Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
Publication Date: 2023-10-23
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge LeGrow
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Benjamin S. Gifford, IV, The Law Office of Benjamin S. Gifford IV, Wilmington, DE for appellant.
for defendant: Brian L. Arban, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE for appellee.
Case Number: 112, 2021
The Delaware Supreme Court held that a postconviction petition will not be mooted by a defendant's completion of his sentence after the petition is filed if the defendant pleads that there are continuing collateral consequences arising from the conviction.
Publication Date: 2023-10-16
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Insurance
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas A. Uebler, McCollom D’Emilio Smith Uebler LLC, Wilmington, DE; Blake A. Bennett, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Melinda A. Nicholson, Nicolas Kravitz, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, New Orleans, LA; Benjamin I. Sachs-Michaels, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, New York, NY; Robert V. Prongay, Pavithra Rajesh, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Kevin M. Gallagher, Nicholas F. Mastria, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Jonathan Youngwood, Janet A. Gochman, Jacob Lundqvist, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 2022-0034-LWW
Court dismissed shareholders' derivative complaint for failure to plead demand futility where plaintiffs' fiduciary claims against the company's directors and officers failed to set forth a prima facie case of personal liability such that the board could not independently consider a litigation demand.
Publication Date: 2023-10-16
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Consumer Products | Manufacturing
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen C. Norman, Matthew F. Davis, Tyler J. Leavengood, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Elizabeth B. McCallum, Gilbert S. Keteltas, Carey S. Busen, Evan M. Mannering, Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jim W. Phillips, Jr., Kimberly M. Marston, Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, Greensboro, NC; Charles E. Coble, Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, Raleigh, NC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Gregory P. Williams, Rudolf Koch, Robert L. Burns, Matthew D. Perri, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Noel J. Francisco, C. Kevin Marshall, William D. Coglianese; Jones Day, Washington, D.C.; Stephanie E. Parker, Katrina L.S. Caseldine, Jones Day, Atlanta, GA; David B. Alden, Kevin P. Riddles; Jones Day, Cleveland, OH; Elli Leibenstein, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Chicago, IL; Stephen L. Saxl, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, NY; Andrea Shwayri Ferraro, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL for defendants.
Case Number: 2017-0129-LWW
Although seller was entitled to recover compensation for settlement payments it made based on post-closing sales of various acquired brands, trial was necessary to determine acquirers' entitlement to offsets and the availability of specific performance for future settlement payments.
Publication Date: 2023-10-16
Practice Area: Intellectual Property
Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory | Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Comrie Barr Flinn, Alberto E. Chavez, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark L. D. Wawro, Max L. Tribble, Susman Godfrey, LLP, Houston, TX; Tamar Lusztig, Susman Godfrey, LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Alexandra M. Cumings, Ryan D. Stottmann, William M. Lafferty, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael B. Carlinsky, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; Kevin P.B. Johnson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA; Patrick D. Curran, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.
Case Number: 23-157-CFC
Defendants could remove case under federal officer removal statute by alleging that it had acquired the right to use plaintiff's intellectual property via federal government contracts after the government allegedly obtained "unlimited right" to the intellectual property.
Publication Date: 2023-10-16
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: E-Commerce | Non-Profit
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Neil R. Lapinski, Phillip A. Giordano, Madeline R. Silverman, Gordon, Fournaris & Mammarella, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Kenneth H. Young, intervenor, pro se.
Case Number: 2022-0107-PAF
Finding that plaintiffs had not demonstrated that board action was required to authorize defendant's wholly owned subsidiary's tender offer that resulted in its becoming defendant's majority stockholder, the court concluded that plaintiffs had not satisfied their burden to invalidate individual plaintiff's removal as a director of defendant's board.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Michael D. Malfitano
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-10-16
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Judge Adams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Ross, Adam D. Gold, A. Gage Whirley, Ross Aronstam & Moritz, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark W. Premo-Hopkins, Katie Lencioni, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
for defendant: Henry E. Gallagher, Jr., Lauren DeLuca, Jarrett W. Horowitz, Connolly Gallagher, LLP, Wilmington, DE, Lazar P. Raynal, Melanie Burke, Tatum Ellis, King & Spalding, LLP, Chicago, IL for defendant.
Case Number: 2022-1149-MAA
Determining that the purchase agreement did not bar claims based on extra-contractual statements, the court declined to dismiss plaintiff's fraud claims concerning the purchase of defendant's company. The court also found that the detailed factual allegations contained in the complaint stated a claim for fraud and that fraud claims were not barred by the anti-bootstrapping rule.
Publication Date: 2023-10-16
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ned Weinberger, Mark Richardson, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Edward G. Timlin, Eric J. Riedel, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Rudolf Koch, Kevin M. Gallagher, Daniel E. Kaprow, John M. O’Toole, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Thomas Uebler, McCollom D’Emilio Smith Uebler LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jason Cyrulnik, Paul Fattaruso, Matthew Henken, Cyrulnik Fattaruso LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 2017-0486-SG
Although controlling stockholder breached fiduciary duties by using his position to cause company to release an indemnification claim, the minority stockholders were only entitled to nominal damages due to significant obstacles to enforcing the claim which resulted in the release consideration being worth more than the company likely would have recovered attempting to enforce the claim.
Publication Date: 2023-10-16
Practice Area: Trademarks
Industry: Electronics | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stacey A. Scrivani, Stevens & Lee, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Mark H. Anania, Stevens & Lee, P.C., Lawrenceville, NJ; Bobby Ghajar, Cooley LLP, Santa Monica, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Timothy Devlin, Clifford Chad Henson, Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 20-1652-GBW
Finding that defendants had intentionally misled buyers and had made false representations about defendants' association with plaintiff, and that defendants had engaged in a pattern of delay and lack of representation, the court concluded that the case was exceptional both on the merits and because of the unreasonable manner in which defendants had litigated the case.
Publication Date: 2023-10-16
Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Scirica
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-3203
Evidence was sufficient to convict doctor for distribution and conspiracy where the jury was free to credit the government's expert's opinion that the doctor's prescriptions fell outside the bounds of legitimate medical purposes and recorded conversations could permit an inference that the doctor was aware of his role in the distribution scheme.
Publication Date: 2023-10-09
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Fallon
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 23-365-SRF
Court dismissed patent infringement claim after finding patent was directed to ineligible subject matter where patent merely involved abstract processes capable of being performed by a human or with the assistance of generic technological components.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read