Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
Publication Date: 2024-03-18
Practice Area: Insurance Law
Industry: Insurance
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Fallon
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Bayard Marin, Daulton Gregory, Marin & Gregory, LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Karine Sarkisian, Kennedys CMK LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 23-752-SRF
Court remanded case due to untimely notice of removal as equitable claim within Delaware chancery court's jurisdiction could be heard by federal court sitting in diversity and the applicable insurance policy limit at issue met the amount-in-controversy threshold.
Publication Date: 2024-03-18
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Health Care
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Karsnitz
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jonathan B. O’Neill, Kimmel, Carter, Roman, Peltz & O’Neill, P.A., Christiana, DE for appellant.
for defendant: Nicholas E. Bittner, Heckler & Frabizzio, Wilmington, DE for appellee.
Case Number: S23A-03-002 CAK
Industrial Accident Board properly denied claim of permanent impairment based on credibility determination, as claimant failed to seek prompt diagnostic testing or treatment following a work incident and did not disclose an intervening motor vehicle accident to her medical providers and evaluators, and employer's medical expert credibly testified as to the lack of permanent impairment.
Publication Date: 2024-03-11
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Manufacturing | Retail
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Judge Wallace
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin M. Coen, Rachel R. Tunney, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Nicholas Cutaia, Jaclyn Grodin, Goulston & Storrs PC, New York, NY; Joshua M. Looney, Nora A. Saunders, Goulston & Storrs PC, Boston, MA for plaintiff.
for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, Peter C. Cirka, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 2023-0470 PRW
Although claimant had potentially known about facts underlying fraud/misrepresentation claims for some time, the court declined to apply laches to bar the claims where they were filed within the analogous statutes of limitations. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss denied; defendants' motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part.
Publication Date: 2024-03-11
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Rosemary J. Piergiovanni, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; A. Arnold Gershon, Michael A. Toomey, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Kevin M. Gallagher, Robert L. Burns, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. Wilmington, DE; Kevin G. Abrams, Peter Shindel Jr., Matthew L. Miller, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., David M.J. Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 2017-0354-SG
Law of the case precluded settlement objector's challenge to the adequacy of consideration where revised settlement merely deleted provisions improperly releasing future claims and the court had previously found the retained provisions fair and beneficial to the corporation and its stockholders.
Publication Date: 2024-03-11
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry:
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ramon Moreno-Cuevas, Hartford, CT, pro se appellant.
for defendant: Robert S. Brady, Sean T. Greecher, Allison S. Mielke, Timothy R. Powell, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE for appellee.
Case Number: 23-472 (MN) MEMORANDUM OPINION
Court declined to stay order confirming bankruptcy court's denial of relief from plan injunction where appellant failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on appeal or show how the court's order altered the status quo.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: James S. Bolan, Sara N. Holden
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2024-03-11
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Bradley R. Aronstam, Roger S. Stronach, Benjamin M. Whitney, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jordan A. Goldstein, Lauren J. Zimmerman, Babak Ghafarzade, Selendy Gay PLLC, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Blake Rohrbacher, Matthew W. Murphy, John M. O’Toole, Edmond S. Kim, Spencer V. Crawford, Margaret Rockey, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Harry P. Susman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, TX; Thomas W. Briggs, Jr., Kirk Andersen, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew K. Glenn, Glenn Agre Bergman & Fuentes LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 2024-0106-LWW
Court declined to preliminarily enjoin invocation of drag-along rights where the invocation was not inconsistent with the terms of the proposed merger agreement or the minority securityholders' agreements and the minority could obtain monetary relief if the court ultimately found an improper invocation.
Publication Date: 2024-03-11
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip Trainer, Jr., Marie M. Degnan, Randall J. Teti, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Marcos D. Jimenez, Marcos D. Jimenez, P.A., Miami, FL for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Ryan P. Newell, Lakshmi A. Muthu, Tara C. Pakrouh, Michael A. Carbonara, Jr., Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Heyden, Jr., Joseph E. Brenner, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 2020-1004-SG
Although defendant prevailed on some claims asserted by plaintiff, plaintiff was the prevailing party in the overall litigation as the central issue in the case was the validity and enforceability of the parties' contracts, and thus plaintiff was entitled to legal fees and costs under the contractual fee-shifting provisions.
Publication Date: 2024-03-11
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: E-Commerce | Manufacturing | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Robert Karl Beste, III, Jason Z. Miller, Smith, Katzenstein, & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Anthony David Raucci, Donna Lynn Culver, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: 21-1268-GBW
Retention holdback agreement breached where reasonable interpretation of definition of qualifying revenue meant that the acquiring company hit the revenue goals to trigger the payout.
Publication Date: 2024-03-11
Practice Area: Insurance Law
Industry: Agriculture | Chemicals and Materials | Insurance
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Traynor
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John D. Balaguer, Lindsey E. Imbrogno, Balaguer Milewski & Imbrogno, Wilmington, DE; Michael M. Marick, Timothy H. Wright, Skarzynski Marick & Black LLP, attorneys for appellants
for defendant: Stephen E. Jenkins, Catherine A. Gaul, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Dorthea W. Regal, Joshua L. Blosveren, Miriam J. Manber, Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney, LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for appellee.
Case Number: 135, 2023
Communications threating litigation at some indefinite time in the future without identifying claimants or requesting monetary relief were insufficient to constitute a "claim for damages" that would trigger or bar liability insurance coverage.
Publication Date: 2024-03-11
Practice Area: Administrative Law
Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Winston
Attorneys: For plaintiff: William J. Rhodunda, Jr., Nicholas G. Kondraschow, Rhodunda, Williams & Kondraschow for appellant.
for defendant: A. Zachary Naylor, Delaware Department of Justice for appellee.
Case Number: N23A-04-002 PAW
Court remanded revocation of real estate license where commission concededly deprived licensee of due process by denying him the opportunity to speak and prohibiting his counsel from reading his prepared statement, after allowing the state to provide statements and comments.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read