Filter This View

  • Firemen's Ret. Fund of St. Louis v. Sorenson

    Publication Date: 2021-10-20
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Hospitality and Lodging | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Samuel L. Closic, Eric Juray, Prickett, Jones & Elliot, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Brian J. Robbins, Craig W. Smith, Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Emily R. Bishop, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiff
    for defendant: Raymond J. DiCamillo, John M. O’Toole, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Jason J. Mendro, Jeffrey S. Rosenberg, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, D.C.; Adam H. Offenhartz, Laura Kathryn O’Boyle, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
    Case Number: D69575

    The court dismissed breach of fiduciary duty claims brought against directors arising out of a data breach because certain claims were time-barred, and plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts of failure of oversight by directors.

  • AffiniPay, LLC v. West

    Publication Date: 2021-10-06
    Practice Area: Dispute Resolution
    Industry: E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rudolf Koch, Ryan D. Konstanzer, Richards, Layton, & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Joseph P. Rockers, Batoul Husain, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Peter B. Ladig, Thad J. Bracegirdle, Justin C. Barrett, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendant.
    Case Number: D69559

    Where the parties' various agreements adopted different dispute resolution procedures, although each version delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator, the court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction to determine arbitrability where there was no unmistakable evidence that the parties had agreed to submit one party's claims to that party's chosen arbitral forum.

  • In re BGC Partners, Inc. Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2021-10-06
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Investments and Investment Advisory | Real Estate
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Christine M Mackintosh, Kimberly A. Evans, Michael D. Bell, Vivek Upadhya, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, DE; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Christopher J. Orrico, Andrew E. Blumberg, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Kevin M. Gallagher, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Joseph De Simone, Michelle J. Annunziata, Michael Rayfield, Mayer Brown LLP, New York, NY; Matthew E. Fenn, Mayer Brown LLP, Chicago, IL; C. Barr Flinn, Paul Loughman, Alberto E. Chávez, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Eric Leon, Nathan Taylor, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
    Case Number: D69563

    Genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the issue of demand futility, but the court dismissed claims against two director defendants in this derivative action.

  • In Re Zimmer Biomet Holdings Inc. Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2021-09-08
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: P. Bradford deLeeuw, deLeeuw Law LLC, Wilmington, DE; Richard A. Speirs, Christopher Lometti, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, New York, NY; Robert C. Schubert, Willem F. Jonckheer, Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, San Francisco, CA; Kip B. Shuman, Shuman, Gleen & Stecker, San Francisco, CA; Rusty E. Glenn, Shuman, Gleen & Stecker, Denver, CO; Brett D. Stecker, Shuman, Gleen & Stecker, Ardmore, PA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Jody C. Barillare, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE; Troy S. Brown, Laura Hughes McNally, Brian F. Morris, Karen Pieslak Pohlmann, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA; William M. Lafferty, Ryan D. Stottmann, Sabrina M. Hendershot, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter E. Kazanoff, Sara A. Ricciardi, Courtney G. Skarupski, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York, NY; William M. Lafferty, Ryan D. Stottmann, Sabrina M. Hendershot, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Daniel V. McCaughey, Erin Macgowan, Ropes & Gray LLP, Boston, MA; Christian Reigstad, Ropes & Gray LLP, New York, NY; Daniel A. Mason, Matthew D. Stachel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew J. Ehrlich, Brette Tannenbaum, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY; Kevin G. Abrams, J. Peter Shindel, Jr., Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Paul Vizcarrondo, John F. Lynch, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, NY for defendants.
    Case Number: D69527

    Derivative complaint dismissed for failure to plead demand futility where stockholders could not show that a majority of directors possessed non-public information that caused the company to issue material misstatements or omissions, so that as a result the directors did not face a substantial likelihood of liability to excuse the demand requirement.

  • SerVaas v. Ford Smart Mobility LLC

    Publication Date: 2021-09-08
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Automotive | Software
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael A. Barlow, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Renita Sharma, Ty Adams, Charles Sangree, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, New York, NY; George Gasper, Ice Miller LLP, Indianapolis, IN for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Raymond J. DiCamillo, John M. O’Toole, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Katherine V.A. Smith, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Jason J. Mendro, Molly T. Senger, Matt Gregory, Brittany A. Raia, Rebecca Rubin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.
    Case Number: D69529

    Plaintiffs adequately stated a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in this wrongful termi-nation case, but the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss certain breach of contract, unjust enrichment and Wage Act claims.