• In re Kraft Heinz Co.

    Publication Date: 2021-12-28
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Food and Beverage | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey Gorris, Christopher M. Foulds, Friedlander & Gorris P.A., Wilmington, DE; P. Bradford deLeeuw, Deleeuw Law LLC, Wilmington, DE; David A. Jenkins, Robert K. Beste III, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Eduard Korsinsky, Gregory M. Nespole, Nicholas I. Porritt, Daniel Tepper, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, New York, NY; Jeffrey S. Abraham, Mitchell M. Z. Twersky, Atara Hirsch, Michael J. Klein, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, New York, NY; Lawrence P. Eagel, W. Scott Holleman, Melissa A. Fortunato, Marion C. Passmore, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., New York, NY; Michael VanOverbeke, Vanoverbeke, Michaud & Timmony, P.C., Detroit, MI; Deborah Sturman, Sturman LLC, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Michael A. Pittenger, Jacqueline A. Rogers, Caneel Radinson-Blasucci, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sandra C. Goldstein, Stefan Atkinson, Kevin M. Neylan, Jr., Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY; Matthew D. Stachel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Daniel J. Kramer, Andrew J. Ehrlich, William A. Clareman, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: D69657

    The court held that plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient allegations that a majority of the demand board was interested in a stock sale transaction such that demand would be excused.

  • Equity-League Pension Trust Fund v. Great Hill Partners L.P.

    Publication Date: 2021-12-14
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Corinne Elise Amato, Kevin H. Davenport, Jason W. Rigby, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Eric L. Zagar, Matthew C. Benedict, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor, PA; Patrick C. Lynch, Lynch & Pine, Providence, RI, for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Paul J. Lockwood, Jenness E. Parker, Jacob J. Fedechko, Trevor T. Nielsen, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Wilmington, DE; John L. Reed, Ronald N. Brown, III, Peter H. Kyle, Kelly L. Fruend, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE; Rudolf Koch, Matthew D. Perri, Andrew L. Milam, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Roberto M. Braceras, Caroline H. Bullerjahn, John A. Barker, Dylan E. Schweers, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA; Kurt M. Heyman, Gillian L. Andrews, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hir-zel, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brandon F. White, Euripides Dalmanieras, Leah S. Rizkallah, Foley Hoag LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.

    Case Number: D69638

    The court held in this derivative suit that demand was not excused where there was no showing that at least five members of a nine-member board of directors were unable to consider a pre-suit demand. Motions to dismiss granted.

  • In Re Vaxart Inc. Stockholder Litig.

    Publication Date: 2021-12-14
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Biotechnology | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen E. Jenkins, F. Troupe Mickler, IV, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Gregory V. Varallo, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Daniel E. Meyer, Margaret Sanborn-Lowing, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Gustavo F. Bruckner, Samuel J.Adams, Daryoush Behbood, Pomerantz LLP, New York, NY; Sascha N. Rand, Rollo C. Baker, IV , Silpa Maruri, Jesse Bernstein, Charles H. Sangree, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; Stanley D. Bernstein, Matthew Guarnero, Bernstein Liebhard LLP, New York, NY; William J. Fields, Christopher J. Kupka, Samir Shukurov, Fields Kupka & Shukurov LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Brock E. Czeschin, Andrew L. Milam, Richards Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Riccardo DeBari, Renee Zaytsev, Mendy Pie-karski, Thompson Hine, New York, NY; Matthew F. Davis, Abraham C. Schneider, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Douglas A. Rappaport, Kaitlin D. Shapiro, Elizabeth C. Rosen, Madeleine R. Freeman, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: D69639

    The court held that plaintiff shareholders were required to make a demand on the board prior to filing suit. Because they did not make a demand, their claims failed. Motion to dismiss granted.

  • Knott Partners L.P. v. Telepathy Labs, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-12-07
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Neal C. Belgam, Jason Z. Miller, Michael C. Wagner, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Christopher M. Caparelli, Torys LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Thomas G. Macauley, Macauley LLC, Wilmington, DE; Euripides D. Dalmanieras, Foley Hoag LLP, Boston, MA for defendant.

