Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
44 results for '* judge:"Vice Chancellor McCormick"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2024-10-22
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry: E-Commerce
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Catherine A. Gaul, Randall J. Teti, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff
for defendant: Aaron Greenspan, PlainSite, San Francisco, CA.
Case Number: 2022-0613-KSJM
Court granted continued confidential treatment of docket entries in part where they concerned confidential corporate policies and procedures, but declined to grant such treatment to non-confidential or public information.
Publication Date: 2024-08-20
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: R. Bruce McNew, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Lisa M. Zwally, Bryan T. Reed, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 2020-0985-KSJM ("AMFI I")
Court denied reargument of decision finding waiver of claim where plaintiff failed to brief the claim aside from a single reference in its papers.
Publication Date: 2024-06-25
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: A. Kimberly Hoffman, R. Eric Hacker, Alena V. Smith, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for plaintiff.
for defendant: Max B. Walton, Lisa R. Hatfield, Erica K. Sefton, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Newark, DE, attorneys for defendant.
Case Number: 2024-0403-KSJM
Court allowed parties to enter a status quo order staying the proceedings where necessary to protect plaintiff's interest in mandamus proceeding to challenge expiration of land development plan.
Publication Date: 2024-06-11
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Automotive | Manufacturing | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory V. Varallo, Glenn R. McGillivray, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer, David M. Sborz, Andrew J. Peach, Jackson E. Warren, Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, DE; Catherine A. Gaul, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE; John L. Reed, Ronald N. Brown, III, Caleb G. Johnson, Daniel P. Klusman, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: David E. Ross, Garrett B. Moritz, Thomas C. Mandracchia, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; William M. Lafferty, Susan W. Waesco, Ryan D. Stottmann, Miranda N. Gilbert, Jacob M. Perrone, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Rudolf Koch, John D. Hendershot, Kevin M. Gallagher, Andrew L. Milam, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 2018-0408-KSJM
Court denied plaintiff's motions to expedite resolution of post-trial issues based on defendants' assertion that an upcoming shareholder proxy vote would not affect the litigation.
Publication Date: 2022-05-17
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Real Estate
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Max B. Walton, Kyle Evans Gay, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Newark, DE; Michael K. Ross, Thomas Shakow, Serine Consolino, Aegis Law Group LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Stephen B. Brauerman, Elizabeth A. Powers, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Deborah B. Baum, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Washington, DC; Neal C. Belgam, Kelly A. Green, Jason Z. Miller, Smith Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69814
Board was substantially justified in approving stock sale that diluted equal stockholder's interest, where it mooted that stockholder's legal action that posed a risk of triggering termination of the company's key contracts.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2021-06-16
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Myron T. Steele, John A. Sensing, Jesse L. Noa, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Cory E. Manning, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Columbia, SC; Carrie A. Hanger, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Winston-Salem, NC, Wesley T. Moran, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Myrtle Beach, SC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Steven L. Caponi, Matthew B. Goeller, K&L Gates LLP, Wilmington, DE, for defendant.
Case Number: D69432
Plaintiff's need for defendant to fulfill its contractual windup obligations sufficiently stated a basis for equitable relief that could trigger the chancery court's jurisdiction, further permitting it to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over plaintiff's legal claims despite defendant's related breach of contract suit in the superior court.
Publication Date: 2021-03-24
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Consulting | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: ohn M. Seaman, E. Wade Houston, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; William C. Price, Michael T. Zeller, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Gregory P. Williams, Robert L. Burns, Megan E. O’Connor, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A, Wilmington, DE; Kathleen H. Goodhart, Cooley LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendant.
Case Number: D69336
Chancery court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction over alleged breach of contract claim where equitable relief might be required for breach of a NDA to prevent future misappropriation and because calculation of legal damages due to prior misappropriation could prove difficult.
Publication Date: 2021-02-17
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry: Consumer Products
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John L. Reed, Peter H. Kyle, Kelly L. Freund, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE; Patrick J. Smith, Brian T. Burns, Nicholas J. Karasimas, Smith Villazor LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Jon E. Abramczyk, D. McKinley Measley, Alexandra M. Cumings, Elizabeth A. Mullin, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69300
Although one member of a limited liability company contrived circumstances leading to a deadlock, the facts established that the parties had an irreconcilable disagreement which warranted dissolution of the com-pany.
Publication Date: 2021-02-10
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Aaron C. Baker, Robert M. Goff, Jr., Edward J. Kosmowski, City of Wilmington Law Department, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jeffrey M. Weiner, Jeffrey M. Weiner, Esquire, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: D69288
Alterations to residency form were subject to mandatory collective bargaining where residency was not expressly defined under Delaware law nor expressly excluded from the scope of collective bargaining by public employers.
Publication Date: 2021-01-27
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard P. Rollo, Travis S. Hunter, Sarah A. Clark, Robert B. Greco, Angela Lam, Richards, Layton & Fin-ger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Brad D. Sorrels, Andrew D. Cordo, Daniyal M. Iqbal, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Wilmington, DE; A. Thomspon Baylis, Adam K. Schulman, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Bruce A. Ericson, Sta-cie O. Kinser, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, San Francisco, CA; David J. Teklits, Alexandra M. Cumings, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69274
The court granted motions to dismiss with respect to one group of defendants because some of plaintiff's claims were time-barred, and plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to support the remaining claims against those particular defendants.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read