Delaware Chancery Clarifies Duty Of Disclosure
|
|
- Roderick Nicholson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Page 1 of 12 Portfolio Media. Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY Phone: Fax: customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Delaware Chancery Clarifies Duty Of Disclosure Law360, New York (August 04, 2008) -- The Delaware Chancery Court recently issued two opinions focusing on, among other things, the duty of disclosure in the context of merger transactions. In In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. (Del. Ch., Civil Action No CC 6/16/08), Chancellor Chandler granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants for alleged breaches of the duty of disclosure in connection with a merger of two unrelated Delaware corporations. In Berger v. Pubco Corp. (Del. Ch., Civil Action No CC 5/30/08), Chancellor Chandler created a quasi-appraisal to remedy breaches of disclosure duties in connection with a short-form merger, as well as to remedy breaches of the formal requirements of the Delaware short-form merger statute. While each of these decisions grappled with claims and issues in addition to the duty of disclosure, the conclusions of the Chancery Court in each case with regard to the duty of disclosure are particularly instructive. The Duty of Disclosure The duty of disclosure represents the proposition that directors of Delaware corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to disclose fully and fairly all material information within the board s control when it seeks shareholder action. [1] While often called a duty, the requirement to disclose material facts is not a separate duty of a company s board of directors. Rather, the duty of disclosure is the application in a specific context of the board s fiduciary duties of care, good faith and loyalty. [2] While associated with well established duties, the elements and requirements of the duty of
2 Page 2 of 12 disclosure remain unsettled and are not absolute. Due to the unique issues and considerations that impact the assessment of whether to disclose information, attorneys and their clients must use judgment and reason when faced with evaluating what information to disclose as well as in determining what liability may arise from the failure to make proper disclosure.[3] With regard to remedies for breaches of the duty to disclose, the position of the Delaware courts has evolved over time, and at one point, it appeared that the failure to properly disclose material information would result in per se damages for breach of the fiduciary duty of disclosure.[4] Recently, however, the Delaware courts have refined their view of damages for breaches of the duty of disclosure so that the current position is that a breach of the duty of disclosure does not automatically result in a nominal damages award. In fact, in Transkaryotic, the Delaware Chancery Court proclaimed that [i]t is now clear that some breaches of the disclosure duty result in no award of damages at all. [5] The current preference of the Delaware courts appears to avoid post-transaction damage awards in lieu of pre-transaction motions for preliminary injunctions because the courts generally view such failures as causing irreparable harm and a jury would be ill-suited to adequately assess monetary damages.[6] That is, the Delaware courts would rather have plaintiffs raise disclosure deficiencies in advance of any stockholder action so the court can issue a preliminary injunction to provide adequate time for the disclosure problems to be remedied. The courts view the injunctive process to be much more efficient and rational in the context of disclosure shortcomings as opposed to a post-facto attempt to assess monetary damages for such failures.[7] By using the injunctive relief process, plaintiffs can seek to have all relevant, material information disclosed prior to taking a shareholder action and avoid the uncertainty of having a court or jury attempt to quantify the damages after the transaction is consummated. In connection with the duty to disclose, the Delaware courts also have recognized that the
3 Page 3 of 12 standard of materiality with regard to discussing information has been well settled by the Delaware courts.[8] In fact, Delaware has adopted the federal standard of materiality.[9] Information is generally material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important in deciding how to vote... [10] Furthermore, [i]t does not require proof of a substantial likelihood that disclosure of the omitted fact would have caused the reasonable investor to change his vote. Instead, to establish materiality one must show a substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having a significantly altered the total mix of information made available. Transkaryotic and the Traditional Merger The Chancery Court in Transkaryotic was presented with a case in which plaintiffs were alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, charges of aiding and abetting those breaches and a claim of unlawful merger. The case focused on the merger of Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. ( Transkaryotic ) and Shire Pharmaceuticals Group ( Shire ). The board of directors of Transkaryotic approved the merger on April 16, 2005 and the company provided its shareholders with a proxy statement and held a meeting of shareholders to solicit approval of the proposed merger.