The court held that plaintiffs' complaint failed to state causes of action against alleged controlling and conflicted stockholders and directors for breach of fiduciary duties when they approved a merger.

The court held that there was an actual controversy that was ripe for adjudication between plaintiff and defendant insurance company.

Jury improperly issued a verdict for plaintiff on its Lanham Act false advertising claim, where plaintiff presented no evidence that customers were actually deceived by defendant's alleged false advertising.

The court held that defendant was contractually obligated to reimburse plaintiff for a merger termination fee of $410 million plus interest to plaintiff.

The court ruled on three motions for summary judgment.

The court held that 1) defendant's challenge to venue was not persuasive, 2) plaintiff did indeed state a claim for inversion under rules for notice pleading, and 3) plaintiff failed to state a claim for voiding the stock agreement under §205.