Filter This View

  • White Winston Select Asset Funds, LLC v. Good Times Rest., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-18
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Food and Beverage | Hospitality and Lodging | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Restrepo
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 23-1297

    Seller did not breach implied covenant of good faith in negotiations simply by increasing its asking price, as non-binding letter of intent allowed parties to terminate negotiations except to breach exclusivity provision.

  • Graciano v. Abode Healthcare, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-18
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Christopher J. Day, Day Law Group, LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Michael J. Maiomone, Gabriella Mouriz, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: 2022-0728-SG

    Chancery court lacked jurisdiction over complaint seeking specific performance where the relief sought by plaintiff was legal in nature and the parties' contract could not confer jurisdiction.

  • Jacam Chem. Co. 2013, LLC v. Jacam Chem. Co., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-18
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Chemicals and Materials | Energy | Manufacturing
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Paul D. Brown, Joseph B. Cicero, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Janet A. Hendrick, Michele C. Spillman, Angela M. Buchanan, Phillips Murrah P.C., Dallas, TX for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: P. Clarkson Collins, Jr., K. Tyler O’Connell, Kirsten Zeberkiewicz, Morris James, Wilmington, DE; Sean D. Walsh, Scott R. Schillings, Matthew K. Holcomb, Hinkle Law Firm, Wichita, KS for defendants.
    Case Number: 2021-0659-SG

    Contractual limitations period rendered breach of asset purchase agreement facially untimely, and there were no allegations of misconduct by defendants that would warrant tolling the limitation period.

  • Urvan v. AMMO, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-11
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Manufacturing | Retail
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Judge Wallace
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin M. Coen, Rachel R. Tunney, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Nicholas Cutaia, Jaclyn Grodin, Goulston & Storrs PC, New York, NY; Joshua M. Looney, Nora A. Saunders, Goulston & Storrs PC, Boston, MA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, Peter C. Cirka, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: 2023-0470 PRW

    Although claimant had potentially known about facts underlying fraud/misrepresentation claims for some time, the court declined to apply laches to bar the claims where they were filed within the analogous statutes of limitations. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss denied; defendants' motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part.

  • Murdick Capital Mgmt. L.P. v. QuarterNorth Energy Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-11
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Bradley R. Aronstam, Roger S. Stronach, Benjamin M. Whitney, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jordan A. Goldstein, Lauren J. Zimmerman, Babak Ghafarzade, Selendy Gay PLLC, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Blake Rohrbacher, Matthew W. Murphy, John M. O’Toole, Edmond S. Kim, Spencer V. Crawford, Margaret Rockey, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Harry P. Susman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, TX; Thomas W. Briggs, Jr., Kirk Andersen, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew K. Glenn, Glenn Agre Bergman & Fuentes LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
    Case Number: 2024-0106-LWW

    Court declined to preliminarily enjoin invocation of drag-along rights where the invocation was not inconsistent with the terms of the proposed merger agreement or the minority securityholders' agreements and the minority could obtain monetary relief if the court ultimately found an improper invocation.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Library of Pennsylvania Family Law Forms, Fourth Edition

    Authors: Joseph S. Britton

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Bailey v. Tektronix, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-11
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: E-Commerce | Manufacturing | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Williams
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Robert Karl Beste, III, Jason Z. Miller, Smith, Katzenstein, & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Anthony David Raucci, Donna Lynn Culver, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
    Case Number: 21-1268-GBW

    Retention holdback agreement breached where reasonable interpretation of definition of qualifying revenue meant that the acquiring company hit the revenue goals to trigger the payout.

  • RGIS Int'l Transition Holdco, LLC v. Retail Serv. WIS Co.

    Publication Date: 2024-02-26
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Consulting | Manufacturing | Retail
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Wallace
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Christopher P. Simon, David G. Holmes, Cross & Simon, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jed M. Schwartz, Christopher Almon, Michael T. Frieda, Milbank LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Steven T. Margolin, Bryan T. Reed, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: N21C-12-077

    Conspiracy and aiding and abetting fraud claims against corporate officers failed where there were no allegations that officers acted out of some personal motivation rather than in their officer roles, precluding an exception to the rule that a corporation cannot conspire with its officers.

  • In re Oracle Corp. Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2024-02-19
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: E-Commerce | Software
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris, David Hahn, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Christopher H. Lyons, Tayler D. Bolton, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Wilmington, DE; Randall J. Baron, David A. Knotts, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; Gregory Del Gaizo, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Blake Rohrbacher, Susan M. Hannigan, Matthew D. Perri, Daniel E. Kaprow, Kyle H. Lachmund, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Elena C. Norman, Richard J. Thomas, Alberto E. Chávez, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter A. Wald, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA; Blair Connelly, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
    Case Number: 2017-0337-SG

    Court denied corporate benefit fee to plaintiffs who were unsuccessful at trial as the appointment of independent directors to the corporation's special litigation committee was too ancillary a benefit to warrant a fee.

  • Mercury Partners Mgmt., LLC v. Valo Health, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-02-19
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Rudolf Koch, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendant.
    Case Number: 2023-0318-MTZ

    Court declined interlocutory review where appeal did not raise novel or conflicting issues of law regarding decision to decline specific performance on a best efforts clause.

  • Labyrinth, Inc. v. Urich

    Publication Date: 2024-02-05
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Software
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Blake Rohrbacher, John D. Hendershot, Sandy Xu, Morgan R. Harrison, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Kira N. Lum, Royer Cooper Cohen Braunfeld LLC, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Jesse L. Noa, Tyler E. Cragg, Andrew Moshos, Hannah L. Paxton, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: 2023-0327-MTZ

    Buyers in corporate acquisition adequately pled fraud claims where acquisition agreement expressly stated that seller had not changed its accounting practices even though seller's owners expressly accelerated the collection of accounts receivable, which made attached financials inaccurate.