst, Sara H. Chelette, Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann, Dallas, TX for defendants.
    Case Number: D69936

    Sophisticated transactional arrangement did not list plaintiffs as beneficiaries or holders of beneficial interest in certain exchange trusts, therefore causing plaintiffs to lack standing to seek removal of the trust advisor of the exchange trusts.

  • Steward Health Care Sys, LLC v. Tenet Bus. Serv. Corp.

    Publication Date: 2022-08-16
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael A. Barlow and Adam K. Schulman, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Anthony Bongiorno and Jessica Reese, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Boston, MA; Rollo C. Baker IV, Jared Ruocco, and Eric White, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Lewis H. Lazarus, K. Tyler O’Connell, Albert J. Carroll, and Barnaby Grzaslewicz, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephen C. Hackney, P.C., Timothy W. Knapp, P.C., and Brendan E. Ryan, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL for defendants.
    Case Number: D69921

    In lieu of a demonstration of likelihood of success on the merits, court granted preliminary injunctive relief compelling specific performance, conditioned on plaintiffs' posting of a bond sufficient to cover the service fees defendants were owed under the parties contract.

  • Parks v. Horizon Holdings, LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-08-02
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas V. Ayala, Sally E. Veghte, Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Scott B. Czerwonka, Andrea S. Brooks, Wilks Law, LLC, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: D69902

    Restrictive covenants in agreements governing asset purchase transaction for the sale of a business were governed by Delaware law where the parties had contractually chosen Delaware and where parties challenging the enforceability of the covenants failed to show that their home state's law would apply in the absence of the contractual choice.

  • Weinberg v. Waystar, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-07-19
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Software
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Steven P. Wood, Andrew S. Dupre, Travis J. Ferguson, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Julie B. Porter, Salvatore Prescott Porter & Porter, Evanston, IL for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Kevin M. Gallagher, Caroline M. McDonough, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Sarah A. Zielinski, Amy Starinieri Gilbert, McGuireWoods LLP, Chicago, IL for defendants.
    Case Number: D69886

    Option grant was interpreted to grant employer the right to call exercised options following the employee's termination or following the employee's breach of their restrictive covenants; both events were not required to have occurred for the right to be available.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • State v. Sweetwater Point, LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-07-12
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gerald I.H. Street, John I. Ellis, Street & Ellis, P.A., Dover, DE; Bradley S. Eaby, State of Delaware Department of Justice, Dover, DE for petitioner.
    for defendant: Richard P. Beck, Richard Beck LLC, Centreville, DE; John H. Newcomer, Jr., Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE for respondents.
    Case Number: D69880

    Motion to equitably divest the state from its superior title to a parcel under the doctrine of acquiescence denied where there was no evidence to charge the state with knowledge of competing party's possessory acts such that the state could be said to have acquiesced to such acts.

  • Buttonwood Tree Value Partners, L.P. v. R.L. Polk & Co, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-07-05
    Practice Area: Class Actions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: R. Bruce McNew, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: David A. Dorey, Blank Rome LLP, Wilmington, DE; Christopher M. Mason, Nixon Peabody LLP, New York, NY; Carolyn G. Nussbaum, Nixon Peabody LLP, Rochester, NY for defendants.
    Case Number: D69870

    Court certified class of stockholders challenging self-tender transaction for misleading corporate disclosures, where certification was appropriate for the purposes of establish breach of duty and nominal damages, although the question of rescission damages would be individual to each stockholder.

  • Manti Holdings, LLC v. The Carlyle Group Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-06-21
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rolin P. Bissell, Paul J. Loughman, Alberto E. Chávez, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; D. Patrick Long, Jonathan R. Mureen, John Tancabel, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Dallas, TX for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Albert H. Manwaring IV, Kirsten Zeberkiewicz, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert A. Van Kirk, Sarah F. Kirkpatrick, Lauren Uhlig, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.
    Case Number: D69857

    Plaintiffs sufficiently pled breach of fiduciary duty claims by alleging that controlling stockholder, who also controlled a majority of the board, was conflicted due to its desire to cash out its investment, which purportedly led it to approve a sale of the company that maximized the controller's return at the expense of the compensation to minority stockholders.

  • In re Geron Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2022-06-21
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Biotechnology | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: P. Bradford deLeeuw, deLeeuw Law LLC, Wilmington, DE; Kip B. Shuman, Shuman, Glenn & Stecker, San Francisco, CA; Rusty E. Glenn, Shuman, Glenn & Stecker, Denver, CO; Brett D. Stecker, Shuman, Glenn & Stecker, Ardmore, PA; Brian J. Robbins, Craig W. Smith, Shane P. Sanders, Emily R. Bishop, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA; Richard A. Maniskas, RM Law, P.C., Berwyn, PA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: D. McKinley Measley, Sarah P. Kaboly, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brett De Jarnette, John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Ryan E. Blair, Cooley LLP, San Diego, CA for defendants.
    Case Number: D69855

    Although plaintiff shareholders' failure of oversight claim was likely to be subsumed by their fraudulent/misleading disclosure claim, the court stayed the action pending the outcome of a related securities action in another jurisdiction that would likely resolve genuine issues of material fact in the present case.

  • In re Global Discovery Biosciences Corp.

    Publication Date: 2022-06-14
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Biotechnology
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen C. Norman, David A. Seal, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Eric Landau, Travis Biffar, Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP, Irvine, CA for petitioners.
    for defendant: Corinne E. Amato, Mary S. Thomas, John G. Day, Christine N. Lafferty, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Marc P. Miles, Kristy A. Schlesinger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Irvine, CA for respondent.
    Case Number: D69846

    Court affirmed validity of stockholder consent where evidence was insufficient to establish that purported equity issuances were valid and therefore diluted the ownership interest of the stockholders voting in favor of the consent.