Filter This View

  • Tornetta v. Musk

    Publication Date: 2024-12-17
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Automotive | Manufacturing
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory V. Varallo, Daniel E. Meyer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Margaret Sanborn-Lowing, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer, David M. Sborz, Jackson E. Warren, Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jeremy S. Friedman, Spencer M. Oster, David F.E. Tejtel, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC; Bedford Hills, New York for plaintiff.
    for defendant: David E. Ross, Garrett B. Moritz, Thomas C. Mandracchia, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael A. Barlow, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Alex B. Spiro, Christopher D. Kercher, Jonathan E. Feder, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; Kathleen M. Sullivan, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel Slifkin, Vanessa A. Lavely, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY; Catherine A. Gaul, Randall J. Teti, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE; John L. Reed, Ronald N. Brown, III, Caleb G. Johnson, Daniel P. Klusman, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE; William M. Lafferty, Susan W. Waesco, Ryan D. Stottmann, Miranda N. Gilbert, Jacob M. Perrone, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Rudolf Koch, John D. Hendershot, Kevin M. Gallagher, Andrew L. Milam, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Brian T. Frawley, Matthew A. Schwartz, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY; A. Thompson Bayliss, Adam K. Schulman, Eliezer Y. Feinstein, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kristen R. Seeger, John M. Skakun III, Elizabeth Y. Austin, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL for defendants.
    Case Number: 2018-0408-KSJM

    Court rejected board's post-trial efforts to obtain stockholder "ratification" of executive compensation award that failed to meet entire fairness standard where ratification was an affirmative defense required to be raised before the close of trial and where material misstatements and omissions in proxy materials meant the vote alone could not ratify a conflicted controller driven award.

  • In re LendingClub Corp. Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2019-11-13
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Brian D. Long and Gina M. Serra, Rigrodsky &7 Long, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Robert I. Harwood and Matthew M. Houston, Harwood Feffer LLP, New York, NY; Brett D. Stecker and James M. Ficaro, The Weiser Law Firm, P.C., Berwyn, PA for lead plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Raymond J. Dicamillo and Eliezer Y. Feinstein, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Adam S. Paris, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants Morris, Ciporin, Crowe, Meeker, Sanborn, Summers and Williams. Raymond J. DiCamillo, Eliezer Y. Feinstein, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Jonathan D. Polkes, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY for defendant Mack. Myron T. Steele, T. Brad Davey and Callan R. Jackson, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert J. Liubicic, Scott A. Edelman, Adam Fee and Andrew Lichtenberg, Milbank LLP, Los Angeles, CA and New York, NY for defendant Laplanche. Jody C. Barillare, Charlene S. Shimada, Susan D. Resley, Lucy Wang and Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE, San Francisco, CA and Philadelphia, PA for defend-ant Dolan. William M. Lafferty, Susan W. Waesco and Sabrina M. Hendershot, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wil-mington, DE; Diane M. Doolittle, David M. Grable, Jospeh C. Sarles, Jordan E. Alexander and John Potter, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, Los Angeles, CA and San Francisco, CA for nominal defendant LendingClub Corp.
    Case Number: D68771

    Stockholders in this derivative suit failed to establish that a majority of the demand board faced a substantial likelihood of personal liability.