Filter This View

  • Cumming v. Edens

    Publication Date: 2018-03-07
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance | Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jeffrey Gorris, Christopher Foulds, and Christopher Quinn, Friedlander & Gorris P.A., Wilmington, DE; David Wales, David MacIssac, and John Vielandi, Bernstein Litowtiz Berger & Grossman LLP, New York, NY; Adam Warden, Saxena White P.A., Boca Raton, FL; Steven B. Singer and Joshua H. Saltzman, Saxena White P.A., White Plains, NY; J. Elazar Fruchter, Wohl & Fruchter LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Robert S. Saunders, Ronald N. Brown, III, Sarah R. Martin, and Elisa M.C. Klein, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendants.
    Case Number: D68064

    Derivative complaint not dismissed where plaintiff pled facts of directors conflicts of interest with corporation on the other side of the challenged transaction supporting a reasonable doubt as to whether board was disinterested or independent, which constituted a non-exculpated claim.

  • Appel v. Berkman

    Publication Date: 2018-03-07
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance | Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Hospitality and Lodging
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Strine
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jeremy Friedman, Spencer Oster, and David Tejtel, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC, New York, NY; Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer, and David M. Sborz, Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for appellant
    for defendant: Mark A. Kirsch and Jefferson E. Bell, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY; Brian M. Lutz, Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA; Raymond J. DiCamillo and Elizabeth DeFelice, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Stephen B. Brauerman and Sara E. Bussiere, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE, attorneys for appellees.
    Case Number: D68063

    Boards decision to exclude the chairman/founders opposition to a proposed merger transaction from the stockholders proxy statement was in error, where the facts of such opposition may have been material to a stockholders decision to approve the transaction and the omission of such facts rendered the proxy a partial, incomplete disclosure.

  • Southpaw Credit Opportunity Master Fund, L.P. v. Roma Restaurant Holdings, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-02-14
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Food and Beverage
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Martin S. Lessner, James P. Hughes, Tammy L. Mercer and Richard J. Thomas for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Kevin G. Abrams, John M. Seaman and E. Wade Houston for director defendants; Brock E. Czeschin and Anthony M. Calvano for Roma Restaurant Holdings, Inc.
    Case Number: D68043

    The court declared a stock issuance was void rather than voidable, so the stock could not be considered in a vote to determine composition of the companys board.

  • EMSI Acquisition, Inc. v. RSUI Indem. Co.

    Publication Date: 2018-02-14
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance | Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip Trainer, Jr., Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Lauren Neal Bennett, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephen C. Hackney and Timothy W. Knapp, Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, IL, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Michael F. Duggan and Emily Kara Silverstein, Marks O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.; Wilmington, DE; Kevin A. Lahm, Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP, Chicago, IL, attorneys for defendant.
    Case Number: D68039

    Major shareholder exclusion under D&O liability policy did not exclude coverage, where exclusion language subject to multiple interpretations and therefore ambiguous, and was accordingly construed against insurer.

  • California State Teachers Ret. Sys. v. Alvarez

    Publication Date: 2018-02-07
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities | Corporate Governance
    Industry: Retail
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Valihura
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stuart M. Grant, Michael J. Barry, and Nathan A. Cook; Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Christine S. Azar, Ryan T. Keating, and Ned Weinberger, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Wilmington, DE; Daniel Girard, Amanda Steiner, Dena Sharp, Adam Polk, and Jordan Elias, Girard Gibbs LLP, San Francisco, CA; Thomas A. Dubbs, Louis Gottlieb, and Jeffrey A. Dubbin, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY; Frederic S. Fox, Hae Sung Nam, Donald R. Hall, and Jeffrey P. Campisi, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for appellants
    for defendant: Donald. J. Wolfe, Steven C. Norman, and Tyler J. Leavengood, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Theodore J. Boutrous and Alexander K. Mircheff, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Mark A. Perry, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, attorneys for appellees.
    Case Number: D68031

    Another jurisdiction's dismissal of derivative action for lack of demand futility had preclusive effect under federal law upon competing group of stockholders derivative litigation.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    A Letter from Your Client

    Authors: By Alex Geisler

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • In re Investors Bancorp, Inc. Stockholders Litig.

