Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
198 results for '* judge:"Chancellor Glasscock"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-03-29
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ned Weinberger,Mark Richardson, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Edward G. Timlin, Alla Zayenchik, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Vincent R. Cappucci, Joshua K. Porter, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs and intervenor-plaintiff.
for defendant: Rudolf Koch, Kevin M. Gallagher, Daniel E. Kaprow, John M. O’Toole, Melissa A. Lagoumis, Richards, Layton & Finger P.A., Wilmington, DE; Thomas Uebler, McCollom D’Emilio Smith Uebler LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jason Cyrulnik, Paul Fattaruso, Cyrulnik Fattaruso LLP, New York, NY; Kevin R. Shannon, Berton W. Ashman, Jr., Jacqueline A. Rogers, David A. Seal, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE, for defendants.
Case Number: D69758
The court held that a factual record was necessary to determine the adequacy of a stockholder entity to serve as class repre-sentative.
Publication Date: 2022-03-22
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry: Financial Services and Banking
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rolin P. Bissell, James M. Yoch, Jr., Peter J. Artese, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Holmes, Jared D. Wilkinson, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, TX; Michael S. Dry, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Washington, D.C. for plaintiff.
for defendant: Michael C. Dalton, Bartholomew J. Dalton, of Dalton & Associates, P.A., Wilmington, DE Ryan Scarborough, Graham W. Safty, Trisha Jhunjhnuwala, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, D.C.; Adam L. Balick, Melony R. Anderson, Balick & Balick, LLC, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69752
The court found that the Chancery Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because there was an adequate remedy at law for plaintiff's issue.
Publication Date: 2022-03-15
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Software
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel A. Griffith, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLC, Wilmington, DE; Allan B. Diamond, Jason Fulton, and John B. Sample, Diamond Mccarthy LLP, Houston, TX for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Stephen C. Norman, Nicholas D. Mozal, Callan R. Jackson, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE. Albert H. Manwaring IV, Matthew F. Lintner, Kirsten Zeberkiewicz, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert A. Van Kirk, Sarah F. Kirkpatrick, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.
Case Number: D69745
The court held that 1) the record was not sufficient to find that Corwin cleansed the merger transaction and 2) that plaintiffs adequately pled a breach of fiduciary duty against defendants.
Publication Date: 2022-03-01
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rolin P. Bissell, Paul J. Loughman, Alberto E. Chávez, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; D. Patrick Long, Jonathan R. Mureen John Tancabel, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Dallas, TX for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Albert H. Manwaring IV, Kirsten Zeberkiewicz, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert A. Van Kirk, Sarah F. Kirkpatrick, Lauren Uhlig, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.
Case Number: D69727
The court held that plaintiffs did not waive their right to bring an action to challenge fiduciary duty breaches allegedly committed in connection with the sale of a company, or for secondary liability claims, because the contract language did not show a clear relinquishment of those rights.
Publication Date: 2022-03-01
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ned Weinberger,Mark Richardson, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Edward G. Timlin, Alla Zayenchik, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Vincent R. Cappucci, Joshua K. Porter, Entwistle& Cappucci LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Rudolf Koch, Kevin M. Gallagher, Daniel E. Kaprow, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Thomas Uebler, Mccollom D’Emilio Smith Uebler LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jason Cyrulnik, Paul Fattaruso, Evelyn Fruchter, Cyrulnik Fetters LLP, New York, NY; Kevin R. Shannon, Berton W. Ashman, Jr., Jacqueline A. Rogers, David A. Seal, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE, for defendants
Case Number: D69726
The court held that there were disputes over material facts regarding which entity was responsible for indemnifying a claim from a settlement with the Federal Communications Commission such that they precluded entry of summary judgment.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Joseph S. Britton
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: 2022-01-11
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Energy
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kenneth J. Nachbar, Susan W. Waesco, Matthew R. Clark, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Antony L. Ryan, Kevin J. Orsini, Michael P. Addis, David H. Korn, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff and counterclaim defendant.
for defendant: Rolin P. Bissel, James M. Yoch, Jr., Alberto E. Chávez, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Holmes, John C. Wander, Craig E. Zieminski, Andy E. Jackson, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, TX, for defendants and counterclaim plaintiffs.
Case Number: D69672
The court held that defendant was contractually obligated to reimburse plaintiff for a merger termination fee of $410 million plus interest to plaintiff.
Publication Date: 2021-12-28
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: Distribution and Wholesale
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Karen E. Keller, Jeffrey T. Castellano, Nathan R. Hoeschen, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Kevin S. Mann, Cross & Simon LLC, Wilmington, DE; John J.E. Markham, II, Markham Read Zerner, LLC, Boston, MA for defendants.
Case Number: D69661
Court declined to exercise personal jurisdiction over officers of Delaware corporation where there were insufficient minimum contacts to further support the exercise of jurisdiction under constitutional due process norms.
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.
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.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read