Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
2,516 results for '* court:"Court of Chancery"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-02-15
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Software | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
Attorneys: For plaintiff: William M. Lafferty, Kevin M. Coen, Sarah P. Kaboly, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Timothy W. Knapp, P.C., Howard M. Kaplan, Aleschia D. Hyde, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiffs/counterclaim defendants.
for defendant: Tammy L. Mercer, M. Paige Valeski, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Evan C. Borges, Matthew S. Ingles, Greenberg Gross LLP, Costa Mesa, CA for defendants and counterclaim/third party plaintiffs.
Case Number: D69713
The court held that the non-disparagement clause contained in the restrictive covenant agreement between the parties was clearly a restrictive covenant.
Publication Date: 2022-02-15
Practice Area: Deals and Transactions
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Investments and Investment Advisory | Real Estate
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David J. Margules, Elizabeth A. Sloan, Jessica C. Watt, Ballard Spahr LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephen Brauerman, Emily A. Letcher, Bayard PA, Wilmington, DE; William B. Igoe, Philadelphia, PA for petitioner.
for defendant: William M. Lafferty, Ryan D. Stottmann, Sarah P. Kaboly, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington DE; Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Laura H. McNally, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA for respondent.
Case Number: D69710
The court, in the appraisal action, determined the fair value of the respondent and gave heavy weight to the deal price.
Publication Date: 2022-02-15
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry: Consulting
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jeremy D. Anderson, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE for petitioner.
for defendant: Mark Gentile, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE, Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae.
Case Number: D69712
The court held that §226(a)(3) of the Delaware General Corporation Law did not authorize the appointment of a custodian to revive an abandoned business.
Publication Date: 2022-02-15
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom | Transportation
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris, David Hahn, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randall J. Baron, David A. Knotts, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; Christopher H. Lyons, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Nashville, TN for petitioners.
for defendant: David J. Teklits, Thomas P. Will, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; William D. Savitt, Anitha Reddy, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, NY for respondent.
Case Number: D69714
The court held that appraisal petitioners should not be allowed to obtain full discovery in this appraisal proceeding because it was commenced for the purpose of conducting pre-suit investigation for evidence of breach of fiduciary duty.
Publication Date: 2022-02-15
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Automotive | Consumer Products | Retail
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Martin S. Lessner, Emily V. Burton, Kevin P. Rickert, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brian J. Robbins, Stephen J. Oddo, Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Gregory P. Williams, Matthew D. Perri, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Andrew B. Clubok, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Eric R. Swibel, Latham & Watkins LLP, Chicago, IL for defendants.
Case Number: D69711
The court held that the complaint failed to plead particularized facts demonstrating that demand was futile as to a majority of the demand board members.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Dennis S. Ellis, Katherine F. Murray, Nicholas J. Begakis, Adam M. Reich
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-02-08
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Blake A. Bennett, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Juan E. Monteverde, Monteverde & Associates PC, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Kenneth J. Nachbar, Alexandra M. Cumings, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert S. Harrell, Charles S. Kelley, Joseph De Simone, Michael Rayfield, Mayer Brown LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69702
The court held that the business judgment rule applied to a merger that had been approved by a majority of stockholders.
Publication Date: 2022-02-08
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Manufacturing
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin H. Davenport, Samuel L. Closic, Eric J. Juray, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Brian J. Robbins, Gregory Del Gaizo, Stephen J. Oddo, Eric M.Carrino, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Bradley R. Aronstam, R. Garrett Rice, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Geoffrey J. Ritts, Jones Day, Cleveland, OH; Marjorie P. Duffy, Jones Day, Columbus, OH; Blake Rohrbacher, Alexander M. Krischik, Andrew L. Milam, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Lawrence Portnoy, Davis Polk &Wardwell LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69705
The court held that a majority of the board at the time of filing were outside directors who did not receive a material personal benefit from the challenged transaction, did not face a substantial likelihood of liability because of an exculpation provision, and did not lack independence from the controlling stockholder who was a party to the challenged transaction.
Publication Date: 2022-02-08
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Consumer Products | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rudolf Koch, Matthew D. Perri, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Greg Shinall, Michael G. Dickler, Sperling & Slater, P.C., Chicago, IL for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Robert S. Saunders, Sarah R. Martin, Michelle L. Davis, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ryan D. Stottmann, Miranda N. Gilbert, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Tamir Young, Studin Young PC, Hauppauge, NY; Peter B. Ladig, Elizabeth A. Powers, Sarah T. Andrade, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69703
The court held that because there were two competing and reasonable interpretations of certain contract language, the contract was ambiguous, and the ambiguity barred a motion to dismiss as a matter of law or on the pleadings.
Publication Date: 2022-01-25
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas A. Uebler, Joseph Christensen, McCollom D’Emilio Smith Uebler LLC, Wilmington, DE; Edward D. Totino, Benjamin W. Turner, Baker Mckenzie LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Robert L. Burns, Daniel E. Kaprow, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michele Johnson, Kristin Murphy, Lat-ham & Watkins LLP, Costa Mesa, CA; Colleen Smith, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Diego, CA for defendants.
Case Number: D69686
The court held that plaintiff's shares were not Lockup Shares as defined in the bylaws adopted prior to the business combination between the Special Purpose Acquisition Company and plaintiff's former company, such that plaintiff was free to trade them immediately upon receipt. Relief in Count I granted.
Publication Date: 2022-01-25
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry: Retail | Software
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel A. Griffith, Whiteford Taylor & Preston LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant:
Case Number: D69687
The court held that plaintiff properly moved to amend its complaint to add two new parties under Rule 15 (a) notwithstanding the entry of the default judgment against two different parties. Motion to amend granted.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read