• Teuza A Fairchild Tech. Venture Ltd. v. Lindon

    Publication Date: 2023-05-09
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Biotechnology | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen E. Jenkins, Samuel M. Gross, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Donald J. Enright, Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Jordan A. Cafritz, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Kevin M. Gallagher, Kyle H. Lachmund, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Adam H. Offenhartz, M. Jonathan Seibald, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY; Kevin M. Coen, Stephanie Rudolph, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Scott B. Czerwonka, Andrea S. Brooks, Wilks Law, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Kurt M. Heyman, Jamie L. Brown, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; John F. Baughman, Daniel A. Schwartz, JFB Legal, PLLC, Norfolk, VA for defendants.

    Case Number: 2022-0130-SG

    Former stockholder plausibly alleged fiduciary claims against controller as it received non-ratable benefit from sale of the company and attempted to induce minority stockholders to waive any fiduciary claims to receive their merger consideration.

  • Shareholder Representative Serv. LLC v. HPI Holdings, LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-05-09
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard L. Renck, Michael B. Gonen, Duane Morris, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael P. Gallagher, Duane Morris, LLP, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Lisa A. Schmidt, Matthew W. Murphy, Nicole M. Henry, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; David P. Whittlesey, Jacob Fields, Shearman & Sterling LLP, Austin, TX for defendant.

    Case Number: 2022-0166-PAF

    Earn-out provision requiring successor company to secure new agreement was not triggered where company merely amended its existing agreement with a customer by rescinding the customer's notice of termination.

  • In re Baker Hughes, a GE Co., Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2023-05-02
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael J. Barry, Jason M. Avellino, Kelly L. Tucker, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer, David M. Sborz, Andrew J. Peach, Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jeremy S. Friedman, David F.E. Tejtel, Christopher M. Windover, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC, Bedford Hills, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, Matthew L. Miller, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Karl Stern, Elizabeth M. Devaney, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Houston, TX for defendant.

    Case Number: 2019-0201-LWW

    Although special litigation committee had a defect in consisting of only one director, that director's independence and the thoroughness of their investigation supported finding that its judgment to terminate derivative litigation was made following diligent and good-faith analysis.

  • In re: Cred Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-04-25
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
    Judge: Judge Dorsey
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-12836 (JTD)

    Claims of aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties failed where plaintiff failed to plead facts showing that defendants knew of debtor company's problems or that knowledge of those problems would alert defendants to debtor's officers' breaches of fiduciary duties.

  • KnowledgeLake, Inc. v. PFU Am. Group Mgmt., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-04-25
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Software
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Greenaway
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-3207

    Pre-signing efforts to collect past-due invoice did not breach representations in stock purchase agreement and were not outside the ordinary course of business.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Texas Legal Malpractice & Lawyer Discipline 2024

    Authors: Charles F. Herring, JR, Jason M. Panzer, Leah Turner

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Ajay Endeavors, Inc. v. Divvymed, LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-04-11
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Bibas
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kathleen M. Miller, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Massimo D’Angelo, Akerman LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Christine Dealy Haynes, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Wilmington, DE; Christopher Andrews, Cooley LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendants.

    Case Number: 20-cv-1556-SB

    Unilateral mistake claim not dismissed where plaintiffs plausibly alleged they were unaware of defendants' failure to amend the parties' contract as agreed and that defendants knew of plaintiffs' mistake.

  • In re Pattern Energy Group. Inc. Sec. Litig.

    Publication Date: 2023-04-11
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Sue L. Robinson, Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew J. Entwistle, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Austin, TX; Vincent R. Cappucci, Arthur V. Nealon, Brendan J. Brodeur, Jonathan H. Beemer, Jessica A. Margulis, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, New York, NY; Marc M. Seltzer, Krysta Kauble Pachman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, April M. Ferraro, Christopher Fitzpatrick Cannataro, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Alan S. Goudiss, K. Mallory Brennan, Sherman & Sterling LLP, New York, NY; Christian E. Myrold, Shearman & Sterling LLP, San Francisco, CA; Matthew D. Stachel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jaren Janghorbani, Geoffrey Chepiga, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: 20-275 (MN) (JLH)

    Court hearing claims under §14(a) properly excluded shareholders who sold their stock after the merger approval vote but before closing, since their alleged pecuniary injury did not directly arise from the challenged merger.

  • Lebanon County Employees' Ret. Fund v. Collis

    Publication Date: 2023-04-04
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Distribution and Wholesale | Investments and Investment Advisory | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Samuel L. Closic, Eric J. Juray, Robert B. Lackey, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Gregory V. Varallo, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lee D. Rudy, Eric L. Zagar, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor, PA; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Eric J. Riedel, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Frank R. Schirripa, Daniel B. Rehns, Kurt Hunciker, Hillary Nappi, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP, New York, NY; Gregory Mark Nespole, Daniel Tepper, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, New York, NY; Brian J. Robbins, Craig W. Smith, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Stephen C. Norman, Jennifer C. Wasson, Tyler J. Leavengood, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael S. Doluisio, Carla Graff, Dechert LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Matthew L. Larrabee, Hayoung Park, Dechert LLP, New York, New York; Michael D. Blanchard, Amelia Pennington, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.

    Case Number: 2021-1118-JTL

    Court denied relief from dismissal of action, after a state court found defendant directors and officers had not violated the law, where newly-filed DOJ complaint against the company remained unsubstantiated and did not contain allegations against defendants specifically.

  • Wilmington Trust Nat'l Ass'n v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada

    Publication Date: 2023-04-04
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Insurance | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Traynor
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin G. Abrams, John M. Seaman, Samuel D. Cordle, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Harry S. Davis, Robert E. Griffin, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, New York, NY for appellant.
    for defendant: Gregory F. Fischer, Cozen O’Connor, Wilmington, DE; Joseph M. Kelleher, Brian D. Burack, Cozen O’Connor, Philadelphia, PA for appellee.

    Case Number: N18C-07-289

    Courts had to conduct fault-based analysis evaluating the parties' knowledge or inquiry notice of the illegality of life insurance policies ultimately deemed to be stranger originated life insurance policies when determining whether to order disgorgement of paid premiums or allow the insurer to retain the premiums.

  • Hyde Park Venture Partners Fund III, L.P. v. Fairxchange, LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-03-21
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: A. Thompson Bayliss, Daniel J. McBride, Anthony R. Sarna, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE for petitioners.
    for defendant: Paul J. Lockwood, Jenness E. Parker, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; Patricia L. Enerio, Jamie L. Brown, Aaron M. Nelson, Elizabeth A. DeFelice, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephen J. Senderowitz, Dentons, Chicago, IL; Douglas W. Henkin, Dentons, New York, NY for respondents.

    Case Number: 2022-0344-JTL

    Court granted motion to compel on the grounds that defendant corporation could not invoke the attorney-client privilege as a means to withhold materials within a certain time frame spanning over two years. The court did however hold that the corporation could assert the privilege regarding communications that were related to books and records that the director had intentionally released, thus removing it from the circle of confidentiality.