• In re Kraft Heinz Co.

    Publication Date: 2021-12-28
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Food and Beverage | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey Gorris, Christopher M. Foulds, Friedlander & Gorris P.A., Wilmington, DE; P. Bradford deLeeuw, Deleeuw Law LLC, Wilmington, DE; David A. Jenkins, Robert K. Beste III, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Eduard Korsinsky, Gregory M. Nespole, Nicholas I. Porritt, Daniel Tepper, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, New York, NY; Jeffrey S. Abraham, Mitchell M. Z. Twersky, Atara Hirsch, Michael J. Klein, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, New York, NY; Lawrence P. Eagel, W. Scott Holleman, Melissa A. Fortunato, Marion C. Passmore, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., New York, NY; Michael VanOverbeke, Vanoverbeke, Michaud & Timmony, P.C., Detroit, MI; Deborah Sturman, Sturman LLC, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Michael A. Pittenger, Jacqueline A. Rogers, Caneel Radinson-Blasucci, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sandra C. Goldstein, Stefan Atkinson, Kevin M. Neylan, Jr., Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY; Matthew D. Stachel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Daniel J. Kramer, Andrew J. Ehrlich, William A. Clareman, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: D69657

    The court held that plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient allegations that a majority of the demand board was interested in a stock sale transaction such that demand would be excused.

  • In re Woodbridge Group of Co., LLC

    Publication Date: 2021-12-28
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
    Judge: Judge Stickles
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: D69654

    The court held that, in this adversary proceeding, the trustee's delay in moving to amend its complaint was not undue; if the amendment was allowed, the defendant would not suffer prejudice, the motion was not brought in bad faith, and the amend-ment would relate back to the original complaint for purposes of the applicable statute of limitations.

  • Lima USA, Inc. v. Mahfouz

    Publication Date: 2021-12-21
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Wallace
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Wilks, Scott B. Czerwonka, Wilks Law, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jordan E. Stern, William H. Newman, Becker, Glynn, Muffly, Chassin & Hosinski, LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Catherine A. Gaul, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; David B. Anthony, Berger Harris LLP, Wilmington, DE; Beth A. Bryan, Taft Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, Cincinnati, OH for defendants.

    Case Number: D69649

    The court held that plaintiff's claims were not ripe or justiciable and its breach of representations claim failed to state a claim where plaintiff did not and could not plead damages.

  • Trumbull Radiologists, Inc. v. Premier Imaging TRI Holdings LLC

    Publication Date: 2021-12-14
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Johnston
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Dominick T. Gattuso, Aaron M. Nelson, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Anthony J. O’Malley, Rajeev K. Adlakha, Karey E. Werner, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, Cleveland, OH for plaintiffs
    for defendant: D. McKinley Measley, Sabrina M. Hendershot, Michael J. Slobom, Jr., Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Britt K. Latham, Bass Berry & Sims PLC, Nashville, TN; Shayne R. Clinton, Bass Berry & Sims PLC, Knoxville, TN for defendants

    Case Number: D69642

    The court held that plaintiffs properly pled claims of both breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; at the pleadings stage, plaintiffs were allowed to maintain both claims. Motion to dismiss denied.

  • Equity-League Pension Trust Fund v. Great Hill Partners L.P.

    Publication Date: 2021-12-14
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Corinne Elise Amato, Kevin H. Davenport, Jason W. Rigby, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Eric L. Zagar, Matthew C. Benedict, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor, PA; Patrick C. Lynch, Lynch & Pine, Providence, RI, for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Paul J. Lockwood, Jenness E. Parker, Jacob J. Fedechko, Trevor T. Nielsen, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Wilmington, DE; John L. Reed, Ronald N. Brown, III, Peter H. Kyle, Kelly L. Fruend, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE; Rudolf Koch, Matthew D. Perri, Andrew L. Milam, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Roberto M. Braceras, Caroline H. Bullerjahn, John A. Barker, Dylan E. Schweers, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA; Kurt M. Heyman, Gillian L. Andrews, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hir-zel, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brandon F. White, Euripides Dalmanieras, Leah S. Rizkallah, Foley Hoag LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.

