Filter This View

  • Manichaean Capital, LLC v. Exela Tech., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-06-09
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rudolf Koch, Matthew W. Murphy, Andrew L. Milam, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Samuel J. Lieberman, Alexander H. McCabe, Sadis & Goldberg LLP, New York, NY; Steven K. Davidson, Mi-chael J. Baratz, Claire Schachter, Lauren Goldschmidt, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: T. Bradley Davey, Matthew F. Davis, Andrew H. Sauder, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jennifer Barrett, Dennis H. Hranitzky, Blair Adams, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
    Case Number: D69428

    The court held that reverse corporate veil piercing was proper where plaintiffs' complaint adequately al-leged that a company's subsidiaries participated in a scheme to deprive plaintiffs of the benefit of their judg-ment.

  • RCS Creditor Trust v. Schorsch

    Publication Date: 2020-04-08
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip Trainer, Jr. and Marie M. Degnan, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; John P. Coffey, Gregory A. Horowitz and Anna K. Ostrom, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Elizabeth A. Sloan and Brittany M. Giusini of Ballard Spahr LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Miller, Evan Glassman, Michael G. Scavelli, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, New York, NY; Mark Murphy, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, DC for defendant Block. Daniel A. Mason, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Allan J. Arffa, Gregory F. Laufer and Jeremy A. Benjamin, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY for remaining defendants.
    Case Number: D68939

    Communications between plaintiff's counsel and a third party were subject to the attorney-client privilege based on the com-mon interest doctrine. Motion to compel denied.

  • Athene Life and Annuity Co. v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co.

    Publication Date: 2019-08-14
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Martin S. Lessner, Richard J. Thomas, and M. Paige Valeski, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; James P. Gillespie, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC; Adam T. Humann, Kirkland & Ellis, New York, NY; Brian C. Ralston, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Kenneth J. Nachbar and Sabrina M. Hendershot, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Joel Friedlander and Christopher P. Quinn, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A, Wilmington, De; John L. Jacobus, J. Walker Johnson, Catherine D. Cockerham, and Michael E. Stoll, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, DC, for defendants.
    Case Number: D68662

    Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiffs would obtain complete relief if they received money damages from defendants' alleged breach of the parties' agreement.

  • NASDI Holdings, LLC v. N. Am. Leasing, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-04-24
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Construction
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian C. Ralston and Matthew A. Golden, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael Dockterman, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Joseph B. Cicero, Paul D. Brown, and Stephanie H. Dallaire, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark L. McAlpine, Douglas W. Eyre, McAlpine PC, Auburn Hills, MI for defendants.
    Case Number: D68536

    Plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on their breach of contract claim and defendants' affirmative defenses where plaintiffs' contractual notice obligation did not apply to its claim for indemnification, plaintiffs had no duty to mitigate prior to defendants' breach, and unclean hands was not a defense to a purely legal claim for breach.