Under the right-of-control test, plaintiff qualified as employee of defendant's subsidiary rather than defendant where subsidiary controlled plaintiff's compensation, determined the terms and conditions of his employment, and supervised his work.

Court denied defendants' summary judgment motion on breach of non-compete agreement where plaintiffs plausibly pled breach by alleging defendants assisted plaintiffs' former employee with establishing a competing business.

Aiding and abetting clause plausibly alleged as to sellers' advisors where they were involved in due diligence and thus plausibly could have assisted sellers in withholding material information, which breached representations and warranties.

Court denied plaintiff's motions to expedite resolution of post-trial issues based on defendants' assertion that an upcoming shareholder proxy vote would not affect the litigation.

Court held buyer equally liable for seller's officers' breaches of fiduciary duties where buyer's culpability arose from its breaches of its contractual obligations under a standstill agreement with the seller.

Litigation demand not futile where directors who would give plaintiff a majority lacked any personal or professional connection to the interested controller sufficient to call the directors' independence into question.

Original tenant could not be held liable under assigned lease which was amended by the landlord and assignee without the original tenant's knowledge or consent.

Although defendant prevailed on some claims asserted by plaintiff, plaintiff was the prevailing party in the overall litigation as the central issue in the case was the validity and enforceability of the parties' contracts, and thus plaintiff was entitled to legal fees and costs under the contractual fee-shifting provisions.

Communications threating litigation at some indefinite time in the future without identifying claimants or requesting monetary relief were insufficient to constitute a "claim for damages" that would trigger or bar liability insurance coverage.

Court imposed sanctions in the form of a factual presumption on a key issue, which defendants could only rebut with clear and convincing evidence, after defendants admittedly took no action to preserve electronically stored information in response to litigation hold notices.