• Faucett v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd.

    Publication Date: 2023-12-04
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Winston
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Raykia Faucett, pro se appellant.
    for defendant: Matthew B. Frawley, Delaware Department of Justice for appellee.

    Case Number: N23A-06-010 PAW

    Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board did not abuse its discretion in declining appeal and finding appeal from disqualification decision untimely where there was no evidence to rebut the presumption of receipt of the decision letter.

  • NSI-MI Holdings, LLC v. AMETEK, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-11-27
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Manufacturing | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Wallace
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Katharine L. Mowery, Dorronda Bordley, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; David W. Long-Daniels, M. Allyson Lumpkin, Ansley K. Fantaski, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Atlanta, GA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Joanna J. Cline, Emily L. Wheatley, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael S. Hino, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Berwyn, PA for defendant.

    Case Number: N22C-08-489

    Court ordered escrow released where company had failed to state a valid claim for indemnification as it had not identified any extant loss that it had incurred or paid for.

  • Sousa v. Amazon.com, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-11-27
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry: E-Commerce | Retail
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-3043

    Discrimination and hostile work environment claims failed where plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts supporting an inference that purportedly adverse employment actions were had a discriminatory or retaliatory motivation or that offensive behavior from a supervisor was severe or pervasive.

  • In re Mindbody, Inc., Stockholder Litig.

    Publication Date: 2023-11-27
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory | Software
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris, Christopher M. Foulds, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Gregory V. Varallo, Andrew E. Blumberg, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Lisa A. Schmidt, Robert L. Burns, Matthew D. Perri, John M. O’Toole, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Matthew Solum, P.C., John Del Monaco, Jeffrey R. Goldfine, Jacob M. Rae, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: 2019-0442-KSJM

    Stockholders in fiduciary class action who also petitioned for appraisal were entitled to elect between continuing with appraisal or taking the class remedy, even though the law required the corporation's approval for withdrawal of the petition for appraisal.

  • MALT Family Trust v. 777 Partners LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-11-27
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Aerospace | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Catherine A. Gaul, Michael J. Vail, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE; David W. Affeld, Edward E. Johnson, Affeld Grivakes LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: William E. Manning, Jessica M. Jones, Michelle C. Streifthau-Livizos, Saul Ewing LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: 2022-0652-MTZ

    Although plaintiffs failed to identify a contractual provision expressly requiring defendants to operate their aviation-related businesses through the parties' LLC, plaintiffs sufficiently alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by claiming that defendants usurped that business opportunity and caused the LLC to instead engage in marginally profitable interested transactions.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New Jersey Arbitration Handbook 2024

    Authors: Hon. William A. Dreier, Robert E. Bartkus

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Rheault v. Halma Holdings Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-11-27
    Practice Area: Securities Litigation
    Industry: Electronics | Health Care | Software
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Bryson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 23-700-WCB

    Court declined to dismiss securities and common law fraud claims where acquirer failed to disclose the existence of its obligations under a competing earnout agreement when negotiating acquisition of a company.

  • In re: Healthcare Real Estate Partners, LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-11-27
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Real Estate
    Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
    Judge: Judge Goldblatt
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 15-11931 (CTG)

    Court erred in capping fees for work performed on both a §303(i) motion and a §362(k) complaint since the debtor could have obtained its full fees had it only filed the complaint and was thus effectively "punished" for filing the motion.

  • British Telecomm. PLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-11-27
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Burke
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Bart H. Williams, Proskauer Rose LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Nolan M. Goldberg, Baldassare Vinti, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY; Edward Wang, Proskauer Rose LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Adrian C. Percer, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, CA; Anish R. Desai, Tom Yu, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY; Priyata Y. Patel, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Washington, DC for defendant.

    Case Number: 22-1538-CJB

    Court denied motion to dismiss patent infringement case on grounds of invalidity where patent potentially contained an inventive concept by claiming an ordered combination of conventional elements.

  • Quinn v. Avco Corp.

    Publication Date: 2023-11-27
    Practice Area: Wrongful Death
    Industry: Aerospace | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Restrepo
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Cynthia M. Devers, Devers Miska Law, Bala Cynwyd, PA for appellants.
    for defendant: Andrea S. Brooks, Wilks Law, LLC, Wilmington, DE; John S. Bagby, Jr., Bagby & Associates, LLC, Paoli, PA for appellee.

    Case Number: 22-1596

    District court correctly applied General Aviation Revitalization Act's statute of repose to product liability wrongful death claims, where federal regulations limited rebuilding and selling of aircraft parts to aviation manufacturers and thus claims arising from rebuilding of aircraft engine part were claims against a "manufacturer."

  • Carrum Tech., LLC v. Ford Motor Co.

    Publication Date: 2023-11-20
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Automotive | Manufacturing | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; John M. Hughes, Andrew C. Baak, Taylor J. Kelson, Bartlit Beck LLP, Denver, CO; Rebecca T. Horwitz, Mark L. Levine, Bartlit Beck LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Daryll Hawthorne-Bernardo, Christian J. Singewald, White & Williams LLP, Wilmington, DE; Frank C. Cimino, Jr., Megan S. Woodworth, Jonathan L. Falkler, Charles J. Monterio, Jr., Venable LLP, Washington, DC for defendant.

    Case Number: 18-1647-RGA

    Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement after accepting defendant's proposed claim construction and struck plaintiff's supplemental declaration raising a doctrine of equivalents theory as untimely where plaintiff never raised the theory in its complaint or during discovery.