Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
393 results for '* topic:"Mergers and Acquisitions"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-09-13
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Investments and Investment Advisory | Software
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Nicholas D. Mozal, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Orion Armon, Cooley LLP, Denver, CO; Luke Cadigan, Cooley LLP, Boston, MA; Alexandra Leeper, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Katelyn Kang, Cooley LLP, New York, NY; Bradley Levison, Carrie A. Herschman, Herschman Levison Hobfall PLLC, Chicago, IL for plaintiffs.
for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, Stephen C. Childs, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; David B. Hennes, Adam M. Harris, Alexander B. Simkin, Ropes & Gray LLP, New York, NY; Sarah M. Samaha, Ropes & Gray LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.
Case Number: 2021-0447-KSJM
Fraud claim arising from acquisition was not dismissed where sellers plausibly alleged that buyers overinflated the amount of monetizable revenue in the buyers' pipeline, which induced sellers into the transaction on the understanding they could hit contractual milestones for earnout payments.
Publication Date: 2022-09-13
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-2800
Increases in line of credit under existing working capital agreement did not require founder's consent as a "major decision" since it did not create a new lien or encumbrance, as lender already had security interest in company's existing and after-acquired assets under original working capital agreement.
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.
Publication Date: 2022-08-02
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Real Estate
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Traynor
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael Hanrahan, Ronald A. Brown, Jr., Stephen D. Dargitz, J. Clayton Athey, Marcus E. Montejo, Samuel L. Closic, Prickett Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Carl L. Stine, Adam J. Blander, Antoinette Adesanya, Wolf Popper LLP, New York, NY; Brian D. Long, Long Law, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Frank P. DiPrima, Law Office of Frank DiPrima, P.A., Morristown, NJ for appellants.
for defendant: Kevin G. Abrams, John M. Seaman, Matthew L. Miller, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; John A. Neuwirth, Evert J. Christensen, Jr., Seth Goodchild, Matthew S. Connors, Nicole E. Prunetti, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY; Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Berton W. Ashman, Jr., and Jaclyn C. Levy, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter E. Kazanoff, Michael J. Garvey, Sara A. Ricciardi, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York, NY; Raymond J. Dicamillo, Susan M. Hannigan, Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, DE; Brian T. Frawley, Y. Carson Zhou, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY; David J. Teklits, Thomas P. Will, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for appellees.
Case Number: D69905
Dividing merger transaction into substantial pre-closing dividend and meager "per share merger consideration" did not frustrate stockholders' appraisal rights since dividend legally constituted merger consideration.
Publication Date: 2022-08-02
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Greenaway
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D69903
Proxy statement was not materially false or misleading by relying on financial projections that were prepared before the merger parties learned of materially adverse information about product development, where the proxy expressly stated that the projections were prepared prior to a certain date and merely reflected the company's views at the time the merger was prepared.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Janet K. Colaneri
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-07-12
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Food and Beverage
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin R. Shannon, Christopher N. Kelly, Emma K. Diver, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; John E. Schreiber, Aaron C. O’Dell, Winston & Strawn LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, April M. Kirby, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Timothy R. Farrell, Ropes & Gray LLP, Chicago, IL; Patrick S. Doherty, Ropes & Gray LLP, London, UK; Sarah M. Milkovich, Ropes & Gray LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.
Case Number: D69878
Seller sufficiently alleged breach of written and oral contracts where merger agreement required buyer to complete pre-closing tax returns according to past practices and buyer instead used novel practices, but the change in practices was authorized by the parties' oral agreement in which the seller agreed to the change in exchange for receipt of the tax return proceeds.
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.
Publication Date: 2022-06-21
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
Attorneys: For plaintiff: R. Bruce McNew, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randall J. Baron, David T. Wissbroecker, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; Christopher H. Lyons, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Nashville, TN for plaintiff.
for defendant: Stephen C. Norman, Tyler J. Leavengood, Christopher D. Renaud, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Michael L. Kichline, Matthew D. Klayman, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Robert H. O’Leary, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendants.
Case Number: D69854
Alleged omissions of information regarding company value were insufficient to render stockholder vote uninformed, thereby validating a single-bidder transaction.
Publication Date: 2022-06-14
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Davis
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin R. Shannon, Christopher N. Kelly, Daniel M. Rusk, IV, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; William C. O’Neil, Gretchen V. Scavo, Matthew Durkin, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
for defendant: Melissa D. Donimirski, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Timothy W. Weber, Joseph P. Kenny, Weber, Crabb & Wein, P.A., St. Petersburg, FL for defendants.
Case Number: D69852
Fraudulent misrepresentation claims dismissed where the alleged statements constituted forward-looking plans rather than existing facts and there was no evidence showing the speaker had no intention of fulfilling those plans.
Publication Date: 2022-06-07
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Food and Beverage | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen E. Jenkins, Richard D. Heins, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Donald J. Enright, Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Brian D. Stewart, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Washington, D.C.; D. Seamus Kaskela, Kaskela Law LLC, Newtown Square, PA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Brock E. Czeschin, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; John P. Stigi III, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants.
Case Number: D69840
Breach of fiduciary claims not dismissed where director who later pled conflict of interest continued to participate in board discussions over merger.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read