    Case Number: D69638

    The court held in this derivative suit that demand was not excused where there was no showing that at least five members of a nine-member board of directors were unable to consider a pre-suit demand. Motions to dismiss granted.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Texas Insurance Coverage Litigation: The Litigator’s Practice Guide 2025

    Authors: Amy Elizabeth Stewart

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • In Re Vaxart Inc. Stockholder Litig.

    Publication Date: 2021-12-14
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Biotechnology | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen E. Jenkins, F. Troupe Mickler, IV, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Gregory V. Varallo, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Daniel E. Meyer, Margaret Sanborn-Lowing, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Gustavo F. Bruckner, Samuel J.Adams, Daryoush Behbood, Pomerantz LLP, New York, NY; Sascha N. Rand, Rollo C. Baker, IV , Silpa Maruri, Jesse Bernstein, Charles H. Sangree, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; Stanley D. Bernstein, Matthew Guarnero, Bernstein Liebhard LLP, New York, NY; William J. Fields, Christopher J. Kupka, Samir Shukurov, Fields Kupka & Shukurov LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Brock E. Czeschin, Andrew L. Milam, Richards Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Riccardo DeBari, Renee Zaytsev, Mendy Pie-karski, Thompson Hine, New York, NY; Matthew F. Davis, Abraham C. Schneider, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Douglas A. Rappaport, Kaitlin D. Shapiro, Elizabeth C. Rosen, Madeleine R. Freeman, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: D69639

    The court held that plaintiff shareholders were required to make a demand on the board prior to filing suit. Because they did not make a demand, their claims failed. Motion to dismiss granted.

  • Knott Partners L.P. v. Telepathy Labs, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-12-07
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Neal C. Belgam, Jason Z. Miller, Michael C. Wagner, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Christopher M. Caparelli, Torys LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Thomas G. Macauley, Macauley LLC, Wilmington, DE; Euripides D. Dalmanieras, Foley Hoag LLP, Boston, MA for defendant.

    Case Number: D69631

    Where a corporation failed to update its stock ledger after acknowledging a convertible note holder's conversion into preferred stock, court could look to extrinsic evidence beyond the ledger to determine standing for a §220 demand.

  • Bandera Master Fund, LP v. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP

    Publication Date: 2021-11-30
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: A. Thompson Bayliss, J. Peter Shindel, Jr., Daniel G. Paterno, Eric A. Veres, Samuel D. Cordle, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Srinivas M. Raju, Blake Rohrbacher, Matthew D. Perri, John M. O’Toole, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Rolin P. Bissell, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE; Daniel A. Mason, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephen P. Lamb, Andrew G. Gordon, Harris Fischman, Robert N. Kravitz, Carter E. Greenbaum, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY; Lawrence Portnoy, Charles S. Duggan, Gina Cora, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, New York, NY, for defendants.

    Case Number: D69622

    The court held that the General Partner breached the partnership agreement by exercising the call right without first satisfy-ing the Opinion Condition or the Acceptability Condition.

  • Zilberstein v. Frankenstein

    Publication Date: 2021-11-30
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Adams
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Antranig N. Garibian, Garibian Law Offices PC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Matthew P. Denn, Peter H. Kyle, DLA Piper LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: D69625

    The court found that the application of the CryoMaid factors weighed in favor of staying the case pending in Delaware in favor of the Israeli litigation based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

  • Hollywood Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Malone

    Publication Date: 2021-11-23
    Practice Area: Attorney Compensation
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Legal Services | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory V. Varallo, Andrew E. Blumberg, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael Hanrahan, Kevin H. Davenport, Mary S. Thomas, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A.; Mark Lebovitch, Jacqueline Y. Ma, Daniel E. Meyer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Lee D. Rudy, Eric L. Zagar, Christopher M. Windover, Matthew C. Benedict, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Randor, PA; Robert D.Klausner, Klausner Kaufman Jensen & Levinson, P.A., Plantation, FL; Aaron T. Morris, Morris Kandinov LLP, Stowe, VT for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Robert S. Saunders, Joseph O. Larkin, Matthew P. Majarian, Ryan M. Lindsay, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; Richard B. Harper, Thomas E. O’Brien, Vern Cassin, Baker Botts LLP, New York, NY; Kenneth J. Nachbar, Megan W. Cascio, Thomas P. Will, Sarah P. Kaboly, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Douglas D. Herrmann, Emily L. Wheatley, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: D69614

    The court held that plaintiffs were entitled to a mootness fee in the amount of 9 million dollars.