• Murphy Marine Serv. of Delaware, Inc. v. GT USA Wilmington, LLC

    Publication Date: 2021-06-16
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Accounting | Cargo and Shipping | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael P. Kelly, Daniel M. Silver, Travis J. Ferguson, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Geoffrey G. Grivner, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: David A. Dorey, Brandon W. McCune, Blank Rome LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: D69436

    The parties' agreement provided for valuation as a going concern, and the court found that they impliedly agreed to a price based on the midpoint of a valuation range.

  • Omega Capital Mgmt. Partners, LLC v. Schrage

    Publication Date: 2021-06-09
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Aman K. Sharma, Igwe & Sharma, LLC, Wilmington, DE; E. Jordan Teague, Beau B. Brogdon, Campbell Teague LLC, Greenville, SC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Albert J. Carroll, P. Clarkson Collins, Jr., Christopher P. Quinn, Barnaby Grzaslewicz, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: D69429

    The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss because plaintiff alleged only an "agreement to agree" ra-ther than an enforceable contract.

  • Diamond Materials, LLC v. Tutor Perini Corp.

    Publication Date: 2021-06-02
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Construction
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Adams
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Steven F. Mones, Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ross D. Ginsberg, Weinberg Wheeler Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC, Atlanta, GA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: James S. Green, Jr., Seitz, Van Ogtrop & Green, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: D69416

    Where contractual arbitration provision gave defendant the obligation to decide whether other party's claims qualified within the category of claims subject to arbitration, the defendant's decision to seek arbitration of claims it found to fall within the scope of the arbitration clause required their dismissal from the action in favor of arbitration.

  • Appliance Recycling Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. Recleim LLC

    Publication Date: 2021-04-28
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Chemicals and Materials
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Davis
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Geena Khomenco George, The Law Office of Geena Khomenko George LLC, Wilmington, DE; Michael H. Rosenthal, Lurie & Broudy LLC, Exton, PA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Travis S. Hunter, Alexandra M. Ewing, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: D69374

    Breach of non-solicitation clause not dismissed where plaintiff alleged defendant had conspired with purported agent to have agent file an underlying suit against plaintiff for the purpose of disrupting plaintiff's business relationship with one of its clients.

  • CRE Niagara Holdings, LLC v. Resorts Group, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-04-21
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Hospitality and Lodging | Real Estate
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Wallace
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard P. Rollo, Travis S. Hunter, Dorronda R. Bordley, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Garvan McDaniel, Hogan McDaniel, Wilmington, DE; David S. Rosner, Jed I. Bergman, Paul J. Burgo, Stephan P. Thomasch, Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, New York, NY for defendant.

    Case Number: D69368

    Forum selection clause selecting Delaware in parties' primary purchase agreement won out over conflicting forum selection clauses in prior-executed or ancillary agreements between the parties, precluding dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Georgia Legal Malpractice Law 2024

    Authors: SHARI L. KLEVENS, ALANNA G. CLAIR

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Endowment Research Group, LLC v. Wildcat Venture Partners, LLC

    Publication Date: 2021-03-24
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Consulting | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: ohn M. Seaman, E. Wade Houston, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; William C. Price, Michael T. Zeller, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Gregory P. Williams, Robert L. Burns, Megan E. O’Connor, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A, Wilmington, DE; Kathleen H. Goodhart, Cooley LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendant.

    Case Number: D69336

    Chancery court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction over alleged breach of contract claim where equitable relief might be required for breach of a NDA to prevent future misappropriation and because calculation of legal damages due to prior misappropriation could prove difficult.

  • Compagnie Des Grands Htels D'Afrique S.A. v. Starwood Capital Group Global I LLC

    Publication Date: 2021-03-17
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Hospitality and Lodging
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Fallon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: D69327

    Plaintiff was granted leave to amend complaint to replead dismissed agency liability claims where facts underpinning amended claims were obtained by plaintiff during discovery taking place after the pleadings deadline and the parties would have sufficient time to conduct discovery.

  • The Am. Bottling Co. v. Repole

    Publication Date: 2021-01-13
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Distribution and Wholesale | Food and Beverage
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge LeGrow
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Garrett B. Moritz, Anne M. Steadman, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert C. Walters, Russell H. Falconer, Megan Z. Hulce, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss and Daniel J. McBride, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; David. H. Bernstein, Jyotin Hamid, Jared I. Kagan, and Matthew J. Petrozziello, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, attorneys for defendants.

    Case Number: D69254

    Tortious interference claim failed where CEO acted within scope of authority to negotiate distribution/investment deal with another company where the transaction withstood business judgement rule review and thus could not be attacked via a tortious interference claim.

  • Ashland LLC v. The Samuel J. Heyman 1981 Continuing Trust

    Publication Date: 2020-11-25
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Chemicals and Materials
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Davis
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Christopher Viceconte, Gibbons P.C., Wilmington, DE; William S. Hatfield, Camille V. Otero, Esquire, Jennifer A. Hradil, Joshua Elias, Gibbons P.C., Newark, NJ for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: William M. Lafferty, John P. DiTomo, Thomas P. Will, Miranda N. Gilbert, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew J. Rossman, Jonathan B. Oblak, Tyler G. Whitmer, Nicholas Hoy, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: D69198

    Where the parties' contract contained no language clearly demonstrating that the parties intended to allow for fee-shifting in first-party claims, plaintiff's claim for indemnification of legal fees and costs against contractual counterparty failed.

  • Donald M. Durkin Contracting., Inc. v. City of Newark

    Publication Date: 2020-11-25
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Construction | State and Local Government
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Streett
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Paul A. Logan for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Max B. Walton for defendant.

    Case Number: D69199

    Motion for sanctions and contractual indemnification denied where there was no evidence of vexatious or harassing litigation conduct and moving party failed to follow contractual obligation to submit a demand for indemnification.