Search Results

October 18, 2021 | Daily Business Review

Slow Deal Week, But Dealmakers Lining Up to Avoid Next Year's Corporate Tax Increase

Just five combinations cracked the $1 billion mark this week.

11 minute read

Wells Fargo Bank v. Aegon USA Investment Mgmt. LLC

Publication Date: 2021-08-31
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Appellate Division, First Department
Judge: Associate Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels
Attorneys: For plaintiff: For Aegon USA Investment Management, LLC, BlackRock Financial Management, Inc., Cascade Investment, LLC, Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., Federal National Mortgage Association, Goldman Sachs Asset Mgmt L.P., Voya Investment Mgmt LLC, Invesco Advisers, Inc., Kore Advisors, L.P., Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., Pacific Investment Mgmt Company LLC, Teachers Ins. and Annuity Assoc. of America, TCW Group, Inc., Thrivent Financial for Lutherans and Western Asset Mgmt. Co. (the "Institutional Investors"), Appellants: Kenneth E. Warner of counsel, Warner Partners, P.C., New York, and David M. Sheeren of the bar of the State of Texas, admitted pro hac vice of counsel, Gibbs & Bruns LLP, Houston, TX. For American General Life Insurance Company, American Home Assurance Company, Lexington Insurance Company, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA., The United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York and The Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company (the "AIG Parties"), Appellants: Kevin S. Reed of counsel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York. For DW Partners LP and Ellington Management Group, L.L.C. (the "DW/Ellington Parties"), Appellants: David I. Greenberger of counsel, Bailey Duquette P.C., New York, and Isaac M. Gradman of the bar of the State of California, admitted pro hac vice of counsel, Perry Johnson Anderson Miller & Moskowitz LLP, Santa Rosa, CA. For Tilden Park Investment Master Fund LP, Tilden Park Management I LLC, and Tilden Park Capital Management LP (the "Tilden Park Parties"), Appellants: Jonathan L. Hochman and Anna Vinogradov of counsel, Schindler Cohen & Hochman LLP, New York, and Philip Bentley and Andrew Pollack of counsel, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York.
for defendant: For Ambac Assurance Corporation, Appellant: Henry J. Ricardo of counsel, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York. For Poetic Holdings VI LLC, Poetic Holdings VII LLC, and Prophet Mortgage Opportunities LP (the "Prophet and Poetic Parties"), Appellants: Felix J. Gilman and Donald W. Hawthorne of counsel, Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, New York. For U.S. Bank N.A., solely in its capacity as NIM Trustee for the Poetic and Prophet Trusts and as NIM Trustee for the HBK Trusts, Appellant: Martin Gilmore and Sean Connery of counsel, Perkins Coie LLP, New York. For U.S. Bank N.A., solely in its capacity as NIM Trustee for the HBK Trusts (the "HBK Parties"), Appellant: Danielle L. Rose, Zachary D. Rosenbaum and Darryl G. Stein of counsel, Kobre & Kim LLP, New York. For Nover Ventures LLC, Respondent: Robert W. Scheef, Gayle R. Klein, David I. Schiefelbein and Steven R. Fisher of counsel, McKool Smith, P.C., New York. For D.E. Shaw Refraction Portfolios, L.L.C. ("D.E. Shaw"), Respondent: Charles R. Jacob III of counsel, Goulston & Storrs PC, New York, and Isaac M. Gradman of the bar of the State of California, Edward P. Allinson, of the bar of the State of California, admitted pro hac vice of counsel and Kristin A. Mattiske-Nicholls, Perry, Johnson, Anderson, Miller & Moskowitz LLP, Santa Rosa, CA. For Strategos Capital Management, LLC, Respondent: Mauricio A. España of counsel, Dechert LLP, New York. For Olifant Fund, Ltd., FFI Fund Ltd. and FYI Ltd. (the "Olifant Funds"), Respondents: Diana M. Conner and Peter W. Tomlinson of counsel, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York. For GMO Opportunistic Fund and GMO Global Real Return (the "GMO Parties"), Respondents: Joshua S. Sturm and Marie Killmond of counsel, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, New York. For Amicus Curiae: Maya D. Cater of counsel, Kleinberg, Kaplan, Wolff & Cohen, P.C., New York.
Case Number: 657387/17

Court Determines the Distribution of Global Settlement Payment by JPMorgan to Investors

In re Oracle Corp. Derivative Litig.

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.

