Filter This View

  • Energy Transfer, LP v. The Williams Cos., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-10-23
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Energy
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Griffiths
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: James M. Yoch, Alberto E. Chávez, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, Wilmington, DE; Paul D. Clement, Matthew D. Rowen, Clement & Murphy, PLLC, Alexandria, VA for appellants.
    for defendant: Kenneth J. Nachbar, Susan Wood Waesco, Matthew R. Clark, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Antony L. Ryan, Kevin J. Orsini, Michael P. Addis, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY for appellee.
    Case Number: 391, 2022

    Chancery court's determination that counterparty did not breach merger agreement was supported by record evidence demonstrating that company continued to use best efforts to consummate the merger, entitling it to reimbursement of a prior termination fee and precluding liability for a breakup fee.

  • In re Tesla Motors, Inc. Stockholder Litig.

    Publication Date: 2023-06-20
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Automotive | Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Valihura
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jay W. Eisenhofer, Christine M. Mackintosh, Kelly L. Tucker, Vivek Upadhya, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael Hanrahan, Kevin H. Davenport, Samuel L. Closic, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Daniel L. Berger, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., New York, NY; Lee D. Rudy, Eric L. Zagar, Justice O. Reliford, Matthew Benedict, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor, PA; Randall J. Baron, David T. Wissbroecker, Robbins Gellar Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA for appellants.
    for defendant: David E. Ross, Garrett B. Moritz, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Evan R. Chesler, Daniel Slifkin, Vanessa A. Lavely, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY for appellee.
    Case Number: 181, 2022

    Chancery court correctly found acquisition of company partially owned by controlling stockholder was entirely fair where stockholder recused himself from shareholder vote, the board operated independently, and evidence demonstrated that the acquired company had value from long-term cash flows and was not worthless due to being insolvent.

  • KT4 Partners LLC v. Palantir Tech. Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-02-13
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Strine
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Bartholomew J. Dalton and Michael C. Dalton, Dalton & Assoc., P.A., Wilmington, DE; Barry S. Simon, Jonathan B. Pitt and Stephen L. Wohlgemuth, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Blake Rohrbacher, Kevin M. Gallagher and Kelly L. Freund, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilming-ton, DE; Kevin J. Orsini and Rory A. Leraris, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY for defendant.
    Case Number: D68458

    The chancery court abused its discretion in refusing to allow a shareholder to inspect emails under a §220 books and records, request, because the corporation did not have any formal documents relating to the amend-ment of an investors' rights agreement.