• Lenois v. Lawal

    Publication Date: 2021-01-27
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Energy
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael J. Barry, Rebecca Musarra, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Gordon Z. Novod, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., New York, NY; Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer, Jessica Zeldin, David M. Sborz, Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jeremy Friedman, Spencer Oster, David Tejtel, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Myron T. Steele, Matthew F. Davis, Jaclyn C. Levy, Potter, Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; David T. Moran, Christopher R. Bankler, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Dallas, TX; David J. Teklits, Kevin M. Coen, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark Oakes and Ryan Meltzer, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Austin, TX; John Byron, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Houston, TX; Srinivas M. Raju, Robert L. Burns, Matthew D. Perri, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Greg Waller, Hunton Andrews Kurth L.L.P., Houston, TX for defendants.

    Case Number: D69272

    Bankruptcy trustee could not substitute for derivative plaintiff and assert claims subject to final judgment on behalf of the company where the "newly discovered evidence" in support of relief from judgment was in the company's possession and therefore knowledge of the evidence would be imputed to the trustee.

  • Harris v. Harris FRC Corp.

    Publication Date: 2021-01-20
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Consulting
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Christopher M. Foulds, Christopher Quinn, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE for petitioner.
    for defendant: Maura L. Burke, Courtney A. Emerson, Katelyn M. Crawford, Fox Rothschild LLP, Wilmington, DE; Emily A. Kaller, Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP, Woodbridge, NJ for respondent.

    Case Number: D69264

    Confidentiality order in appraisal action could be modified to allow for additional plenary claims that came to light during discovery in the appraisal proceedings.

  • Mack v. Rev Worldwide, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-01-20
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: William M. Kelleher, Phillip A. Giordano, Gordon, Fournaris & Mammarella, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Robert A. Giacovas, Lainie E. Cohen, Jacob A. Englander, Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Raymond W. Cobb, O’Hagan Meyer LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kevin M. O’Hagan, Shane M. Bradwell, O’Hagan Meyer LLP, Chicago, IL for defendant.

    Case Number: D69268

    Delaware was an improper forum for plaintiff's claims, because the parties' agreements contained forum selection clauses in favor of other states.

  • Alexandria Venture Invs., LLC v. Verseau Therapeutics, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-01-06
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Biotechnology | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Megan E. O’Connor, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Luke Cadigan, Cooley LLP, Boston, MA; Patrick Gunn, Cooley LLP, San Francisco, CA for plaintiffs
    for defendant: David J. Teklits, Thomas P. Will, Morris, Nichols, Arsht, & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: D69246

    Stockholder whose financing proposal was rejected by the board was entitled to limited inspection of books and records after raising reasonable inferences that directors' decision to reject the proposal may have been motivated by conflicts and self-interest.

  • AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Lebanon County Employees Ret. Fund

    Publication Date: 2020-12-23
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Distribution and Wholesale | Investments and Investment Advisory | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Traynor
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen C. Norman, Jennifer C. Wasson, Tyler J. Leavengood, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael D. Blanchard, Amelia G. Pennington, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Boston, MA for appellant.
    for defendant: Samuel L. Closic, Eric J. Juray, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Gregory V. Varallo, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Wilmington, DE; Eric L. Zagar, Michael C. Wagner, Christopher M. Windover, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor, PA; Frank R. Schirripa, Daniel B. Rehns, Hillary Nappi, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP, New York, NY; David Wales, Andrew Blumberg, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY for appellees.

    Case Number: D69232

    Stockholders could file inspection demand after asserting credible circumstantial evidence that corporate directors and managers had engaged in wrongdoing.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Delaware County Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Mad Investors GRMD, LLC v. GR Co., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-11-11
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael J. Barry, Christine M. Mackintosh, Kelly L. Tucker, Vivek Upadhya, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wil-mington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Blake Rohrbacher, Kevin M Gallagher, Elizabeth A. Heise, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Jason C. Vigna, Brian L. Muldrew, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, New York, NY for defendant.

    Case Number: D69187

    Plaintiffs failed to allow the full five-day response period to expire before filing this action to enforce their books and records request, so the court dismissed their complaint.

  • In re Altaba, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-11-04
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Paul J. Lockwood, Arthur R. Bookout, Matthew P. Majarian, Gregory P. Ranzini, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom Llp, Wilmington, DE for petitioner.
    for defendant: Albert H. Manwaring, IV, Kirsten A. Zeberkiewicz, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Thad J. Bracegirdle, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Christopher P. Simon, Kevin S. Mann, David G. Holmes, Cross & Simon, LLC, Wilmington, DE; E.F. Anthony Merchant, Q.C., Merchant Law Group LLP, Regina, Saskatchewan; Evan W. Rassman, Reger Rizzo & Darnall LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael F. Long, Watkins & Letofsky, LLP, Santa Ana, CA; Michael A. Pittenger, Berton W. Ashman, Jr., David A. Seal, Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Wilmington, DE; William Savitt, Adam M. Gogolak, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, NY for claimants.

    Case Number: D69175

    Company seeking to make interim stockholder distribution directed to holdback full reserve requested by claimants due to pending nature of class action in foreign country, making it impractical for the court to anticipate the outcome of the action.

  • L-5 Healthcare Partners, LLC v. Alphatec Holdings, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-10-28
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: William M. Lafferty, D. McKinley Measley, Thomas P. Will, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Antonio Yanez, Jr., Alexander L. Cheney, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, Jaclyn C. Levy, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: D69167

    Agreement to issue convertible warrants upon drawing on credit constituted agreement sufficient to trigger preemption rights under stock purchase agreement with another party, and offer proposal failed to satisfy preemption rights due to conditional nature of the offer.

  • Fannin v. UMTH Land Dev., L.P.

    Publication Date: 2020-09-16
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Real Estate
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Robert J. Kriner, Jr. and Tiffany J. Cramer, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Steven L. Caponi, K&L Gates LLP, Wilmington, DE; John W. Rotunno, Paul J. Walsen, Joseph C. Wylie II, Molly K. McGinley, Matthew A. Alvis, K&L Gates LLP, Chicago, IL; Myron T. Steele, Timothy R. Dudderar, Jacqueline A. Rogers, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: D69118

    Limited partners' fiduciary claims survived dismissal where limited partners could rely on misleading disclosures regarding challenged transactions, where the general partners and controllers failed to eliminate fiduciary duties from the partnership agreement, and where general partner's financial interest in challenged transactions was sufficient to establish demand futility.

  • Juul Labs, Inc. v. Grove

    Publication Date: 2020-08-26
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Consumer Products
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: William M. Lafferty, David J. Teklits and Lauren N. Bennett, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Bruce A. Ericson and Colin T. Kemp, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, San Francisco, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Gregory V. Varallo, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; David Wales and Thomas G. James, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Francis A. Bottini, Jr. , Bottini & Bottini, Inc., La Jolla, CA for defendant.

    Case Number: D69098

    A stockholder was not entitled to request books and records pursuant to another state's laws, because the internal affairs doctrine provided that Delaware law governed inspection rights for companies incorporated in that state.