RCS Creditor Trust v. Schorsch

Publication Date: 2021-03-31
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip Trainer, Jr., Marie M. Degnan, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; John P. Coffey, Gregory A. Horo-witz, Jeffrey S. Trachtman, Leah S. Friedman, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY for plain-tiff.
for defendant: Daniel A. Mason, Paull, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Allan J. Arffa, Gregory F. Laufer of Paull, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69348

The court granted summary judgment because a corporate controller did not breach his fiduciary duty by making a business decision regarding how he would vote his shares.

In re Oracle Corp. Derivative Litig.

Publication Date: 2020-08-05
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Software
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris, Christopher P. Quinn and Bradley P. Lehman, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randall J. Baron, David A. Knotts and Christopher H. Lyons, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA and Nashville, TN; Brian J. Robbins, Stephen J. Oddo and Gregory Del Gaizo, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Kevin R. Shannon, Berton W. Ashman, Jr. and David A. Seal, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Arthur H. Aufses, Jonathan M. Wagner and Jason M. Moff, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY for Oracle Corp. special litigation committee. Elena C. Norman and Richard J. Thomas, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter A. Wald and Blair Connelly, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA and New York, NY for defendants Ellison and Catz. Kenneth J. Nachbar, John P. DiTomo and Thomas P. Will, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sara B. Brody, Jaime A. Bartlett and Matthew J. Dolan, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA and Palo Alto, CA for defendants Henley, James and Hurd. Thomas A. Beck, Blake Rohrbacher, Susan M. Hannigan, Matthew D. Perri and Daniel E. Kaprow, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for Oracle Corp.
Case Number: D69057

The court denied plaintiff's motion to compel because the documents sought were protected as work product and the op-posing party had not waived the privilege.

In re Oracle Corp. Derivative Litig.

Publication Date: 2020-07-22
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Software
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris, Christopher P. Quinn and Bradley P. Lehman, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randall J. Baron, David A. Knotts and Christopher H. Lyons, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA and Nashville, TN; Brian J. Robbins, Stephen J. Oddo and Gregory Del Gaizo, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Kevin R. Shannon, Berton W. Ashman, Jr. and David A. Seal, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Arthur H. Aufses, Jonathan M. Wagner and Jason M. Moff, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY for Oracle Corp. special litigation committee. Elena C. Norman and Richard J. Thomas, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter A. Wald and Blair Connelly, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA and New York, NY for defendants Ellison and Catz. Kenneth J. Nachbar, John P. DiTomo and Thomas P. Will, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sara B. Brody, Jaime A. Bartlett and Matthew J. Dolan, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA and Palo Alto, CA for defendants Henley, James and Hurd. Thomas A. Beck, Blake Rohrbacher, Susan M. Hannigan, Matthew D. Perri and Daniel E. Kaprow, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for Oracle Corp.
Case Number: D69057

The court denied plaintiff's motion to compel because the documents sought were protected as work prod-uct and the opposing party had not waived the privilege.

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.

Garfield v. Blackrock Mortgage Ventures, LLC

Publication Date: 2020-01-08
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kurt M. Heyman, Aaron M. Nelson, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jason M. Leviton, Joel A. Fleming, Amanda R. Crawford, Block & Leviton LLP, Boston, MA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Kenneth J. Nachbar, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, DE; Deborah S. Birnbach, Jennifer B. Luz, Katherine B. Dacey, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA; Kevin R. Shannon, Berton W. Ashman, Jr., Callan R. Jackson, Potter Andersoon & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; John P. Coffey, Adina C. Levine, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY; David E. Ross, S. Michael Sirkin, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: D68832

Corporate restructuring transaction was subject to entire fairness review rather than receiving the benefit of the business judgment rule where two large stockholders formed controller group who received special benefits from the reorganization that ordinary stockholders did not receive.

October 11, 2019 | New York Law Journal

Investments by Insurers: How They're Regulated and Why It Matters

Understanding the background and interplay of the insurance laws that govern investments by carriers can provide some context to these developments and also shed light on a key aspect of solvency regulation of this critical U.S. industry.

1 minute read

Gupta v. U.S.

Publication Date: 2019-01-18
Practice Area: Criminal Law | Securities Litigation | White Collar Crime
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Judge: Per Curiam
Attorneys: For plaintiff: For Petitioner‐Appellant: David S. Frankel, Alan R. Friedman, Robin M. Wilcox, Elliot A. Smith, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, New York, New York, on the brief, Gary P. Naftalis, New York, New York
for defendant: For Respondent‐Appellee: Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Margaret Garnett, Assistant United States Attorney, New York, New York, on the brief, Damian Williams, Assistant United States Attorney, New York, New York
Case Number: 15-2707

Denial of Securities Fraud Convictions' §2255 Vacatur Over Jury Instruction Is Affirmed