• Stein v. Blankfein

    Publication Date: 2024-03-11
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Rosemary J. Piergiovanni, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; A. Arnold Gershon, Michael A. Toomey, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Kevin M. Gallagher, Robert L. Burns, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. Wilmington, DE; Kevin G. Abrams, Peter Shindel Jr., Matthew L. Miller, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., David M.J. Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: 2017-0354-SG

    Law of the case precluded settlement objector's challenge to the adequacy of consideration where revised settlement merely deleted provisions improperly releasing future claims and the court had previously found the retained provisions fair and beneficial to the corporation and its stockholders.

  • In re: Town Sports Int'l

    Publication Date: 2024-03-11
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ramon Moreno-Cuevas, Hartford, CT, pro se appellant.
    for defendant: Robert S. Brady, Sean T. Greecher, Allison S. Mielke, Timothy R. Powell, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE for appellee.

    Case Number: 23-472 (MN) MEMORANDUM OPINION

    Court declined to stay order confirming bankruptcy court's denial of relief from plan injunction where appellant failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on appeal or show how the court's order altered the status quo.

  • Murdick Capital Mgmt. L.P. v. QuarterNorth Energy Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-11
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Bradley R. Aronstam, Roger S. Stronach, Benjamin M. Whitney, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jordan A. Goldstein, Lauren J. Zimmerman, Babak Ghafarzade, Selendy Gay PLLC, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Blake Rohrbacher, Matthew W. Murphy, John M. O’Toole, Edmond S. Kim, Spencer V. Crawford, Margaret Rockey, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Harry P. Susman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, TX; Thomas W. Briggs, Jr., Kirk Andersen, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew K. Glenn, Glenn Agre Bergman & Fuentes LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: 2024-0106-LWW

    Court declined to preliminarily enjoin invocation of drag-along rights where the invocation was not inconsistent with the terms of the proposed merger agreement or the minority securityholders' agreements and the minority could obtain monetary relief if the court ultimately found an improper invocation.

  • Malkani v. Cunningham

    Publication Date: 2024-03-11
    Practice Area: Securities Litigation
    Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip Trainer, Jr., Marie M. Degnan, Randall J. Teti, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Marcos D. Jimenez, Marcos D. Jimenez, P.A., Miami, FL for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Ryan P. Newell, Lakshmi A. Muthu, Tara C. Pakrouh, Michael A. Carbonara, Jr., Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Heyden, Jr., Joseph E. Brenner, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: 2020-1004-SG

    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.

  • Bailey v. Tektronix, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-11
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: E-Commerce | Manufacturing | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Williams
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Robert Karl Beste, III, Jason Z. Miller, Smith, Katzenstein, & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Anthony David Raucci, Donna Lynn Culver, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: 21-1268-GBW

    Retention holdback agreement breached where reasonable interpretation of definition of qualifying revenue meant that the acquiring company hit the revenue goals to trigger the payout.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Delaware County Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Sygenta Crop Prot., LLC

    Publication Date: 2024-03-11
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Agriculture | Chemicals and Materials | Insurance
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Traynor
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John D. Balaguer, Lindsey E. Imbrogno, Balaguer Milewski & Imbrogno, Wilmington, DE; Michael M. Marick, Timothy H. Wright, Skarzynski Marick & Black LLP, attorneys for appellants
    for defendant: Stephen E. Jenkins, Catherine A. Gaul, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Dorthea W. Regal, Joshua L. Blosveren, Miriam J. Manber, Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney, LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for appellee.

    Case Number: 135, 2023

    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.

  • Clem v. Skinner

    Publication Date: 2024-03-04
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals | Retail | Software
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Blake A. Bennett, Dean R. Roland, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Brian J. Robbins, Stephen J. Oddo, Eric M. Carrino, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA; Leo Kandinov, Aaron T. Morris, Andrew W. Robertson, Morris Kandinov LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, Samuel D. Cordle, Caleb Volz, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert G. Jones, Jessica M. Bergin, Sara A. Bellin, Ropes & Gray LLP, Boston, MA; Martin J. Crisp, Ropes & Gray LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: 2021-0240-LWW

    Caremark claims failed where board of directors promptly responded to whistleblower action regarding the company's billing practices by overseeing the response to the DOJ's civil investigation demands and fixing the billing software to eliminate the improper practices.

  • In re: Stimwave Tech. Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-04
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
    Judge: Judge Horan
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-10541 (TMH)

    Court required pro se litigants to submit filings for court screening as a sanction for litigants' abusive litigation conduct in the form of repeated meritless pleadings and filings.

  • Exeltis USA, Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-04
    Practice Area: Intellectual Property
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Martina Tyreus Hufnal, Douglas E. McCann, Gregory R. Boofer, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; Philip K. Chen, Fish & Richardson P.C., Boston, MA; Brian Coggio, Excylyn Hardin-Smith, Fish & Richardson P.C., New York, NY; Megan A. Chacon, Madelyn McCormick, Bernard Cryan, Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA, for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: John C. Phillips, Jr., David A. Bilson, Phillips McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael Nutter, McGuireWoods LLP, Chicago, IL; Corinne S. Hockman, McGuireWoods LLP, Raleigh, NC; Daniel Withers, McGuireWoods LLP, Dallas, TX; Merritt Westcott, McGuireWoods LLP, Houston, TX; Dennis D. Gregory, McGuireWoods LLP, Austin, TX for defendants.

    Case Number: 22-434-RGA

    Court rejected proposed claim construction for testing method where patent language had failed to establish lexicography or disavowal to require specific test conditions.

  • Payne v. Samsung Elec. Am., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-04
    Practice Area: Products Liability
    Industry: Electronics | Manufacturing | Retail
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Wharton
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David C. Malatesta, Jr., Shelsby & Leoni, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Donald M. Ransom, Daniel P. Daly, Casarino Christman Shalk Ransom & Doss, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Christopher T. Logullo, Cobb & Logullo, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: N23C-03-193 FWW

    Court dismissed case where plaintiff was on inquiry notice that retaining or using product constituted agreement to binding arbitration with manufacturer, with the arbitration agreement delegating questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.