• January 10, 2025 | Litigation Daily

    Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs

    Lawyers from Haynes Boone, King & Spalding, Legal Aid at Work and the Impact Fund reached a settlement with the U.S. Department of Defense that will allow LGBTQ+ veterans discharged before the end of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy to remove discriminatory indicators from their military records and potentially upgrade their discharge statuses.

    1 minute read

  • May 19, 2023 | Delaware Business Court Insider

    Latham Defends Oracle's $9.3B NetSuite Deal In Chancery Court Trial

    Peter Wald, Blair Connelly and their team at Latham & Watkins defended Oracle founder Larry Ellison and co-CEO Safra Catz from shareholder derivative claims stemming from Ellison's position as a major stakeholder at both companies.

    13 minute read

  • May 19, 2023 | Litigation Daily

    Litigators of the Week: In Delaware Chancery Trial, Latham Defends Oracle's $9.3B NetSuite Deal

    Peter Wald, Blair Connelly and their team at Latham & Watkins defended Oracle founder Larry Ellison and co-CEO Safra Catz from shareholder derivative claims stemming from Ellison's position as a major stakeholder at both companies.

    12 minute read

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • In re: Oracle Corp. Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2020-07-08
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: 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: 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. A. Thompson Bayliss and E. Wade Houston, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; John W. Spiegel, George M. Garvey and John M. Gildersleeve, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendant Goldberg. Andrew S. Dupre and Sarah E. Delia, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert P. Feldman and Christopher D. Kercher, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA and New York, NY for defendant Nelson. Thomas A. Beck, Blake Rohrbacher, Susan M. Hannigan, Matthew D. Perri and Daniel E. Kaprow, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. , Wilmington, DE for nominal defendant Oracle Corp.

    Case Number: D69043

    Fiduciaries for an acquired entity did not engage in aiding and abetting, because they did not provide substantial assistance to the buyer's fiduciaries in breaching their duties.

  • In re Oracle Corp. Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2019-12-18
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Software | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris and Christopher P. Quinn, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randal J. Baron, David A. Knotts and Christopher H. Lyons, Robbins Geller Rudman & Down LLP, San Diego, CA and Nashville, TN; Brian J. Robbins, Stephen J. Oddo and Gregory Del Gaizo, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for lead plaintiff.
    for defendant: Elena C. Norman, Richard J. Thomas, Benjamin M. Potts, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter A. Wald, Blair Connelly and Rachel J. Rodriguez, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA and New York, NY for defendants Ellison and Catz. Kenneth J. Nachbar, John P. DiTomo, Thomas P. Will and Corinne R. Moini, 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 Hurd Estate, Henley, Conrades, James, Panetta, Boskin, Berg, Garcia-Molina, Seligman, Chizen and Bingham. A. Thompson Bayliss and E. Wade Houston, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; John W. Spiegel, George M. Garvey and John M. Gildersleeve, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendant Goldberg. Andrew S. Dupre, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert P. Feldman and Christopher D. Kercher, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sulli-van LLP, Redwood Shores, CA and New York, NY for defendant Nelson. Thomas A. Beck, Blake Rohrbacher, Susan M. Han-nigan, Matthew D. Perri and Daniel E. Kaprow, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for nominal defendant Ora-cle Corp.

    Case Number: D68809

    Where a special litigation committee concluded that a litigation asset should be turned over to the lead plaintiff to pursue a derivative action on behalf of the corporation, plaintiff was entitled to all relevant documents considered by the committee.

  • July 13, 2016 | Delaware Business Court Insider

    Demand Futility Requirement Twist: New Board Reviews Derivative Complaint

    The recent decision by Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Chancery Court in Park E

    1 minute read