• Menacker v. Overture, L.L.C.

    Publication Date: 2020-08-19
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Entertainment and Leisure
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard L. Abbot, Abbott Law Firm, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Michael A. Weidinger, Pinckney, Weidinger, Urban & Joyce LLC, Greenville, DEfor defendants.

    Case Number: D69089

    A former member of a limited liability company lacked standing to pursue a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Fannin v. UMTH Land Dev. L.P.

    Publication Date: 2020-08-19
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    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: D69086

    Court declined to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty claims where general partner and controller affiliates had not removed fiduciary duties from the partnership agreement and where plaintiffs were entitled to rely on disclosures related to challenged transactions and thus were not on inquiry notice of their claims.

  • Murfey v. WHC Ventures LLC

    Publication Date: 2020-07-29
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Valihura
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Carl D. Neff and E. Chaney Hall, Fox Rothschild LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: John J. Tumilty, Barnes-Brown & Pendleton, P.C., Waltham, MA; Raymond J. DiCamillo and John M. O’Toole, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: D69067

    The chancery court erred by reading a "necessary and essential" requirement into a partnership books and records request.

  • In re: Morrow Park Holding LLC

    Publication Date: 2020-07-08
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Real Estate
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Marc L. Newman, Christopher D. Kaye and Mahde Y. Abdallah, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Rochester, MI for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Richard P. Rollo, Travis S. Hunter, Angela Lam and John T. Miraglia, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Alan S. Loewinsohn and Kerry Schonwald, Loewinsohn Flegle Deary Simon LLP, Dallas, TX for defendants.

    Case Number: D69042

    In this dispute among the developers of an apartment complex, the court found that the majority of issues required a more detailed factual record, so it denied most of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.

  • Martinez v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC

    Publication Date: 2020-06-24
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen L. Caponi and Matthew B. Goeller, K&L Gates LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Patricia L. Enerio and Elizabeth A. DeFelice, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: D69028

    Plaintiffs were not entitled to a books and records request, but the court allowed a contract claim for specific performance to proceed as a plenary action.

  • 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 "*"

  • Borealis Power Holdings Inc. v. Hunt Strategic Util. Inv., L.L.C.

    Publication Date: 2020-06-10
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Energy
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Traynor
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard I. Werder, Jr., Renita Sharma, Elisabeth B. Miller, and Ryan A. Rakower, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; William M. Lafferty, Thomas W. Briggs, Jr., Daniel T. Menken, and Aubrey J. Morin, Morris Nichols Arsht&Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for appellant Borealis Power Holdings.Neil A. Sterner, Dechert LLP, New York, NY; Blake Rohrbacher, Brian S. Yu, and Kevin M. Regan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for appellant Cheyne Walk Investments.P. Clarkson Collins, Jr., Ian D. McCauley, and Kathleen A. Murphey, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE for appellant Texas Transmission Investment.
    for defendant: Jessica B. Pulliam, Monica Hughes Smith, Baker Botts L.L.P., Dallas, Texas; Vernon Cassin, Baker Botts L.L.P., Washington, D.C.; Peter J. Walsh Jr., J. Matthew Belger, Andrew H. Sauder, Potter Anderson &Corroon LLP, Wilmington Delaware for Hunt Strategic Utility Investment, L.L.C. J. Christopher Shore, Alice Tsier, andVivake Prasad, White & Case LLP, New York, NY; Aaron Colodny, White & Case LLP, Los Angeles, CA; David C. McBride, Martin S. Lessner, Ryan M. Bartley, and Paul J. Loughman, Young, Conaway, Stargatt& Taylor, LLC, Wilmington, DE for appellees.

    Case Number: D69006

    Right of first refusal in separate investor rights agreement did not supersede right of first offer on transfer of equity stake in separate corporate entity where the right of first refusal only applied to minority member of the company subject to the investor rights agreement and transferor was not a minority member.

  • 77 Charters, Inc. v. Gould

    Publication Date: 2020-06-03
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Retail
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John L. Williamsand Brian C. Crawford, The Williams Law Firm, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: John A. Sensing, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Greg S. Zuckerand Michael B. Weitman, Westerman Ball Ederer Miller Zucker & Sharfstein, LLP, Uniondale, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: D68998

    Remote controller's efforts to amend operating agreement to benefit himself at the expense of another interest holder, without that interest holder's knowledge or consent, could give rise to a possible breach of fiduciary duty claim.

  • Riker v. Teucrium Trading, LLC

    Publication Date: 2020-05-27
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor Bouchard
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael F. Bonkowski and Andrew L. Cole, Cole Schotz P.C., Wilmington, DE; Roger A. Lane and Courtney Worcester, Foley & Lardner LLP, Boston, MA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: T. Brad Davey and Mathew A. Golden, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Barry S. Pollack and Joshua L. Solomon, Pollack Solomon Duffy LLP, Boston, MA for defendant.

    Case Number: D68995

    In this books and records request matter, the court held that plaintiff was entitled to certain documents to value his interest, but the court denied other aspects of his request.

  • Acela Inv. LLC v. DiFalco

    Publication Date: 2020-05-13
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor Bouchard
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Peter B. Ladig and Brett M. McCartney, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Carmella P. Keener, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; William T. Reid IV, Michael Yoder, Jordan L. Vimont, and Ryan M. Goldstein, Reid Collins & Tsai LLP, Austin, TX for defendants.

    Case Number: D68974

    Liquidating trustee reasonably concluded that one asset purchase bid was superior to the other where the accepted bid was an all-cash offer that would help the company's depleted cash reserves and where the rejected bid had an unacceptable risk component as to the bidder's ability to commercialize the company's IP to pay the royalty component.

  • Bouchard v. Braidy Indus., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-05-13
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin R. Shannon, Christopher N. Kelly, Mathew A. Golden, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kahn A. Scolnick, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Lindsey S. Young, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Palo Alto, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Richard P. Rollo, John T. Miraglia, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: D68976

    Individual defendants dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction where their contractual consent to certain equitable remedies did not constitute a waiver of jurisdictional defenses.