[11] On July 27, 2005, the Transkaryotic shareholders approved the merger with Shire and the transaction was promptly closed.12 The plaintiffs in Transkaryotic alleged that the Transkaryotic failed to disclose certain relationships and communications between directors of Transkaryotic and management of Shire, the fact certain directors opposed the merger, the existence of additional valuations prepared by third party financial advisors, the possibility of alternative transactions in lieu of the merger with Shire and the interests of certain directors in those other transactions, and potential conflicts of interests and potential undue influence of Transkaryotic s bankers.[13] Basically, the plaintiffs contended that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose or by misrepresenting these facts to shareholders of Transkaryotic prior to the shareholder vote on July 27, In addition to the claims of breach of duty of disclosure, the plaintiffs claimed that certain
4 Page 4 of 12 directors based their decision to approve the merger on extraneous considerations or influences and as a result, they had conflicting loyalties.[14] The plaintiffs also claimed that Shire aided and abetted these directors in the breaches of their duty of loyalty and disclosure. The Chancery Court evaluated each of these claims against the individual directors and granted summary judgment in favor of all of the defendant directors, except for one director who did not seek summary judgment on these claims.[15] The Chancery Court also granted summary judgment to Shire on the claims of aiding and abetting, except with respect to the one director that failed to seek summary judgment.[16] Lastly, the plaintiffs charged that the merger was not approved by the shareholders as required by the Delaware General Corporations Law ( DGCL ). The Chancery Court allowed the plaintiffs to continue with this claim because it had demonstrated that there was a question of fact as to whether the votes were properly tallied. However, the Chancery Court did note that, while it was permitting the claims to continue, it believed the plaintiffs claims were weak.[17] As discussed above, the treatment of the duty of disclosure by Delaware courts has been evolving. In reaching its conclusions in Transkaryotic, the Chancery Court noted that a breach of the disclosure duty causes irreparable harm.[18] [T]he right to cast an informed vote is peculiar and specific and it cannot be adequately quantified or monetized. [19] Once the merger closes, even if by vote of shareholders who do not possess adequate or accurate information, the Delaware courts generally do not have the power to undo or reverse a merger. As a result, the preferred remedy would be injunctive relief to prevent the vote from taking place without complete and accurate information.[20] In Transkaryotic, the shareholders approved the merger in 2005, but by the time the Chancery Court finally heard this case three years have passed since the merger was consummated.
5 Page 5 of 12 The Chancery Court noted that, because the merger was consummated, an injunctive order requiring supplemental disclosure at this time would be pointless.[21] Because a disclosure would result in irreparable harm and because [the Chancery] Court can no longer provide the equitable cure for such harm, [Chancellor Chandler granted] the [defendants ] motion for summary judgment with respect to the disclosure claims. [22] As a result, the Chancery Court determined it could not grant monetary or injunctive relief for disclosure violations after a merger was consummated and there was no evidence of breach of the duty of loyalty or good faith by directors who authorized the disclosures. Berger and the Short-Form Merger In Berger, the Chancery Court also was presented with a case in which the merger was already completed; however, this time the merger was consummated pursuant to the Delaware short-form merger statute. The plaintiff, Barbara Berger, held less than ten percent of the shares of common stock in Pubco Corporation ( Pubco ), a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware.[23] The controlling shareholder holding more than 90 percent of the outstanding shares of Pubco was Robert H. Kanner, who was the president and sole director of Pubco and who was also a defendant in the case.[24] In November 2007, Pubco notified Ms. Berger that Pubco s controlling shareholder had effected a short-form merger and she and the other minority shareholders were being cashed out at $20 per share.[25] Under Section 253 of the DGCL, controlling shareholders that hold more than 90 percent of all classes of outstanding shares of a company can effect a merger of the company without the consent of the minority shareholders so long as after the effectiveness of the merger the minority shareholders receive a notice that informs them that they have rights to appraisal under Section 262 of the DGCL, includes a current copy of the current Delaware appraisal statute, and discloses all material information with respect to the minority shareholders decision whether or not to seek appraisal.[26] In December 2007, Ms. Berger brought a class action suit against Pubco on behalf of all minority shareholders and claimed that the minority shareholders were entitled to the
