Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
121 results for '* judge:"Vice Chancellor Laster"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2018-06-13
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry:
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas E. Hanson, Jr. and Jeffrey R. Blackwood for plaintiff
for defendant: Jonathan M. Stemerman for defendants.
Case Number: D68180
A party that was awarded expenses under the bad faith exception to the American Rule was not entitled to re-cover expenses incurred on a subsequent appeal, nor was it able to recover additional fees incurred at the trial level.
Publication Date: 2018-05-09
Practice Area: Public Records
Industry: Biotechnology
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Greg P. Williams for defendants Holmes and Theranos.
for defendant: na
Case Number: D68138
A non-party was not entitled to obtain access to deposition videos where the parties opted to file only transcript excerpts of that deposition with the court.
Publication Date: 2018-05-09
Practice Area: Law Firm Client Relationships
Industry:
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory V. Varallo, Richard P. Rolle, Kevin M. Gallagher and Sarah A. Galetta fo TCV plaintiffs
for defendant: Kevin G. Abrams and April M. Kirby for Continental Investors Fund LLC; Colm F. Connolly for defendants Grandi, Schroeder and TradingScreen Inc.; Kenneth J. Nachbar, Megan Ward Cascio, Richard Li and Thomas P. Will, former attorneys for de-fendants.
Case Number: D68141
A law firm was required to produce its entire litigation file to former clients.
Publication Date: 2018-03-28
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry:
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John T. Dorsey, Richard J. Thomas, Emily V. Burton, Bruce S. Bennett and Christopher Lovrien for plaintiffs
for defendant: Blake Rohrbacher, Susan M. Hannigan, Elizabeth A. DeFelice and Brian F. Morris for defendants.
Case Number: D68091
An entity subrogated to the rights of parties who were contractually entitled to indemnification was allowed to recover a percentage of the amounts it paid on behalf of those parties, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.
Publication Date: 2018-03-07
Practice Area: Discovery | Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Consulting | Health Care
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stuart M. Grant, Michael J. Barry, Jeff A. Almeida, Kimberly A. Evans, Rebecca Musarra, Vincent R. Cappucci and Jordan A. Cortez for petitioners
for defendant: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Kevin M. Gallagher, Ryan P. Durkin, Michele D. Johnson and Kristin N. Murphy for respondent.
Case Number: D68068
Parties who provided late discovery without adequate explanation engaged in discovery abuse.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Janet K. Colaneri
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2018-02-28
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes | Corporate Entities
Industry: Real Estate
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kenneth J. Nachbar, John P. DiTomo and Elizabeth A. Mullin for plaintiffs
for defendant: Stephen B. Brauerman, Sara E. Bussiere, Scott A. Edelman and Alan J. Stone for defendant.
Case Number: D68061
Plaintiffs were entitled to advancement for legal fees incurred on their behalf in civil lawsuits.
Publication Date: 2017-12-27
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry: Legal Services
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jeremy D. Anderson for plaintiff
for defendant: Douglas D. Hermann and James H.S. Levine for defendants.
Case Number: D67987
The court found that a foundation was a party that should be joined for just resolution of a dispute.
Publication Date: 2017-11-15
Practice Area: Business Torts | Civil Procedure | Contracts
Industry:
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Paul J. Lockwood, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorney for plaintiff
for defendant: David E. Ross, Eric D. Selden, and Nicholas D. Mozal, Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendants.
Case Number: D67934
Defendants motion for stay after several defendants receipt of subpoenas in criminal investigation denied where lack of pending indictments meant that plaintiffs and the publics interest in civil action proceeding to trial outweighed remote possibility of prejudice to defendants in any future criminal proceedings.
Publication Date: 2017-11-08
Practice Area: Corporate Entities | Corporate Governance
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris, and Christopher P. Quinn, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randall J. Barron, A. Rick Atwood, and Esther Lee, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA, attorneys for plaintiffs
for defendant: Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Frank R. Martin, and Travis R. Dunkelberger, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; William M. Lafferty, Ryan D. Stottman, and Alexandra M. Cumings, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Edward B. Micheletti, Alyssa S. O'Connell, Sarah Runnells Martin, and Lauren N. Rosenello, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendants.
Case Number: D67927
Submitting disputes to sole authority and exclusive jurisdiction of neutral party indicated parties intent to submit to arbitration, and designated neutral with conflicts of interest had authority to rule on procedural matters of appointing alternate arbiter.
Publication Date: 2017-10-18
Practice Area: Evidence
Industry:
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant: Steven L. Caponi for plaintiffs; Megan Ward Cascio, Lauren Neal Bennett, Mark C. Scarsi, Ashlee N. Lin, Katherine R. Pieruc-ci and J. Samuel Payne for defendants
Case Number: D67897
A nonparty was not entitled to an order sealing trial exhibits and closing the courtroom, because it failed to establish any particularized risk of harm from disclosure of the information at trial.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read