Filter This View

  • Trifecta Multimedia Holdings Inc. v. WCG Clinical Serv. LLC

    Publication Date: 2024-06-25
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Bradley R. Aronstam, Roger S. Stronach, Holley E. Newell, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; David S. Flugman, Lauren J. Zimmerman, Korey Boehm, Selendy Gay PLLC, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Susan W. Waesco, Emily C. Friedman, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; William C. Jackson, Ashley Moore Drake, Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, D.C.; Ariel E. Rogers, Goodwin Procter LLP, Redwood City, CA; Lauren E. Jackson, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA for defendant.
    Case Number: 2023-0699-JTL

    Statements that did not constitute mere puffery were sufficient to state a fraud claim where plaintiff adequately alleged defendant's scienter and where the parties' contract lacked an anti-reliance clause.

  • September 15, 2023 | Litigation Daily

    Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout Outs

    When a $1 billion, top 20 all-time securities settlement is among the runners-up, you know it's been a crazy week.

    9 minute read

  • Hawkins v. Daniel

    Publication Date: 2021-09-08
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard I. G. Jones, Jr., John G. Harris, Berger Harris LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: David J. Teklits, Sara Toscano, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeffrey Alan Simes, Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, NY for defendant.
    Case Number: D69526

    Court declined to dismiss case in favor of previously-filed action involving the parties, where the present case involved distinct issues and the previously-filed action was heading to trial, such that dismissing the present case would not serve judicial economy by forcing the previously-filed action to return to the pleadings stage.