6 Page 6 of 12 difference between the $20 per share received as merger consideration and the fair value of his or her shares, regardless of whether a minority shareholder demanded appraisal under Delaware corporate law.[27] In general, if the minority shareholders are not satisfied with the merger consideration received in the short-form merger, their only recourse is to seek appraisal of the value of their shares under Section 262 of the DGCL.[28] In accordance with Delaware corporate law, Pubco s notice to the minority shareholders explained that shareholder approval was not required to effect the merger, but it did indicate that the minority shareholders did have the right to seek appraisal.[29] Pubco s notice also included information about Pubco s business, the names of its officers and directors, the number of shares and classes of stock, a description of related business transaction, and copies of Pubco s recent financial statements, among other limited information.[30] The Chancery Court noted that, except for the financial statements, Pubco s notice did not provide much detail and was vague or failed to provide meaningful disclosure in a number of important areas, including how the merger consideration of $20 per share was determined. [31] Pubco also attached to the notice a copy of the Delaware appraisal statute, as required by Delaware law, but the copy attached was outdated and incorrect because it did not reflect changes that took effect in August 2007.[32] As discussed above, the Chancery Court in Berger noted that the duty of disclosure represents the well-recognized proposition that directors of Delaware corporations are under a fiduciary duty to disclose fully and fairly all material information within the board s control when it seeks shareholder action. [33] In the case of a short-form merger, the minority shareholders are not asked to vote on the transaction and ordinarily would not have any right to prevent the consummation of the merger. However, since the only choice is to accept the merger consideration or seek appraisal under the DGCL, the minority shareholders must be given all of the factual information that is material to that decision. [34]
7 Page 7 of 12 The parent company is not required to disclose all information necessary for the minority shareholders to independently determine fair value, but rather, the parent company need only disclose information that is material to the minority shareholders decision of whether or not to seek appraisal.[35] The Chancery Court in Berger noted that while a minority shareholder may find additional information helpful, it does not necessarily mean the additional information is material to the minority shareholder s decision of whether to seek appraisal.[36] Therefore, it is the minority shareholders burden to demonstrate why receiving information in addition to the basic financial data already disclosed will significantly alter the total mix of information available. [37] In Berger, the Chancery Court determined that the notice was defective because it failed to include the current version of the Delaware appraisal statute, which the Chancery Court noted was a clear violation of Section 253 of the DGCL, and that there was a breach of the duty of disclosure because there was a failure to provide all material information relevant to the minority shareholders decision of whether to seek appraisal. With regard to the duty to disclose, the Chancery Court noted that Pubco s notice failed to provide appropriate disclosure relating to Pubco s plans or prospects, any meaningful disclosure of Pubco s actual operations, a more detailed disclosure of Pubco s finances by division or line of business, any discussion or explanation of how Pubco s cash and securities, noted on its financial statements, were utilized or going to be utilized by Pubco, and interestingly, no disclosure of how the merger consideration was calculated.[38] While Pubco s notice was defective in a number of ways, the Chancery Court was most concerned with the failure to disclose the methodology behind calculating the merger consideration. Pubco was an unregistered company that made no public filings and the notice provided to the minority holders was terse and short on details. [39] As a consequence of the lack of publicly available information about Pubco, the Chancery Court determined that the method by which [the defendants] set the merger consideration is a fact that is substantially likely to alter the total mix of information available to the minority shareholders. [40] However, the Chancery Court did recognize that certain aspects of the information may not be material and declared that the defendant should not have to provide every trivial detail
