Filter This View

  • Otto Candies LLC v. KPMG, LLP

    Publication Date: 2020-09-09
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Accounting
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Ross, Ross, Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Terry L. Wit, Juan P. Morillo, Derek L. Shaffer, Lauren H. Dickie, and David H. Needham, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA and Washington, DC for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Kevin R. Shannon, Matthew F. Davis, and Christopher N. Kelly, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gregory G. Ballard and Jose F. Sanchez, Sidley Austin LLP, New York, NY; Todd Schiltz, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert A. Scher and Jonathan H. Friedman, Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, NY; Timothy Jay Houseal, Jennifer M. Kinkus, William E. Gamgort, Young Conaway Stargatt & T aylor LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ana C. Reyes, Williams & Connolly, LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.
    Case Number: D69113

    Negligence action under vicarious liability failed where plaintiffs failed to establish existence of agency or joint venture relationship between defendant and alleged tortfeasor due to the lack of written agreement as required by applicable Mexico law or existence of required elements under applicable Delaware or New York law to find agency or joint venture relationship.

  • Otto Candies LLC v. KPMG, LLP

    Publication Date: 2019-05-08
    Practice Area: Business Torts | Civil Procedure
    Industry: Consulting | Transportation
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Ross, Ross, Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Terry L. Wit, A. William Urquhart, Juan P. Morillo, Derek L. Shaffer, and Lauren H. Dickie, Quinn Emanual Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA and Washington, DC for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Kevin R. Shannon, Matthew F. Davis, and Christopher N. Kelly, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gregory G. Ballard and Jose F. Sanchez, Sidley Austin LLP, New York, NY; Todd Schlitz, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert A. Scher and Jonathan H. Friedman, Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, NY; Timothy Jay Houseal, Jennifer M. Kinkus, and William E. Gamgord, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ana C. Reyes, Williams & Connolly, LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.
    Case Number: D68551

    Actions transferred from superior court to chancery court subject to a fully-briefed and argued motion to dismiss were subject to the chancery court's rule requiring plaintiffs subject to such a motion to either seek leave to amend or stand on their complaint and risk dismissal with prejudice; however, as a matter of first impression the court declined to enforce the rule on plaintiffs.

  • Otto Candies, LLC v. KPMG LLP

    Publication Date: 2019-03-13
    Practice Area: Business Torts
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Energy
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Ross, Ross, Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Terry L. Wit, A. William Urquhart, Juan P. Morillo, Derek L. Shaffer, and Lauren H. Dickie, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA and Washingto, DC for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Kevin R. Shannon, Matthew F. Davis, and Christopher N. Kelly, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gregory G. Ballard and Jose F. Sanchez, Sidley Austin LLP, New York, NY; Todd Schlitz, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert A. Scher and Jonathan H. Friedman, Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, NY; Timothy J. Houseal, Jennifer M. Kinkus, and William E. Gamgort, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ana C. Reyes, Williams & Connolly, Washington, DC, attorneys for defendants.
    Case Number: D68489

    Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim against their debtor's auditing firm dismissed where the court lacked personal jurisdiction over foreign subsidiaries and where there was no privity of contract or special relationship between plaintiffs and auditor or justifiable reliance on alleged misrepresentations.