Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
Publication Date: 2023-06-27
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Biotechnology | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Judge: Judge Dorsey
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-10603 (JTD)
Plan administrator who was former common stockholder was not obligated to be disinterested and did not have interests unaligned with those of former preferred stockholders in recovering assets belonging to debtors.
Publication Date: 2023-06-27
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Financial Services and Banking
Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Judge: Judge Silverstein
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-11317 (LSS)
Unlawful stock repurchase and constructive fraudulent conveyance claims against former director failed where plaintiff had failed to plead sufficient facts demonstrating that it should have been clear to the director that the company was insolvent and therefore approving stock repurchases and director fees was unsupported by the company's impaired capital.
Publication Date: 2023-06-27
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Health Care
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John M. Seaman, April M. Ferraro, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Adrienne Ward, Lori Marks-Esterman, Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP, New York, NY; John M. Seaman, April M. Ferraro, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Tariq Mundiya, Richard Li, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Blake Rohrbacher, Kevin M. Gallagher, Matthew W. Murphy, Nicole M. Henry, Jordan L. Cramer, Sandy Xu, Mari Boyle, Edmond S. Kim, Morgan R. Harrison, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 2023-0477-PAF
Court declined to enjoin advance notice bylaw where company did not have radical change in operations and plaintiff stockholders' delay contributed to their inability to timely present a slate of directors for the annual meeting.
Publication Date: 2023-06-27
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Judge: Judge Shannon
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; J. Christopher Shore, Colin T. West, White & Case, LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Michael S. Neiberg, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sabina Willett, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Boston, MA; David M. Stern, KTBS Law LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants.
Case Number: 15-11934 (BLS)
Suit to recover proceeds of the sale of debtor as a fraudulent transfer failed where the acquisition negotiations were fair and conducted at arms-length, since the seller was entitled to sell the company for as much as they could get and the buyer was free to negotiate what it considered a fair price, even though in hindsight the purchase price seemed overinflated as it placed an unsustainable amount of debt on the company.
Publication Date: 2023-06-27
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Education | State and Local Government
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Butler
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Lavern C. Washington, pro se appellant.
for defendant: Victoria E. Groff, Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE; Victoria W. Counihan, Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE for appellees.
Case Number: N22A-03-004 CEB
Court affirmed unemployment benefits disqualification where evidence clearly showed claimant knowingly underreported income, as his claim that he was instructed to do so by DOL employees lacked credibility.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Robert C. Port
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-06-27
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Wallace
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel B. McBride, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Robert M. Gamburg, Gamburg & Benedetto LLC, Philadelphia, PA; Brian J. Chapman, Law Office of Brian J. Chapman, Newark, DE for defendant.
Case Number: 2203012514
Search warrant was supported by probable cause where police obtained various articulable facts indicating that an apartment and storage unit were used by defendant for stashing drugs, with that suspicion confirmed by a non-Fourth Amendment canine sniff.
Publication Date: 2023-06-20
Practice Area: Admiralty
Industry: Cargo and Shipping
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: J. Stephen Simms, Simms Showers, Baltimore, MD for appellant.
for defendant: Amanda D. Price, Squire Patton Boggs, Houston, TX; John J. Reilly, Squire Patton Boggs, New York, NY for appellee.
Case Number: 22-1276
Party could seek maritime attachment for indemnification of a claim made against that party, but its claim for loss-of-hire was too contingent to support attachment as it depended on failing to recover on that claim against the vessel's owner.
Publication Date: 2023-06-20
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Automotive | Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Valihura
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jay W. Eisenhofer, Christine M. Mackintosh, Kelly L. Tucker, Vivek Upadhya, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael Hanrahan, Kevin H. Davenport, Samuel L. Closic, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Daniel L. Berger, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., New York, NY; Lee D. Rudy, Eric L. Zagar, Justice O. Reliford, Matthew Benedict, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor, PA; Randall J. Baron, David T. Wissbroecker, Robbins Gellar Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA for appellants.
for defendant: David E. Ross, Garrett B. Moritz, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Evan R. Chesler, Daniel Slifkin, Vanessa A. Lavely, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY for appellee.
Case Number: 181, 2022
Chancery court correctly found acquisition of company partially owned by controlling stockholder was entirely fair where stockholder recused himself from shareholder vote, the board operated independently, and evidence demonstrated that the acquired company had value from long-term cash flows and was not worthless due to being insolvent.
Publication Date: 2023-06-20
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Robert M. Oakes, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; Ahmed J. Davis, Joshua Rosefelt, Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, DC; Elizabeth Flanagan, Brianna Chamberlin, Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneapolis, MN for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Rodger D. Smith II, Travis J. Murray, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Thomas R. Makin, David Cooperberg, Eric S. Lucas, Shearman & Sterling LLP, New York, NY; Lillian J. Mao, Sherman & Sterling LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Aaron L. Morris, Shearman & Sterling LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendant.
Case Number: 22-979-RGA
Use of the term "comprising" was open language permitting the inclusion of additional components not named in the claim language, with the claim language further implying that the term could include other components.
Publication Date: 2023-06-20
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Financial Services and Banking
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Geoffrey Graham Grivner, Kody Macgyver Sparks, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Stephen B. Brauerman, Ronald P. Golden, III, Bayard P.A., Wilmington, DE; James H. S. Levine, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Wilmington, DE; David L. Finger, Finger & Slanina LLC, Wilmington, DE; John Legare Williams, Brian C. Crawford, The Williams Law Firm P.A., Wilmington, DE; Akiva M. Cohen, Dylan M. Schmeyer, Kamerman, Uncyk, Soniker & Klein P.C., New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 21-1456-GBW
Preliminary injunction to enjoin distribution of settlement funds pursuant to the parties' agreement denied where there was no support in the parties' contract for plaintiff's claim of breach and thus plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read