Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
80 results for '* judge:"Chancellor McCormick"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2019-06-19
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Aerospace | Investments and Investment Advisory | Legal Services
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rudolf Koch, Susan M. Hannigan and Matthew W. Murphy, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Christopher F. Robertson and Alison K. Eggers, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Boston, MA for plaintiff and third-party defendants.
for defendant: John P. DiTomo and Jarrett W. Horowitz, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Roberto M. Braceras, Adam Slutsky and Ezekiel L. Hill of Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.
Case Number: D68604
The parties' merger agreement contained a provision which preserved the attorney-client privilege regarding pre-merger communications between sellers and their attorney.
Publication Date: 2019-06-12
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry:
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael F. Bonkowski and Andrew L. Cole, Cole Schotz P.C., Wilmington, DE; Steven R. Klein and Rachel A. Mongiello, Cole Schotz P.C., Hackensack, NJ, attorneys for plaintiffs
for defendant: Lisa A. Schmidt and Matthew D. Perri, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Joseph L. Fogel and Michael P. Kornak, Freeborn & Peters LLP, Chicago, IL, attorneys for defendants.
Case Number: D68590
Breach of fiduciary duty claim against investors failed where company failed to show investors qualified as company controllers through either their equity stake, their control of the board, or their efforts to disrupt company operations that were severe enough to demonstrate the investors' control.
Publication Date: 2019-06-05
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rudolf Koch, Susan M. Hannigan and Matthew W. Murphy, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Christopher F. Robertson and Alison K. Eggers, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Boston, MA for plaintiffs and third-party defendants
for defendant: John P. DiTomo and Jarrett W. Horowitz, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Roberto M. Braceras, Adam Slutsky and Ezekiel L. Hill, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA for defendants/third-party plaintiffs
Case Number: D68588
In this merger litigation, defendants named only some stockholders in their third-party complaint, but the court dismissed de-fendants' request for rescission because all of the stockholders were indispensable parties. Defendants' unjust enrichment claim survived a motion to dismiss.
Publication Date: 2019-05-22
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Advertising | Investments and Investment Advisory | Software
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Marcus E. Montejo and John G. Day, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Rafael X. Zahralddin and Jonathan M. Stemerman, Elliott Greenleaf, P.C., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D68470
In this case involving a corporate merger, the company and its board were not entitled to judgment on the pleadings where they did not comply with statutory notice requirements regarding appraisal rights.
Publication Date: 2019-05-22
Practice Area: Intellectual Property | Trade Secrets
Industry: Consulting
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Bradley R. Aronstam, Eric D. Selden, and R. Garrett Rice, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert S. Berezin and Nicholas J. Pappas, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: John P. DiTomo, Matthew R. Clark, and Barnaby Grzaslewicz, Morris, Nicholds, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: D68466
The court adopted the narrow version of liability under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which only imposed liability for unauthorized access of computer systems, rather than for misuse of computer systems and files that were otherwise accessed under proper authorization.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2019-04-24
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Construction
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian C. Ralston and Matthew A. Golden, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael Dockterman, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Joseph B. Cicero, Paul D. Brown, and Stephanie H. Dallaire, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark L. McAlpine, Douglas W. Eyre, McAlpine PC, Auburn Hills, MI for defendants.
Case Number: D68536
Plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on their breach of contract claim and defendants' affirmative defenses where plaintiffs' contractual notice obligation did not apply to its claim for indemnification, plaintiffs had no duty to mitigate prior to defendants' breach, and unclean hands was not a defense to a purely legal claim for breach.
Publication Date: 2019-04-17
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Charles A. McCauley III, Offit Kurman, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Bradley R. Aronstam, Eric D. Selden, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D68527
Breach of severance agreement claim not dismissed where both parties offered reasonable interpretations of contractual language setting forth the types of compensation employee was entitled to upon severance.
Publication Date: 2019-04-03
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes | Fee Disputes
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Software
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Jeffrey L. Moyer and Nicole K. Pedi, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilming-ton, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: David J. Teklits and Coleen W. Hill, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gene W. Lee, Perkins Coie LLP, New York for defendant.
Case Number: D68515
The plain language of the parties' agreement excluded certain items from the licensing fee calculation and a party's attempt to terminate a contract was ineffective, so the court granted summary judgment on those matters.
Publication Date: 2019-02-20
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes | Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Education | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kenneth J. Nachbar and Sabrina M. Hendershot, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Phillip A. Geraci, Aaron F. Miner and Harry K. Fidler, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff and third-party defendant.
for defendant: Robert S. Saunders, Jenness E. Parker, Lauren N. Rosenello and Jessica M. Jones, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: D68467
A party was not entitled to specific enforcement of a provision for expert determination where the parties' dis-pute involved an issue outside the expert's area of expertise.
Publication Date: 2019-02-06
Practice Area: Corporate Entities | Discovery
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: James D. Taylor, Jr., Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Manning, Jeffrey J. Goulder, Stefan M. Palys, and Christy M. Milliken, Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Phoenix, AZ for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jon E. Abramczyk, William M. Lafferty, and Sabrina M. Hendershot, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lawrence Portnoy and Julia Kiechel, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, New York, NY for defendant.
Case Number: D68447
Section 220 complaint was dismissed after stockholder had filed plenary action against corporation and could not demonstrate timing pressures created by defendant or need to discover additional information following a dismissal without prejudice.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read