• Zohar III Ltd. v. Stila Styles, LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-06-14
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Consumer Products | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: C. Barr Flinn, Emily V. Burton, Lauren Dunkle Fortunato, Alberto E. Chávez, Kevin P. Rickert, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Patricia R. Urban, Elizabeth Wilburn Joyce, Megan Ix Brison, Pinckney, Weidinger, Urban & Joyce LLC, Wilmington, DE; Kathleen M. Miller, Robert K. Beste, III, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Monica K. Loseman, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Denver, CO for defendants.

    Case Number: D69848

    Transaction authorized by LLC manager solely within her capacity that issued new class of equity in and amending the rights of the new class and existing classes was void as a matter of contract where the LLC's operating agreement expressly granted the right to amend to certain existing classes of members.

  • Knight Broadband LLC v. Knight

    Publication Date: 2022-06-14
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Davis
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin R. Shannon, Christopher N. Kelly, Daniel M. Rusk, IV, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; William C. O’Neil, Gretchen V. Scavo, Matthew Durkin, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Melissa D. Donimirski, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Timothy W. Weber, Joseph P. Kenny, Weber, Crabb & Wein, P.A., St. Petersburg, FL for defendants.

    Case Number: D69852

    Fraudulent misrepresentation claims dismissed where the alleged statements constituted forward-looking plans rather than existing facts and there was no evidence showing the speaker had no intention of fulfilling those plans.

  • Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-06-14
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Blake A. Bennet, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Geoffrey M. Johnson, Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Cleveland Heights, OH; Donald A. Broggi, Scott R. Jacobsen, Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Kevin R. Shannon, Berton W. Ashman, Jr., Mathew A. Golden, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; William Savitt, Anitha Reddy, Adam M. Gogolak, Corey J. Banks, Zachary M. David, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, NY for defendant.

    Case Number: D69849

    Plaintiff's request for additional books and records denied where it had failed to produce evidence permitting an inference that defendant corporation was engaged in antitrust and tax law violations, such that plaintiff's request merely constituted an improper fishing expedition.

  • Harris v. Junger

    Publication Date: 2022-06-07
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Food and Beverage | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen E. Jenkins, Richard D. Heins, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Donald J. Enright, Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Brian D. Stewart, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Washington, D.C.; D. Seamus Kaskela, Kaskela Law LLC, Newtown Square, PA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Brock E. Czeschin, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; John P. Stigi III, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants.

    Case Number: D69840

    Breach of fiduciary claims not dismissed where director who later pled conflict of interest continued to participate in board discussions over merger.

  • Garfield v. Allen

    Publication Date: 2022-06-07
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Retail
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Steven J. Purcell, Douglas E. Julie, Robert H. Lefkowitz, Anisha Mirchandani, Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Brian M. Rostocki, Benjamin P. Chapple, Justin M. Forcier, Reed Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE; William M. Regan, Allison M. Wuertz, Hogan Lovells US LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: D69838

    Stockholder alleged sufficient claim of breach of fiduciary duty by board in claiming that he had notified board that an officer's equity compensation award violated the express limitations of the company's plan and the board took no action to rectify the error.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Goldstein v. Denner

    Publication Date: 2022-06-07
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Biotechnology | Investments and Investment Advisory | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin H. Davenport, John G. Day, Prickett, Jones & Elliott P.A., Wilmington, DE; R. Bruce McNew, Cooch & Taylor P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randall J. Baron, David T. Wissbroecker, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; Christopher H. Lyons, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Nashville, TN; Brett Middleton, Johnson Fistel, LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Matthew D. Stachel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Daniel J. Kramer, Geoffrey R. Chepiga, Daniel J. Juceam, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY; Stephen E. Jenkins, Richard D. Heins, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Tariq Mundiya, Sameer Advani, Richard Li, M. Annie Houghton-Larsen, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: D69839

    Non-exculpated fiduciary duty claims against directors survived dismissal where plaintiff pled sufficient facts to support inference that directors were financially and professionally aligned with activist investor/director who allegedly profited off insider information to the detriment of public shareholders.

  • SDF Funding LLC v. Fry

    Publication Date: 2022-05-31
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John G. Harris, Berger Harris LLP, Wilmington, DE; Douglas R. Hirsch, Ben Hutman, James Ancone, Sadis & Goldberg LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Douglas D. Herrmann, Emily L. Wheatley, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Wilmington, DE; Pamela S. Palmer, Kevin Crisp, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants.

    Case Number: D69830

    Plaintiffs could not pursue derivative claims that arose prior to the corporate defendant's acquisition of stock, where there were no exigent circumstances to warrant granting equitable standing or to look past the corporate forms to afford standing to the prior holding company's sole owner.

  • Coster v. UIP Co., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-05-17
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Real Estate
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Max B. Walton, Kyle Evans Gay, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Newark, DE; Michael K. Ross, Thomas Shakow, Serine Consolino, Aegis Law Group LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Stephen B. Brauerman, Elizabeth A. Powers, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Deborah B. Baum, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Washington, DC; Neal C. Belgam, Kelly A. Green, Jason Z. Miller, Smith Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: D69814

    Board was substantially justified in approving stock sale that diluted equal stockholder's interest, where it mooted that stockholder's legal action that posed a risk of triggering termination of the company's key contracts.

  • BET FRX, LLC v. Myers

    Publication Date: 2022-05-10
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Sean M. Brennecke, Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jordan M. Rand, Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Samuel T. Hirzel, II, Jamie L. Brown, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Eric R. Levine, Eric Aschkenasy, Eiseman Levine Lehrhaupt & Kakoyiannis, P.C. New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: D69806

    The court found that plaintiff's amended complaint failed to sufficiently plead most of its claims including breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

  • In Re PLX Tech. Inc. Stockholders Litig., LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-05-03
    Practice Area: Class Actions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: R. Bruce McNew, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randall J. Baron, David A. Knotts, Robbins Geller Rudman & Down, LLP, San Diego, CA; Kent Bronson, Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Kevin G. Abrams, J. Peter Shindel, Jr., Matthew L. Miller, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Richard D. Heins, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Patricia L. Enerio, Melissa N. Donimirski, Jamie L. Brown, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael A. Weidinger, Elizabeth Wilburn Joyce, Pinckney, Weidinger, Urban & Joyce, Greenville, DE; Lori Marks-Esterman, Renee M. Zaytsev, Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: D69798

    The court approved a modification to a class action settlement and a more efficient distribution method than the traditional notice-and-claim process.