Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
Publication Date: 2024-11-19
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Entertainment and Leisure | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Wharton
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David Holloway, Holloway Law LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: R. Karl Hill, Seitz, Van Ogtrop & Green, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: N24C-05-247 FWW
Fraudulent inducement claim failed where plaintiff could not identify damages distinct from those it allegedly suffered as a result of defendant's breach of the parties' agreement.
Publication Date: 2024-11-19
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory V. Varallo, Andrew E. Blumberg, Daniel E. Meyer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Christopher J. Orrico, Shiva Mohan, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Jeremy S. Friedman, David F.E. Tejtel, Alexander M. Krischik, David A. Rosenfeld, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC, Bedford Hills, NY; Joel Fleming, Lauren Godles Milgroom, Equity Litigation Group LLP, Boston, MA; D. Seamus Kaskela, Adrienne Bell, Kaskela Law LLC, Newtown Square, PA for plaintiff;
for defendant: Brad D. Sorrels, Andrew D. Cordo, Nora M. Crawford, Lauren G. DeBona, Jacqueline G. Conner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati P.C., Wilmington, DE; Colleen C. Smith, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Diego, CA; Blair Connelly, Zachary L. Rowen, Thomas Giblin, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Ryan A. Walsh, Latham & Watkins LLP, Costa Mesa, CA; David J. Berger, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati P.C., Palo Alto, CA for defendants.
Case Number: 2024-1029-PAF
Court declined to apply supermajority voting requirement under article of company's certificate of incorporation where it lacked language specifying its applicability to all possible forms of reincorporation.
Publication Date: 2024-11-19
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel M. Silver, Daniel J. Brown, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Eric J. Benzenberg, Waleed Amer, The Basile Law Firm P.C., Jericho, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Katharine L. Mowery, Matthew W. Murphy, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Douglas B. Rosner, Jennifer Furey, Nathaniel R.B. Koslof, Goulston & Storrs PC, Boston, MA; Nicholas Cutais, Goulston & Storrs PC, New York, NY; Richard Asche, Litman, Asche & Gioiella, LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 24-212 (MN)
Court declined to grant preliminary injunction where plaintiff could not establish a likelihood of success on its claims challenging the validity of debt financing documents where defendants' unregistered status did not affect the validity of the documents as they did not require defendants to be registered broker dealers.
Publication Date: 2024-11-19
Practice Area: Insurance Law
Industry:
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Seitz
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Adam F. Wasserman, Ciconte Wasserman & Scerba, LLC, Wilmington, DE for appellants.
for defendant: Cynthia G. Beam, Reger Rizzo & Darnall LLP, Wilmington, DE for appellee.
Case Number: 431, 2023
State insurance law limiting coverage from multiple separate policies issued by the same insurer to two or more members of the same household to the highest limit of liability did not preclude stacking of uninsured motorist coverage where each household member's policy expressly permitted stacking, making the stacked coverage the highest limit.
Publication Date: 2024-11-19
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Insurance
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Curtis J. Crowther, Robinson & Cole LLP, Wilmington, DE; Trevor L. Bradley, Robinson & Cole LLP, Stamford, CT for plaintiff.
for defendant: Kate Harmon, Noelle B. Torrice, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, Wilmington, DE; J. Scott Humphrey, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, Chicago, IL for defendant.
Case Number: 22-1537-GBW
Court granted judgment to plaintiff employer where record did not support a finding of bad faith in its determination that defendant, its former employee, had engaged in competitive activity in violation of the restrictions of his restricted stock unit agreements.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Gary L. Brown
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2024-11-19
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Phipps
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 24-1161
Sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable where offense level adjustment would not have affected the Guidelines range due to the statutory maximum and district court gave appropriate consideration to aggravating and mitigating factors.
Publication Date: 2024-11-12
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Retail
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Erika F. Johnson, Steven D. Adler, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Joseph L. Steinfeld, Jr., Richard J. Reding, ASK LLP, St. Paul, MN; Edward E. Neiger, ASK LLP, New York, NY for appellant.
for defendant: James Tobia, The Law Offices of James Tobia, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Roland Gary Jones, Jones & Associates, New York, NY for appellee.
Case Number: 19-11984-CTG
Bankruptcy court's exclusive reliance on standard deviation to determine whether payments were made in the ordinary course of business was insufficient to grant summary judgment.
Publication Date: 2024-11-12
Practice Area: Consumer Protection
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | E-Commerce | Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Alexander L. Braitberg, Andrew D. Schlichter, Joel Rohlf, Nathan D. Stump, Peter Cosgrove, Schlichter Bogard LLP, St. Louis, MO; David T. Crumplar, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Jody C. Barillare, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ari M. Selman, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, New York, NY; Elizabeth Herrington, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Chicago, IL; Jordan McCrary, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Raechel K. Kummer, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington, DC, attorneys for defendant.
Case Number: 1:20-cv-01399-SB
Court dismissed claim under Illinois Biometric Privacy Act where majority of alleged conduct occurred outside Illinois and defendant was not the party responsible for the alleged voiceprinting.
Publication Date: 2024-11-12
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Hall
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gary Perryman, Linda Perryman, Brandyn Perryman, Miami Beach, FL, pro se appellants.
for defendant: Mette H. Kurth, Culhane PLLC, Wilmington, DE for appellee.
Case Number: 22-10541 (TMH)
Bankruptcy court appropriately granted sanctions to screen future pro se filings after litigants had filed numerous baseless and vexatious filings in bankruptcy case.
Publication Date: 2024-11-12
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, Eric J. Riedel, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Rudolf Koch, Kevin M. Gallagher, Daniel E. Kaprow, John M. O’Toole, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Thomas Uebler, McCollom D’Emilio Smith Uebler LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jason Cyrulnik, Paul Fattaruso, Matthew Henken, Cyrulnik Fattaruso LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 2017-0486-SG
Court denied plaintiff representative's motion to shift legal fees and costs where the court only awarded nominal damages and thus the stockholder class received no meaningful benefit, and where plaintiff's counsel litigated the case under a contingency arrangement.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read