Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
322 results for 'K////// industry:"Investments and Investment Advisory"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2021-07-07
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris of Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randall J. Baron, David A. Knotts, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; Christopher H. Lyons, Robbins Geller Rud-man & Dowd LLP, Nashville, TN; Brian J. Robbins, Stephen J. Oddo, Gregory Del Gaizo, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for lead plaintiff.
for defendant: Kenneth J. Nachbar, John P. DiTomo, Thomas P. Will, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sara B. Brody, Jaime A. Bartlett, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA; Matthew J. Dolan, Sidley Austin LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Thomas A. Beck, Blake K. Rohrbacher, Susan M. Hannigan, Matthew D. Perri, Daniel E. Kaprow, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Kevin R. Shannon, Berton W. Ashman, Jr., Pot-ter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Arthur H. Aufses, Jonathan M. Wagner, Jason M. Moff, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY; Elena C. Norman, Nicholas J. Rohrer, Richard J. Thomas, Benjamin Potts, Kevin P. Rickert, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter A. Wald, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA; Blair Connelly, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69458
The court granted motions to dismiss as to two defendants in this breach of fiduciary duty matter, but it de-nied another defendant's motion because that party was not independent and had actively participated in the negotiation of the challenged transaction.
Publication Date: 2021-06-23
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer, Jessica Zeldin, David M. Sborz, Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, DE; Gregory V. Varallo, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark Lebovitch, Da-vid Wales, Andrew Blumberg, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, New York, NY; Jeffrey M. Gorris, Christopher M. Foulds, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Jeremy S. Friedman, David F.E. Tejtel, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC, Bedford Hills, NY; D. Seamus Kaskela, Kaskela Law LLC, Newtown Square, PA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Michael A. Pittenger, Matthew F. Davis, David A. Seal, Caneel Radinson-Blasucci, Potter Anderson & Cor-roon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael P. Kelly, Daniel M. Silver, Sarah E. Delia, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Carl N. Kunz, III, K. Tyler O’Connell, Albert J. Carroll, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ronald L. Berenstain, Sean C. Knowles, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA; Susan W. Waesco, John P. DiTomo, Daniel T. Menken, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Blake Rohrbacher, Matthew W. Murphy, Elizabeth A. Heise, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69443
Plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to indicate the existence of a control group, and the conflicted transaction in this case was subject to entire fairness review.
Publication Date: 2021-06-16
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Blake A. Bennett, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; P. Bradford deLeeuw, deLeeuw Law LLC, Wil-mington, DE; Lee Squitieri, Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, New York, NY; Jeffrey S. Abraham, Michael J. Klein, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky LLP, New York, NY; Donald J. Enright, Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Jordan Cafritz, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Edward B. Micheletti, Jenness E. Parker, of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; Scott D. Musoff, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69435
The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss this derivative because plaintiffs failed to meet the con-temporaneous ownership requirement, so they lacked standing.
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.
Publication Date: 2021-06-09
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Aman K. Sharma, Igwe & Sharma, LLC, Wilmington, DE; E. Jordan Teague, Beau B. Brogdon, Campbell Teague LLC, Greenville, SC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Albert J. Carroll, P. Clarkson Collins, Jr., Christopher P. Quinn, Barnaby Grzaslewicz, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: D69429
The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss because plaintiff alleged only an "agreement to agree" ra-ther than an enforceable contract.
Publication Date: 2021-05-26
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ned Weinberger, Mark Richardson, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Wilmington, DE; David MacIsaac, John Vielandi, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY; Chad Johnson, Noam Mandel, Desiree Cummings, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, New York, NY; Brian Schall, Rina Restaino, The Schall Law Firm, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, April M. Kirby, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Alan S. Goudiss, K. Mallory Brennan, Deke Shearon Shearman & Sterling LLP; Christina Urhausen, Shearman & Sterling LLP, San Francisco, CA; Rudolf Koch, Matthew D. Perri, Andrew L. Milam, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Matthew A. Schwartz, Y. Carson Zhou, John-Francis S. Flynn, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69408
Stockholder could seek entire fairness review of company sale under controller theory where investor that had formed the company continued to exercise soft power over the company's management, which allegedly prioritized the investor's interests over shareholder value during the sales process.
April 21, 2021 | Legaltech News
The online marketplace says it will use the new influx of capital to further expand and enhance its on-demand legal services.
1 minute read
Publication Date: 2021-04-14
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor Bouchard
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Blake A. Bennett, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Brian J. Robbins, Stephen J. Oddo, Emily R. Bishop, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, Joseph A. Sparco, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; James N. Kramer, Alexander K. Talarides, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendants.
Case Number: D69359
Derivative complaint dismissed for failure to make pre-suit demand where lack of evidence that a majority of directors acted knowingly and deliberately in permitting the company to violate consumer protection laws or providing false and misleading information to the public meant that directors were exculpated from bad faith claims and therefore faced no substantial likelihood of personal liability and could independently evaluate a litigation demand.
Publication Date: 2021-03-11
Practice Area: Dispute Resolution
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Susan Carney
Attorneys: For plaintiff: For Plaintiff-Appellant: James E. Miller, Laurie Rubinow, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Chester, CT, on the brief, Monique Olivier, Olivier Schreiber & Chao LLP, San Francisco, CA.
for defendant: For Defendant-Appellee: Frank W. Olander, Minji Reem, on the brief, Robert J. Ward, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, New York, NY.
Case Number: 17-2805
ERISA Fiduciary Duty Breach Claim Is Not Related to Employment, Need Not Be Arbitrated
Publication Date: 2021-03-03
Practice Area: Insurance Law
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Insurance | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Wallace
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Donald L. Gouge, Jr., Donald L. Gouge, Jr., LLC, Wilmington, DE; Michael J. Miller, Joseph M. Kelleher Philip J. Farinella, Cozen O’Connor, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Steven L. Caponi, Matthew B. Goeller, K&L Gates LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ari Ruben, Susman Godfrey LLP, New York, NY; Steven G. Sklaver, Susman Godfrey LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendant.
Case Number: D69312
Although stranger-oriented life insurance policy holder could not maintain void policy under theories of estoppel or waiver, insurance company's acceptance of holder as owner and beneficiary and acceptance of payment of premiums could support fraud claim against insurer.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
