Filter This View

  • In re Oracle Corp. Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2025-02-04
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Software | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Seitz
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris, David Hahn, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Christopher H. Lyons, Tayler D. Bolton, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Wilmington, DE; Randall J. Baron, David A. Knotts, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; Gregory Del Gaizo, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for appellants.
    for defendant: Elena C. Norman, Richard J. Thomas, Alberto E. Chávez, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter A. Wald, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA; Blair Connelly, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Melissa Arbus Sherry, Christopher S. Turner, Blake E. Stafford, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, D.C.; Kevin R. Shannon, Berton W. Ashman, Jr., Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Arthur H. Aufses III, Jonathan M. Wagner, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY for appellees.
    Case Number: 139, 2024

    Chancery court correctly rejected derivative claims where there was insufficient evidence to conclude that defendant company's founder qualified as a controller with a conflict of interest as a major stockholder of the target company, as founder did not exercise undue influence over the board nor did he interfere with special committee's evaluation of the transaction.

  • November 13, 2024 | National Law Journal

    Justices Ask If They Should Have Even Taken Nvidia’s Appeal of Investor Suit

    “This is pure error correction that you’re asking us to do,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told NVIDIA’s lawyer, Neal Katyal.

    1 minute read