Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
571 results for '* topic:"Contracts"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-02-15
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Software | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
Attorneys: For plaintiff: William M. Lafferty, Kevin M. Coen, Sarah P. Kaboly, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Timothy W. Knapp, P.C., Howard M. Kaplan, Aleschia D. Hyde, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiffs/counterclaim defendants.
for defendant: Tammy L. Mercer, M. Paige Valeski, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Evan C. Borges, Matthew S. Ingles, Greenberg Gross LLP, Costa Mesa, CA for defendants and counterclaim/third party plaintiffs.
Case Number: D69713
The court held that the non-disparagement clause contained in the restrictive covenant agreement between the parties was clearly a restrictive covenant.
Publication Date: 2022-02-08
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Consumer Products | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rudolf Koch, Matthew D. Perri, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Greg Shinall, Michael G. Dickler, Sperling & Slater, P.C., Chicago, IL for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Robert S. Saunders, Sarah R. Martin, Michelle L. Davis, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ryan D. Stottmann, Miranda N. Gilbert, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Tamir Young, Studin Young PC, Hauppauge, NY; Peter B. Ladig, Elizabeth A. Powers, Sarah T. Andrade, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69703
The court held that because there were two competing and reasonable interpretations of certain contract language, the contract was ambiguous, and the ambiguity barred a motion to dismiss as a matter of law or on the pleadings.
Publication Date: 2022-02-01
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Retail
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Adams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Julia B. Klein, Klein, LLC, Wilmington, DE, for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Ann M. Kashishian, Kashishian Law, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jack J. Nichols, Jack J. Nichols, P.C., Houston, TX for defendant.
Case Number: D69697
The court held that the convertible debentures at issue were conditional because they contained an express condition for payment which made the agreement a contract and not a negotiable instrument.
Publication Date: 2022-01-25
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas A. Uebler, Joseph Christensen, McCollom D’Emilio Smith Uebler LLC, Wilmington, DE; Edward D. Totino, Benjamin W. Turner, Baker Mckenzie LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Robert L. Burns, Daniel E. Kaprow, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michele Johnson, Kristin Murphy, Lat-ham & Watkins LLP, Costa Mesa, CA; Colleen Smith, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Diego, CA for defendants.
Case Number: D69686
The court held that plaintiff's shares were not Lockup Shares as defined in the bylaws adopted prior to the business combination between the Special Purpose Acquisition Company and plaintiff's former company, such that plaintiff was free to trade them immediately upon receipt. Relief in Count I granted.
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
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
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.
Publication Date: 2022-01-04
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Brennan
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D69666
The court held that 1) defendant did not breach its contract with plaintiff by failing to allow plaintiff to assume control of a pre-closing tax matter, 2) plaintiff failed to plead damages, 3) allegations of breach of lease agreements were dealt with in a previous settlement agreement so could not be re-litigated, 4) plaintiff properly pled elements of breach of implied covenant of good faith but did not properly plead elements to support declaratory judgment or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Motion to dismiss granted
Publication Date: 2021-12-28
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Entertainment and Leisure | Legal Services
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Wallace
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Theodore A. Kittila, James G. MacMillan, III, Halloran Farkas + Kittila LLP, Wilmington, DE; Eric M. George, Kim S. Zeldin, Browne George Ross LLP, Los Angeles CA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Robert K. Beste, Jason Z. Miller, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Marvin S. Putnam, Jessica Stebbins Bina, R. Peter Durning, Jr., Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants.
Case Number: D69659
Motion of law firm to intervene to attach an attorney's lien for a judgment for unpaid legal fees denied where firm's right to attach the lien was contractually limited only to causes of actions that were the subject of the engagement agreement, and the firm sought to intervene in a completely unrelated legal action.
Publication Date: 2021-12-28
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: E-Commerce
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael A. Barlow, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Tu, Peter J. Brody, Cooley LLP, Santa Monica, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Peter B. Ladig, Justin C. Barrett, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Kenneth S.Ulrich, W. Kyle Walther, Goldberg Kohn LTD., Chicago, IL for defendant.
Case Number: D69656
The court held that plaintiff was entitled to a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant from pursuing arbitration against plaintiff where plaintiff will likely show that it never agreed to arbitrate defendant's claims.
Publication Date: 2021-12-14
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Johnston
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Dominick T. Gattuso, Aaron M. Nelson, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Anthony J. O’Malley, Rajeev K. Adlakha, Karey E. Werner, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, Cleveland, OH for plaintiffs
for defendant: D. McKinley Measley, Sabrina M. Hendershot, Michael J. Slobom, Jr., Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Britt K. Latham, Bass Berry & Sims PLC, Nashville, TN; Shayne R. Clinton, Bass Berry & Sims PLC, Knoxville, TN for defendants
Case Number: D69642
The court held that plaintiffs properly pled claims of both breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; at the pleadings stage, plaintiffs were allowed to maintain both claims. Motion to dismiss denied.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read