    Case Number: D69631

    Where a corporation failed to update its stock ledger after acknowledging a convertible note holder's conversion into preferred stock, court could look to extrinsic evidence beyond the ledger to determine standing for a §220 demand.

  • In Re Impinj, Inc. Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2021-12-07
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Manufacturing | Software | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Phillip Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., New York, NY; Timothy Brown, The Brown Law Firm, P.C., Oyster Bay, NY; Marion C. Passmore, Melissa A. Fortunato, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Lori W. Will, Nora M. Crawford, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Gregory L. Watts, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Seattle, WA for defendants.

    Case Number: D69636

    The court found the settlement in this derivative action to be fair and reasonable where the balance of the Girsh factors favored settlement.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New York Attorney Discipline: Practice and Procedure 2024

    Authors: Hal R. Lieberman, J. Richard Supple, Jr., Harvey Prager

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Kiger v. Mollenkopf

    Publication Date: 2021-11-30
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Blake A. Bennett, Cooch & Taylor, P.A. Wilmington, DE, Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Albert Y. Chang, Anne Beste, Yury A. Kolesnikov, Bottini & Bottini, Inc., La Jolla, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Jonathan A. Choa, Potter, Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Koji Fukumura, Peter M. Adams, Heather Speers, Cooley, LLP, San Diego, CA; Brian French, Cooley, LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: D69626

    The court held that plaintiffs' claims for breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment should be dismissed for failing to plead demand futility.

  • Drachman v. Cukier

    Publication Date: 2021-11-16
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Steven J. Purcell, Douglas E. Julie, Robert H. Lefkowitz, Anisha Mirchandani, Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Blake Rohrbacher, Alexander M. Krischik, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Caroline H. Bullerjahn, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA; Peter B. Ladig, Brett M. McCartney, Bayard P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: D69606

    The court held that plaintiffs' amended complaint satisfied pleading requirements for a claim of breach of fiduciary duty concerning board approval and implementation of charter amendments where 1) plaintiffs made a valid demand on the board to correct a violation and 2) the allegations supported an inference that the demand was wrongfully refused.

  • Totta v. CCSB Fin. Corp.

    Publication Date: 2021-11-02
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin H. Davenport, John G. Day, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Art. C. Aranilla, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Brett A. Scher, Patrick M. Kennell, Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP, New York, NY for defendant.

    Case Number: D69591

    Motion to dismiss challenge to board election denied where motion referred to documents outside of the pleadings, requiring conversion of the motion to one for summary judgment, under which standard the court determined that further factfinding was required.

  • In Re: Old BPSUSH, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-10-27
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew M. Carty, Brown Rudnick LLP, New York, NY; James W. Stoll, Brian M. Alosco, Brown Rudnick LLP, Boston, MA; Garvin McDaniel, Hogan McDaniel, Wilmington, DE for appellant.
    for defendant: Robert A. Fumerton, Lisa Laukitis, William J. O’Brien, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY; Paul J. Lockwood, Jason M. Liberi, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; Chris Paparella, Nathaniel J. Kritzer, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, New York NY; John J. Byron, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Chicago, IL; Jeremy W. Ryan, D. Ryan Slaugh, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE for appellees.

    Case Number: D69586

    In this adversary proceeding, the counterclaims filed by liquidation trustee against former directors and officers of debtor failed to state the necessary elements of breach of duty of care and loyalty because trustee did not plead gross negligence.

  • Firemen's Ret. Fund of St. Louis v. Sorenson

    Publication Date: 2021-10-20
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Hospitality and Lodging | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Samuel L. Closic, Eric Juray, Prickett, Jones & Elliot, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Brian J. Robbins, Craig W. Smith, Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Emily R. Bishop, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiff
    for defendant: Raymond J. DiCamillo, John M. O’Toole, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Jason J. Mendro, Jeffrey S. Rosenberg, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, D.C.; Adam H. Offenhartz, Laura Kathryn O’Boyle, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: D69575

    The court dismissed breach of fiduciary duty claims brought against directors arising out of a data breach because certain claims were time-barred, and plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts of failure of oversight by directors.