Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
2,503 results for '* court:"Court of Chancery"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-04-12
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: Cargo and Shipping
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jody C. Barillare, Amy M. Dudash, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael D. Blanchard, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Hartford, CT; Julie S. Goldemberg, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Leslie B. Spoltore, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Nicholas Poduslenko, Matthew S. Olesh, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Thomas J. Elliott, Frederick P. Santarelli, Jack P. Elliott, Colin J. O’Boyle, Elliott Greenleaf, P.C., Blue Bell, PA for defendant.
Case Number: D69774
The court held that plaintiff who leased a dock from defendant proved that it was not a stevedore because it was not involved in the physical handling of cargo within the terminal property.
Publication Date: 2022-04-12
Practice Area: Litigation
Industry: Consulting
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Bartholomew J. Dalton, Michael C. Dalton, Dalton & Associates, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Adam Balick, Michael Collins Smith, Balick & Balick, LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: David E. Ross, Anthony Calvano, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; J. Christian Word, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Luke Nikas, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; William A. Burck, Ben A. O’Neil, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP for defendant.
Case Number: D69776
The court held that plaintiff was not entitled to an anti-suit injunction because a state court cannot restrain federal court proceedings.
Publication Date: 2022-03-29
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
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, Alla Zayenchik, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Vincent R. Cappucci, Joshua K. Porter, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs and intervenor-plaintiff.
for defendant: Rudolf Koch, Kevin M. Gallagher, Daniel E. Kaprow, John M. O’Toole, Melissa A. Lagoumis, Richards, Layton & Finger P.A., Wilmington, DE; Thomas Uebler, McCollom D’Emilio Smith Uebler LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jason Cyrulnik, Paul Fattaruso, Cyrulnik Fattaruso LLP, New York, NY; Kevin R. Shannon, Berton W. Ashman, Jr., Jacqueline A. Rogers, David A. Seal, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE, for defendants.
Case Number: D69758
The court held that a factual record was necessary to determine the adequacy of a stockholder entity to serve as class repre-sentative.
Publication Date: 2022-03-29
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Legal Services | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Frank E. Noyes, II, Offit Kurman, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Douglas Capuder, Capuder Fazio Giacoia LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: David E. Ross, Bradley R. Aronstam, Eric D. Selden, S. Michael Sirkin, Adam D. Gold, Benjamin Z. Grossberg, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; for defendants.
Case Number: D69759
The court held that subject matter jurisdiction could be exercised by Chancery Court because the order giving authority to the custodian was issued by Chancery Court. Further, the court held that plaintiff failed to state a claim upon relief could be granted. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss denied; defendant's motion to dismiss granted.
Publication Date: 2022-03-22
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry: Biotechnology | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kenneth J. Nachbar, S. Mark Hurd, Sara Toscano, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Aaron Miner, Arnold & Porter, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Matthew F. Davis, Aaron R. Sims, Callan R. Jackson, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeffrey W. Shields, Shields Law Offices, Irvine, CA for defendant.
Case Number: D69754
The court held that Krauss was entitled to advancement for fees associated with her response to the SEC subpoenas, her de-fense of the direct actions, and her prosecution of her affirmative defenses and compulsory counterclaims because those claims flowed from her position as a director and officer of KBL.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Jayme C. Long
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-03-22
Practice Area: Deals and Transactions
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Carmella P. Keener, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Marcus E. Montejo, Kevin H. Davenport, John G. Day, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Thomas R. Ajamie, David S. Siegel, Ryan van Steenis, Ajamie LLP, Houston, TX; Michael A. Pullara, Houston, TX for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Todd C. Schiltz, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Wilmington, DE; William M. Connolly, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Zoë K. Wilhelm, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Maurice L. Brimmage, Jr., Laura P. Warrick, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Dallas, TX for defendants.
Case Number: D69753
The court held that AT&T failed to prove that the freeze-out of minority partners was entirely fair because it did not follow a fair process and did not employ procedural protections to ensure fairness to the minority partners.
Publication Date: 2022-03-22
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry: Financial Services and Banking
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rolin P. Bissell, James M. Yoch, Jr., Peter J. Artese, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Holmes, Jared D. Wilkinson, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, TX; Michael S. Dry, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Washington, D.C. for plaintiff.
for defendant: Michael C. Dalton, Bartholomew J. Dalton, of Dalton & Associates, P.A., Wilmington, DE Ryan Scarborough, Graham W. Safty, Trisha Jhunjhnuwala, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, D.C.; Adam L. Balick, Melony R. Anderson, Balick & Balick, LLC, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69752
The court found that the Chancery Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because there was an adequate remedy at law for plaintiff's issue.
Publication Date: 2022-03-15
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Marcus E. Montejo, John G. Day, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Matthew D. Stachel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Audra J. Soloway, Jaren Janghorbani, Maia Usui, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69743
The court found that plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claim was a direct claim and not a derivative claim.
Publication Date: 2022-03-15
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Software
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel A. Griffith, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLC, Wilmington, DE; Allan B. Diamond, Jason Fulton, and John B. Sample, Diamond Mccarthy LLP, Houston, TX for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Stephen C. Norman, Nicholas D. Mozal, Callan R. Jackson, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE. Albert H. Manwaring IV, Matthew F. Lintner, Kirsten Zeberkiewicz, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert A. Van Kirk, Sarah F. Kirkpatrick, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.
Case Number: D69745
The court held that 1) the record was not sufficient to find that Corwin cleansed the merger transaction and 2) that plaintiffs adequately pled a breach of fiduciary duty against defendants.
Publication Date: 2022-03-15
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Software
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David H. Holloway, Shlansky Law Group, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Colin R. Hagan, David J. Shlansky, Shlansky Law Group, LLP, Chelsea, MA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Jody C. Barillare, Amy M. Dudash, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael D. Blanchard, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Boston, MA for defendants
Case Number: D69744
The court held that plaintiffs' claim against defendant for allowing warrants to expire was time-barred.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read