• 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.

  • Maginn v. Maginn

    Publication Date: 2023-10-30
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Software
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Neil R. Lapinski, Phillip A. Giordano, Madeline R. Silverman, Gordon, Fournaris & Mammarella, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Garrett B. Moritz, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Thad J. Bracegirdle, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants. Albert H. Manwaring, IV & Kirsten A. Zeberkiewicz, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE for nominal defendant.

    Case Number: 2023-0805-LWW

    Reasoning that the master's report in the parties' divorce proceeding had not yet been adopted by the probate court and the defendant had not been removed as a general partner of the Family LP, plaintiff, acting alone, lacked the authority to direct the Family LP through a written consent to remove another board member of nominal defendant.

  • In re ProAssurance Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litig.

    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.

  • Barbey v. Cerego, Inc.

    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.

  • In re Straight Path Commc'ns Inc. Consol. Stockholder Litig.

    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.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    District of Columbia Legal Malpractice Law 2024

    Authors: Shari L. Klevens, Alanna G. Clair

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Keller v. Steep Hill, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-09-11
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Agriculture | Consulting | Consumer Products
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Bruce E. Jameson, Eric J. Juray, Jason W. Rigby, Robert B. Lackey, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Thomas H. Vidal, Shamar Toms-Anthony, Pryor Cashman LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: David A. Felice, Bailey & Glasser, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Evan W. Bolla, Megan Dubatowka, Harris St. Laurent & Wechsler LLP, New York, NY for defendant.

    Case Number: 2022-0098-MTZ

    Reasoning that under the plain language of 8 Del. C. § 145 a director or officer may recover for fees incurred by a wholly owned entity, the court held that plaintiff was entitled to indemnification for breach of contract claims brought against an entity owned by him as well as for counterclaims brought by him and the entity.

  • Hammann v. Adamis Pharm. Corp.

    Publication Date: 2023-09-04
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jerald Hammann, plaintiff pro se.
    for defendant: Rolin P. Bissell, James M. Yoch, Jr., Alberto E. Chávez, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Holmes, Robert P. Ritchie, Jeremy R. Gonzalez, Vinson & Elkins L.L.P., Dallas, TX for defendants.

    Case Number: 2021-0506-PAF

    Stockholder's action to invalidate board election was moot where directors had completed their terms and the company had elected a new board.

  • In re AMC Ent. Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litig.

    Publication Date: 2023-08-28
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory V. Varallo, Daniel E. Meyer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark Lebovitch, Edward Timlin, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, New York, NY; Michael J. Barry, Kelly L. Tucker, Jason M. Avellino, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Thomas Curry, Saxena White P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Kevin M. Gallagher, Matthew W. Murphy, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; John A. Neuwirth, Joshua S. Amsel, Tanner S. Stanley, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: 2023-0215-MTZ

    Court approved non-opt-out class for direct stockholder breach of fiduciary duty claims where obtaining opt-outs would be impractical under the circumstances and the proposed settlement provided relief to the entire class.

  • In Re AMC Ent. Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litig.

    Publication Date: 2023-08-07
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Entertainment and Leisure
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory V. Varallo, Daniel E. Meyer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark Lebovitch, Edward Timlin, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, New York, NY; Michael J. Barry, Kelly L. Tucker, Jason M. Avellino, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Thomas Curry, Saxena White P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Kevin M. Gallagher, Matthew W. Murphy, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; John A. Neuwirth, Joshua S. Amsel, Tanner S. Stanley, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: 2023-0215-MTZ

    The court declined to approve a proposed settlement on behalf of a putative class of common stockholders noting that the release would release not only claims associated with the common stock but also claims related to the ownership of preferred equity units, even though plaintiffs had not brought an action on behalf of a class of preferred equity unitholders.

  • Atallah v. Malone

    Publication Date: 2023-07-31
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: F. Troupe Mickler IV, Stephen E. Jenkins, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE; William J. Fields, Christopher J. Kupka, Samir Shukurov, Fields Kupka & Shukurov LLP, New York, NY; Gustavo F. Bruckner, Samuel J. Adams, Daryoush Behbood, Pomerantz LLP, New York, NY; Brian Schall, The Schall Law Firm, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Kevin R. Shannon, Tyler J. Leavengood, Jaclyn C. Levy, Michael C. Gorski, Jr., Lucille E. Wiesner, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Richard B. Harper, Vern Cassin, Thomas E. O’Brien, Alyssa M. Pronley, Kristina Wenner, Baker Botts LLP, New York, NY; Bradley R. Aronstam, S. Reiko Rogozen, Roger S. Stronach, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Joseph O. Larkin, Matthew P. Majarian, Rupal K. Joshi, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; James R. Carroll, Skadden, Arps, Meagher & Flom LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.

    Case Number: 2021-1116-SG

    The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' derivative complaint which alleged that one defendant had made a sham offer to purchase another defendant's high vote stock to trigger a call right, which in turn resulted in significant monetary benefits to both defendants and harm to nominal defendant.