• Kokorich v. Momentus Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-05-30
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Aerospace
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Eric Lopez Schnabel, Alessandra Glorioso, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Wilmington, DE; Benjamin D. Greenberg, Todd S. Fairchild, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Seattle, WA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Joseph L. Christensen, Meghan M. Dougherty, Christensen & Dougherty LLP, Wilmington, DE; Perrie M. Weiner, Aaron T. Goodman, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Peter P. Tomczak, Michael D. Lehrman, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Chicago, IL for defendant.

    Case Number: 2022-0722-MTZ

    Company founder and former CEO was not entitled to indemnification/advancement from company pursuant to corporate agreements and bylaws where founder had broadly released any claims he had against the company in a stock repurchase agreement, nor was he entitled to statutory indemnification since he had not been successful on the merits of any related legal actions.

  • VMware, Inc. v. Wood

    Publication Date: 2023-05-30
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Elena C. Norman, Elisabeth S. Bradley, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Arturo J. González, Shaelyn K. Dawson, Camille Framroze, Meredith L. Angueira, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Kasey H. DeSantis, Nathan D. Barillo, Fox Rothschild LLP, Wilmington, DE; Neil A. Capobianco, Fox Rothschild LLP, New York, NY for defendant.

    Case Number: 2022-0820-PAF

    Former employee lacked right to enforce repurchase option where his stock options and unvested stock were cancelled in connection with his employer's acquisition in exchange for the right to payments from the acquiring company that would terminate if the employee left the acquirer's employ.

  • Lighthouse Behavioral Health Solutions, LLC v. Milestone Addiction Counseling, LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-05-30
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Marisa B. Miller, Kevin K. Chang, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Sidney S. Liebesman, E. Chaney Hall, Nathaniel J. Klepser, Fox Rothschild LLP, Wilmington, DE; Erik J. Clark, Organ Law LLP, Columbus, OH for defendants.

    Case Number: 2022-0979-MTZ

    Although federal law obligated acquired healthcare provider to obtain patient consent before turning over records to acquirer, the provider nonetheless breached its contractual obligations to transfer the records and its representations and warranties that it had taken all action necessary to perform and that the transaction complied with applicable law.

  • In re: Healthcare Real Estate Partners, LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-05-30
    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)

    Debtor could recover reasonable legal costs incurred in dismissing involuntary petition filed by creditors to trigger their contractual rights to remove debtor from management role, rather than recover their claims against debtor's estate, but debtor suffered no lost profits damages where it was already an effectively defunct business at the time of the petition.

  • Santo v. Genesis Healthcare, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-05-30
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Primos
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ronald G. Poliquin, The Poliquin Firm, LLC, Dover, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Geoffrey G. Grivner, Kody M. Sparks, Andrew G. Hope, Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Joshua T. Calo, Buchanan, Ingersoll & Roonery, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA for defendant.

    Case Number: K22C-07-014 NEP

    Nursing home was not entitled to PREP Act immunity for resident's death from COVID-19 where complaint alleged ordinary acts of negligence that led to the resident's death and did not necessarily implicate the administration or use of "covered countermeasures" as a cause of or contributing factor to the resident's death.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Constangy’s Field Guide to The Family Medical Leave Act 2014

    Authors: Michael D. Malfitano

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • In re VG Liquidation, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-05-30
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Federal Government
    Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
    Judge: Judge Dorsey
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-11120 (JTD)

    Refund of excess fees paid to United States Trustee program, pursuant to statute later deemed unconstitutional, was the appropriate remedy for the harm suffered by debtors.

  • Election Sys. & Software, LLC v. Smartmatic USA Corp.

    Publication Date: 2023-05-23
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Patricia S. Rogowski, Rogowski Law, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Robert M. Evans, Jr., Michael J. Hartley, Michael H. Durbin, T. Hunter Brown, Lewis Rice, LLP, St. Louis, MO for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Brian A. Biggs, Angela C. Whitesell, Erin E. Larson, DLA Piper, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Larissa S. Bifano, DLA Piper, LLP, Boston, MA; Richard Mulloy, DLA PIper, LLP, San Diego, CA; Zachary Loney, DLA PIper, LLP, Austin, TX for defendant.

    Case Number: 18-cv-1259-RGA

    Patent infringement claims were dismissed where asserted claims consisted solely of abstract ideas integral to the voting process and contained no new inventive concept.

  • InterMune, Inc. v. Harkonen

    Publication Date: 2023-05-23
    Practice Area: Business Torts
    Industry: Biotechnology
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Cook
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Karen A. Jacobs, Megan W. Cascio, Courtney Kurz, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Laurie Carr Mims, Benjamin D. Rothstein, Candice Mai Khanh Nguyen, Melissa Cornell, Catherine C. Porto, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Michael A. Weidinger, Megan Ix Brison, Pinckney, Weidinger, Urban & Joyce LLC, Wilmington, DE; Elizabeth Sandza, Richard W. Sandza, Sandza Law, PLLC, Washington, DC for defendant.

    Case Number: 2021-0694-NAC

    Corporate officer was not entitled to statutory indemnification from company where officer was convicted of federal wire fraud, which included a finding that the officer acted in bad faith, and where a presidential pardon did not have the effect of eliminating the conviction.

  • Mellaconic IP LLC v. Timeclock Plus, LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-05-23
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Software
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew S. Curfman, Howard Wemow, Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA, Canton, OH for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jimmy C. Chong, Chong Law Firm, PA, Wilmington, DE

    Case Number: 22-244-CFC

    Court possessed inherent authority to demand production of documents that might evidence potential fraud committed upon the court even though plaintiff had moved to voluntarily dismiss the case.

  • Huntley v. VBit Tech. Corp.

    Publication Date: 2023-05-23
    Practice Area: Securities Litigation
    Industry: E-Commerce
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Fallon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-1164-CFC-SRF

    Court granted motion for leave to amend securities lawsuit where the motion was made prior to the issuance of a scheduling order and no defendant argued that the amended pleading was futile or would cause them undue prejudice.