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

    Publication Date: 2024-08-13
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: A. Thompson Bayliss, Samuel D. Cordle, Anthony R. Sarna, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE for petitioner.
    for defendant: David E. Ross, Garrett B. Moritz, Adam D. Gold, Elizabeth M. Taylor, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE for respondent.

    Case Number: 2022-0344-JTL

    Court relied on deal price as corporation's fair market value during appraisal where the price operated as a floor on company value due to errors by the CEO that left value on the table.

  • Fortis Advisors LLC v. Medtronic Minimed, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-08-13
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory | Manufacturing | Software
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor Adams
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ronald S. Gellert, Gellert Seitz Busenkell & Brown, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Derek J. Meyer, Prospect Law LLP, Los Angelos, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jacqueline A. Rogers, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Victor L. Hou, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, New York, NY; Nowell D. Bamberger, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Washington, DC for defendant.

    Case Number: 2023-1055-MAA

    Court declined to find a breach of merger agreement where seller agreed to impose no specific contractual duties upon the buyer to achieve the milestone for a contingent payment, as the buyer had discretion to exercise business judgment provided its primary purpose was not to defeat the milestone payment.

  • Former SARcode Shareholder LLC v. Novartis Pharma AG

    Publication Date: 2024-08-13
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Cook
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John G. Harris, Halloran Farkas + Kittila LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Stephen C. Norman, Jaclyn C. Levy, Emma K. Diver, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: 2022-1053-NAC

    Court denied motion to vacate judgment dismissing action to enforce information rights on res judicata grounds where existence of underlying clinical trial data had been known to parties in prior action, where they could have sued to enforce their information rights.

  • In re Kraft Heinz Demand Refused Derivative Stockholder Litig.

    Publication Date: 2024-08-06
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Food and Beverage | Investments and Investment Advisory | Manufacturing
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Carmella P. Keener, Cooch & Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; P. Bradford deLeeuw, deLeeuw Law LLC, Wilmington, DE; Benjamin Kaufman & Patrick Donovan, Wolf Haldenstein Freeman & Herz LLP, New York, NY; Michael Hynes, Ligaya Hernandez, Hynes & Hernandez LLC, Malvern, PA; Robert C. Schubert, Willem F. Jonckheer, Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, San Francisco, CA; Richard D. Greenfield, Marguerite R. Goodman, Ann M. Caldweel, Greenfield & Goodman LLC, Philadelphia, PA; Fred T. Isquith, Sr., Isquith Law PLLC, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: 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; 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 for defendants.

    Case Number: 2022-0398-LWW

    Court dismissed derivative complaint following rejected litigation demand where plaintiff stockholders had alleged no facts demonstrating errors or improprieties in the efforts of the working group formed to investigate plaintiffs' litigation demands.

  • Exit Strategy, LLC v. Festival Retail Fund BH, L.P.

    Publication Date: 2024-08-06
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Real Estate | Retail
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice LeGrow
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David A. Jenkins, Jason Z. Miller, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE for appellant.
    for defendant: Douglas D. Herrmann, James H.S. Levine, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew W. Zepeda, Lurie, Zepeda, Schmalz, Hogan & Martin, Los Angeles, CA for appellee.

    Case Number: 318, 2023

    Special limited partner was not entitled to distribution from sale of partnership's primary asset where partnership was entitled to deduct defeasance costs to satisfy the mortgage to sell the property as a "loan interest cost."

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Florida Construction Defect Litigation 2025

    Authors: Gary L. Brown

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Seavitt v. N-able, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-08-06
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Software | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas Curry, Saxena White, P.A., Wilmington, DE; David Wales, Saxena White, P.A., White Plains, NY; Adam Warden, Saxena White, P.A., Boca Raton, FL; Julie Goldsmith Reiser, Richard A. Speirs, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Matthew D. Perri, Nicole M. Henry, Kevin M. Kidwell, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: 2023-0326-JTL

    Governance provisions transferring authority from board to controlling investors was facially invalid where such provisions had not been incorporated into the corporate charter, as charters could not incorporate private agreements by reference without rendering them non-public and preventing stockholders from amending the charter.

  • XRI Inv. Holdings LLC v. Holifield

    Publication Date: 2024-08-06
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: A. Thompson Bayliss, Samuel D. Cordle, Eric A. Veres, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Angela C. Zambrano, Yolanda Cornejo Garcia, Margaret Hope Allen, Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX; Robin Wechkin, Sidley Austin LLP, Issaquah, WA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Michael W. McDermott, Richard I. G. Jones, Jr., David B. Anthony, Zachary J. Schnapp, Berger McDermott LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: 2021-0619-JTL

    Breach of LLC agreement's no-transfer provision was willful where member was charged with knowledge of the provision and knew that transferring his units was a critical part of a loan transaction he was attempting to close, as the member merely reasonably believed that the LLC would not object to the transaction.

  • Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust v. Hayes

    Publication Date: 2024-08-06
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Aerospace | Investments and Investment Advisory | Manufacturing
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Blake A. Bennett, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: John L. Reed, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: 2022-1124-MTZ

    Derivative complaint failed due to lack of allegations of bad faith by board where record showed it never knowingly or intentionally disregarded any alleged requirement for a stockholder vote to amend corporation's employee equity awards.

  • In re: BYJU's Alpha, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-07-30
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Pieter Van Tol, Christoper R. Bryant, Elizabeth Carter, Hogan Lovells US, LLP, New York, NY; David Massey, Hogan Lovells US, LLP, Miami, FL; Evan T. Miller, Saul Ewing LLP, Wilmington, DE; Turner N. Falk, Saul Ewing LLP, Philadelphia, PA for appellants.
    for defendant: Susheel Kirpalani, Benjamin Finestone, William B. Adams, Daniel Holzman, Jianjian Ye, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, New York, NY; Robert S. Brady, Kenneth J. Enos, Jared W. Kochenash, Timothy R. Powell, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; George W. Hicks, Jr., Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC; Seth M. Cohen, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, San Francisco, CA; Patrick J. Nash, Jr., Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL; Brian Schartz, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY; Laura Davis Jones, Peter J. Keane, Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, Wilmington, DE for appellees.

    Case Number: 2410140 (JTD)

    Court denied stay of bankruptcy court contempt and preliminary injunction orders pending appeal where defendants were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims against the orders and where the orders would not irreparably harm defendants by requiring them to produce ordered discovery or merely preventing them from transferring or using claimed funds under their control.

  • Massandra Capital IV, LLC v. CEAI Aspen Place Manager, LLC

    Publication Date: 2024-07-30
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Real Estate
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Davis
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Travis S. Hunter, Alexandra M. Ewing, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Douglas D. Herrmann, Emily L. Wheatley, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Wilmington, DE; R. Thomas Avery, Stephen M. Hoeplinger, Capes, Sokol, Goodman & Sarachan, P.C., St. Louis, MO for defendants.

    Case Number: N23C-10-136 EMD CCLD

    LLC member's capital contributions were not "losses" under the parties' guaranty as treating them as losses would effectively force the other members to make capital contributions for which the first member would receive a greater ownership stake.