    Publication Date: 2018-01-24
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Seitz
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Steve J. Purcell, Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP, New York, NY; David A. Jenkins, Neal C. Belgam, and Clarissa R. Chenoweth, Smith Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for appellants
    for defendant: Kenneth J. Nachbar and Zi-Xiang Shen, Morris, Nichols, Arsh & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for appellees.
    Case Number: D68016

    Chancery court erroneously dismissed plaintiffs breach of fiduciary claim arising from boards self-award of equity incentives, where incentive plan authorized by disinterested majority stockholder vote granted board discretion to fashion specific awards that were not ratified by the stockholders.

  • Lavin v. West Corp.

    Publication Date: 2018-01-10
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance | Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer, David M. Sborz, Randall J. Baron, David T. Wissbroecker, Christopher H. Lyons and W. Scott Holleman for plaintiff
    for defendant: Kevin R. Shannon, Christopher N. Kelly, Daniel M. Rusk, Walter C. Carlson, Nilofer I. Umar and Elizabeth Y. Austin for de-fendant.
    Case Number: D68002

    A stockholder was entitled to request books and records to investigate possible breaches of fiduciary duty by corporate officers and directors where the stockholder presented some evidence of mismanagement or wrongdoing.

  • In re Investors Bancorp, Inc. Stockholder Litigation

    Publication Date: 2018-01-03
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor Seitz
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Steve J. Purcell, David A. Jenkins, Neal C. Belgam and Clarissa R. Chenoweth for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Kenneth J. Nachbar and Zi-Xiang Shen for defendants.
    Case Number: D67995

    Where stockholders approved an equity incentive plan that allowed the directors discretion in making awards to themselves, the affirmative defense of ratification could not be used to dismiss the complaint.

  • Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v. Corbat

    Publication Date: 2018-01-03
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stuart M. Grant, Nathan A. Cook, Rebecca A. Musarra, Mark Lebovitch, David L. Wales, Alla Zayenchik, Brian J. Robbins, Felipe J. Arroyo and Gina Stassi for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Donald J. Wolfe, Jr., T. Brad Davey, Tyler J. Leavengood, Jay G. Stirling, Mary Eaton, Frank Scaduto, Stephen P. Lamb, Me-ghan M. Dougherty, Brad S. Karp, Bruce Birenboim, Susanna Buergel and Jane B. O'Brien for defendants.
    Case Number: D67996

    In this stockholder derivative action, plaintiffs failed to establish bad faith on the part of corporate officers and directors in their responses to numerous regulatory issues.

  • City of Birmingham Ret. And Relief Sys. v. Good

    Publication Date: 2018-01-03
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities | Corporate Governance
    Industry: Energy | State and Local Government
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Seitz
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Martin S. Lessner, Kathaleen St. J. McCormick, Nicholas J. Rohrer, and Meryem Y. Dede, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert A. Hoffman, Jeffrey W. Golan, and Julie B. Palley, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Philadelphia, PA; Felipe J. Arroyo, Shane P. Sanders, and Gina Stassi, Robbins Arroyo LLP, San Diego, CA; Judith S. Scolnick, Donald. A. Broggi, and Thomas. L. Laughlin, Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, New York, NY; Peter B. Andrews and Craig J. Springer, Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, DE; Alfred G. Yates, Law Offices of Alfred G.Yats, Jr., Pittsburgh, PA, attorneys for appellants
    for defendant: Kenneth J. Nachbar, Susan W. Waesco, and Alexandra M. Cumings, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jack B. Jacobs, Sidley Austin LLP, Wilmington, DE; Steven M. Bierman, Andrew W. Stern, and Elizabeth A. Espinosa, Sidley Austin LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for appellees.
    Case Number: D67990

    Derivative complaint properly dismissed for failure to make litigation demand where stockholders allegations only established exculpated claim for directors bad faith, rather than personal liability for companys environmental violations.