Filter This View

  • Allen v. Harvey

    Publication Date: 2023-11-13
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer, David M. Sborz, Andrew J. Peach, Jackson E. Warren, Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, DE; Joshua Fruchter, Wohl & Fruchter LLP, Monsey, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Tammy L. Mercer, James M. Yoch, Jr., Michael A. Laukaitis II, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Craig Zieminski, Andy Jackson, Jeremy Gonzales, Vinson & Elkins, LLP, Dallas, TX for defendants.
    Case Number: 2022-0248-MTZ

    Court declined to award a substantial success fee to stockholders who obtained supplemental disclosures to merger proxy where the disclosures did not remove an impediment to the stockholders' vote, but the disclosures provided a meaningful corporate benefit by informing stockholders about the transaction committee's affiliations with a controlling stockholder sitting on both sides of the merger transaction.

  • Ramsey Asset Mgmt., LLC v. The Standard Ins. Co.

    Publication Date: 2023-11-13
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: Insurance | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Roger D. Landon, Murphy & Landon, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: James W. Semple, R. Grant Dick IV, Cooch and Taylor P.A., Wilmington, DE; Brooks R. Magratten, Michael J. Daly, Pierce Atwood LLP, Providence, RI for defendant.
    Case Number: 23-453-CFC

    Court transferred case to Eastern District of Virginia where it involved a dispute over an insurance policy issued to a Virginia-headquartered company and the parties had no connection to Delaware other than the company's state of incorporation.

  • Foote v. Mehrotra

    Publication Date: 2023-11-13
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Manufacturing | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Slomsky
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-00169

    Court dismissed claim of misleading proxy statements where allegedly false statements about company's commitment to workforce diversity were non-actionable, aspirational puffery that was immaterial to the investing public.

  • Stouffer v. Union R.R. Co.

    Publication Date: 2023-11-13
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry: Transportation
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Fuentes
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Mark A. Grace, Cohen & Grace, Pittsburgh, PA; Sammy Y. Sugiura, Mooney Green Saindon Murphy & Welch, Washington, DC for appellant.
    for defendant: Courtney C. Brennan, Thomas M. Pohl, Mary-Jo Rebelo, Burns White, Pittsburgh, PA for appellees.
    Case Number: 22-1680

    District court correctly dismissed disparate impact age discrimination claim where complaint contained no specific factual allegations to demonstrate that company policies had a statistically significant impact on older workers.

  • Strobert Tree Serv., Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd.

    Publication Date: 2023-11-13
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry:
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Robinson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Victoria K. Petrone, Brian v. DeMott, Baird Mandalas Brockstedt & Federico, LLC, Wilmington, DE for appellant.
    for defendant: Victoria W. Counihan, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE for appellee Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd; George Shaw, appellee pro se.
    Case Number: S23A-05-001 RHR

    Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board correctly upheld referee's decision overturning denial of unemployment benefits claim where employer only presented hearsay evidence to prove that employee was terminated for willful or wanton misconduct and UIAB could not base a decision solely on hearsay.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Connecticut Landlord and Tenant Law with Forms Third Edition (2020)

    Authors: NOBLE F. ALLEN

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • In re: AmeriFirst Fin., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-11-06
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking
    Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
    Judge: Judge Horan
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 23-11240 (TMH)

    Court denied motion to transfer venue where there was no indication debtors had attempted to "manufacture" venue and transfer would not facilitate the efficient resolution of the case.

  • Menzies v. Seyfath Shaw LLP

    Publication Date: 2023-11-06
    Practice Area: Tax
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Insurance
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Bibas
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel Charles Herr, Law Office of Daniel C. Herr LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jennifer Marie Kinkus, William Edward Gamgort, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: 1:21-cv-00249-SB

    Breach of fiduciary duty claim was untimely under statute of limitations where plaintiff was on inquiry notice of his claim no later than his receipt of an IRS audit notice investigating transactions involving defendant.

  • KDM Dev. Corp. v. The Consumer Prot. Unit of the Dep't of Justice of the State of Delaware

    Publication Date: 2023-11-06
    Practice Area: Consumer Protection
    Industry: Hospitality and Lodging | State and Local Government
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Karsnitz
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John W. Paradee, Brian V. DeMott, Dover, DE for petitioner.
    for defendant: Owen P. Lefkon, Ryan T. Costa, Deputy Attorneys General, State of Delaware Department of Justice Wilmington, DE for respondent.
    Case Number: S23M-06-018-CAK

    Consumer Protection Unit had statutory authority to issue subpoenas to affiliate of manufactured home community owners where it was not exclusively bound to make civil investigative demands under the Consumer Fraud Act, and the subpoenas were sufficiently tailored to the scope of an investigation into the safety of the community residents.

  • Beeney v. FCA US LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-11-06
    Practice Area: Consumer Protection
    Industry: Automotive
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Hughes
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ian Connor Bifferato, The Bifferato Firm, Wilmington, DE; Rosemary M. Rivas, David Stein, Kyla J. Gibboney, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Oakland, CA; William H. Anderson, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Boulder, CO; Rebecca P. Chang, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, New York, NY; Simon Wiener, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Boston, MA; Jon M. Herskowitz, Baron & Herskowitz, Miami, FL for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Patrick M. Brannigan, Jessica L. Reno, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephen A. D’Aunoy, Scott H. Morgan, Thompson Coburn LLP, St. Louis, MO for defendant.
    Case Number: 22-00518-TMH

    Vehicle purchasers' claims arising from manufacturers destination charge practices failed where federal law only required vehicle window stickers to list the price charged by a manufacturer to a dealer to ship vehicles from the factory to the dealer lot and there was no evidence that allegedly inflated destination charges caused consumers to pay more for vehicles as ultimate purchase prices were set by dealerships.

  • Ramco Asset Management, LLC v. USA Rare Earth, LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-11-06
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Mining and Resources
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David A. Felice, Bailey & Glasser, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew St. Laurent, Harris St. Laurent & Wechsler LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: John M. Seaman, E. Wade Houston, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Chelsea Corey, King & Spalding LLP, Charlotte, NC; Carl D. Neff, FisherBroyles, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Aurora Cassirer, Christina H. Bost Seaton, FisherBroyles, LLP, New York, NY; Karen E. Keller, Andrew E. Russell, Nathan R. Hoeschen, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; Justin L. Ormand, Allen & Overy, New York, NY; Patrick W. Pearsall, Allen & Overy, Washington, D.C. for defendants.
    Case Number: 2022-0665-SG

    Plaintiffs were former equity holders in an Australian rare-earth mining company, whose primary asset was interest in a mining project in West Texas. Defendants transferred the company's assets to a new Delaware entity. Plaintiffs' fourteen causes of action alleged that defendants promised that plaintiffs would each receive an equivalent amount of equity in the Delaware entity as each had previously held in the mining company, however, they alleged that the transactions had diminished their ownership interests. Defendants' motions to