8 Page 8 of 12 about the valuation process employed in setting the price, but rather companies need only disclose in broad terms what the process, if any, was used to determine the value of the merger consideration.[41] The Chancery Court concluded that the minority shareholders of an unregistered, nonreporting company are entitled to know at least whether the parent did or did not use such methods when setting the merger consideration, because such a fact would have assumed actual significance in the deliberations of a reasonable shareholder faced with the decision of whether or not to trust and accept the price offered by the parent. [42] Due to the fact the short-form merger was effective under Section 253 of the DGCL before the disclosures were required to be made to the minority shareholders, rescission remedies were not available to the minority shareholders of Pubco. Instead, the Chancery Court determined that the minority shareholders suffered an irreparable injury and relied on its inherent powers of equity to create the appropriate relief for the parties.[43] Because the short-form merger does not require shareholder approval, the disclosure deficiencies would not have provided adequate standing to prevent the merger, and instead, the minority shareholders only had a right to appraisal. Therefore, the Chancery Court, relying on its equitable powers, created a remedy of quasiappraisal that attempted to mirror as best a possible the statutory appraisal remedy of Section 263 of the DGCL and the related instructions of the Delaware General Assembly. [44] As a result, the Chancery Court ordered Pubco to make supplemental disclosures to address the disclosure violations noted by the Chancery Court and to correct the failure to properly notice the minority shareholders by giving them a choice to participate in or opt out of an appraisal action under Section 262.[45] In addition, the Chancery Court order that the quasi-appraisal action should replicate the level of the risk that would exist if there were an actual appraisal action in other words, if the appraisal ultimately was for less than the proposed merger consideration, the minority shareholders would receive less than the merger consideration originally offered.[46] Lastly, the Chancery Court required that the Pubco shares be valued as of the date of the
9 Page 9 of 12 merger using the method prescribed by Section 262 of the DGCL.[47] Conclusion Both the Transkaryotic decision and the Berger decision highlight the finality of a merger whether traditional or short-form. Each case also helps clarify the position of the Delaware courts when it comes to remedying breaches of the duty of disclosure. In short, the Delaware courts are not going to undo a merger traditional or short-form as a result of a breach of the duty to disclose. The Chancery Court in Transkaryotic makes it clear that post-merger remedies will be rare and puts shareholders on notice that if they believe the disclosure they received in connection with a proposed shareholder action is inadequate, the shareholders must pursue injunctive relief in advance of the shareholder action instead of waiting until after the merger to seek remedies. In response to the Chancery Court s position in Transkaryotic, plaintiffs and their counsel may need to become more proactive and seek injunctive relief more often when questions regarding the adequacy of disclosure arise.[48] Due to the apparent lack of post-merger remedies and the reluctance to grant monetary damages following the effectiveness of a merger, plaintiffs in the future may become inclined to seek injunction for alleged disclosure problems even in minor circumstances. The Berger decision serves as a good review of the short-form merger requirements under Section 253 of the DGCL and reminds us that, while short-form mergers are generally simple and noncontraversial proceedings, it is important for companies and their counsel to closely following the statutorily-mandated requirements of Section 253 of the DGCL as well as to carefully consider the duty of disclosure to ensure that all material information that a minority shareholder needs to make his or her decision regarding appraisal is adequately disclosed. --Michael J. Delaney, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP Michael Delaney is a partner in Kilpatrick Stockton's Atlanta office. [1] Continental Oil Co. v. Pauley Petroleum, Inc., 25 A.2d 824, 826 (Del. 1969).
10 Page 10 of 12 [2] Malpiede v. Townson, 780 A.2d 1075, 1086 (Del. 2001). [3] Transkaryotic at p. 3 [4] In re Tri-StarPictures, Inc. Litigation, 634 A.2d 319, 333 (Del 1993). [5] Transkaryotic at 23. [6] Transkaryotic at 26; Globis Partners, L.P. v. Plumtree Software, Inc. C.A. No VCP, 2007 WL , at *10 9Del Ch. Nov. 30, 2007). [7] Transkaryotic at 26 [8] Berger at 5; Transkaryotic at 17. [9] Transkaryotic at 17. [10] Berger at 5 citing Rosenblatt v. Getty Oil Co., 493 A.2d 929, 944 (Del. 1985). [11] Transkaryotic at 14. [12] Id at 15. [13] Id at [14] Id at 29. [15] Transkaryotic at 28, 43. [16] Id. at 50. [17] Id. at 61. [18] Transkaryotic at 25. [19] Id at 26 [20] Id. [21] Id at 27 [22] Id.
11 Page 11 of 12 [23] Berger at 1. [24] Id. at 2. [25] Id. [26] Section 253 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. [27] Id.. [28] See Section 253 of the DGCL. [29] Berger at 2. [30] Id. [31] Id. at 2, 3. [32] Id. at 3. [33] Id. at 5. [34] Id. at 6 citing Glassman v. Unocal Exploration Corp., 777 A.2d 242, 247 (Del 2001). [35] Id. at 9. [36] Id. [37] Id. at 6 citing Skeen v. Jo-Ann Stores, Inc., 750 A.2d 1170, 1174 (Del 2000). [38] Id. at 3. [39] Id. at 9. [40] Id. at 11. [41] Id. [42] Id. at 9. [43] Id. at 11. [44] Id. at 13.
12 Page 12 of 12 [45] Id. [46] Id. [47] Id. at 14. [48] Deallawyers.com Blog, June 25, Duty of Disclosure: Delaware Chancery Court Further Limits Availability of Damages. All Content , Portfolio Media, Inc.
MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS
Volume 29 Number 12, December 2015 MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS The New Paradigm (Burden) Shift: The Business Judgment Rule After KKR The Delaware Supreme Court recently held that an uncoerced, fully informed
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY EFiled: Oct 19 2004 1:11PM EDT Filing ID 4402259 JOLLY ROGER FUND LP and JOLLY ROGER OFFSHORE FUND, LTD., individually and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT RICHLAND
Case :-cv-00-smj ECF No. filed 0// PageID. Page of 0 ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT RICHLAND
More informationSouthern Advanced Materials, LLC v Abrams 2019 NY Slip Op 30041(U) January 4, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2015 Judge:
Southern Advanced Materials, LLC v Abrams 2019 NY Slip Op 30041(U) January 4, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 650773/2015 Judge: Saliann Scarpulla Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS PENSION FUND, Plaintiffs, v. DOUGLAS W. BROYLES, MARVIN D. BURKETT, STEPHEN L. DOMENIK, DR. NORMAN GODINHO, RONALD
More informationStockholder Inspection Pursuant to Section 220 of the DGCL
Highland Select Equity Master Fund, L.P. c/o Highland Capital Management, L.P. 300 Crescent Court Suite 700 Dallas, Texas 75201 02/28/2019 VIA EMAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY Medley Capital Corporation 280
More informationI n its last session, the Delaware legislature passed a. Corporate Law & Accountability Report
Corporate Law & Accountability Report Reproduced with permission from Corporate Accountability Report, 13 CARE 30, 07/24/2015. Copyright 2015 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com
More informationMERGERS AND AQUISITIONS
Volume 26 Number 3, March 2012 MERGERS AND AQUISITIONS Delaying Judgment Day: How to Defer Stockholder Votes in Contested M&A Transactions In connection with an M&A transaction, public companies sometimes
More informationCase 1:18-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 07/11/18 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:18-cv-01028-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/11/18 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
More informationWilmington Update. Delaware Supreme Court and the Court of Chancery Offer Obligation Guidance for Financially Troubled Entities
www.pepperlaw.com Winter 2008 message from partner in charge This issue features recent Delaware corporate decisions that may affect corporate law cases across the county. If the onslaught of litigation
More informationIN THE CHANCERY COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
IN THE CHANCERY COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT THE STATE OF TENNESSEE In re PACER INTERNATIONAL, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION, This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. Master Docket
More informationEFiled: Mar :58PM EDT Transaction ID Case No VCS IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
EFiled: Mar 28 2008 6:58PM EDT Transaction ID 19179069 Case No. 3438-VCS IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CHARLES HOKANSON, ) JOHN HOKANSON, FOYE STANFORD, ) CHARLES SEITZ and ELIZABETH
More informationDirectors and Shareholders Reference Guide to Summary Proceedings in the Delaware Court of Chancery
Directors and Shareholders Reference Guide to Summary Proceedings in the Delaware Court of Chancery Sheldon K. Rennie 302.622.4202 srennie@foxrothschild.com Carl D. Neff 302.622.4272 cneff@foxrothschild.com
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-jak-afm Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 Joel E. Elkins (SBN 00) Email: jelkins@weisslawllp.com WEISSLAW LLP 0 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 0 Beverly Hills, CA 00 Telephone: 0/0-00 Facsimile:
More informationCause No. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Nominal Defendant. SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE PETITION FOR BREACHES OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
Cause No. Filed 10 January 8 A11:39 Loren Jackson - District Clerk Harris County ED101J015626245 By: Sharon Carlton ELIEZER LEIDER, derivatively on behalf of THE MERIDIAN RESOURCE CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) OPINION. Date Submitted: January 9, 2014 Date Decided: February 28, 2014
EFiled: Feb 28 2014 03:38PM EST Transaction ID 55073345 Case No. 7840-VCL IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE ORCHARD ENTERPRISES, INC. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION ) ) Consolidated C.A.
More informationCAUSE NO. D-1-GN NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND SETTLEMENT HEARING
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-13-000352 IN RE PERVASIVE SOFTWARE INC, SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOTICE OF PENDENCY
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
EFiled: Jul 10 2007 8:37PM EDT Transaction ID 15525691 Case No. 2776-CC IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY HIGH RIVER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ) ICAHN PARTNERS MASTER
More informationNOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND DERIVATIVE LAWSUIT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TRADING STRATEGIES FUND, on CIVIL DIVISION Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, No. 12-11460 Plaintiff, -against- NOORUDDIN S.
More informationChancery Court Decisions Limit Access to Corporate Records in Going-Private Transaction and Following Derivative Suit
Chancery Court Decisions Limit Access to Corporate Records in Going-Private Transaction and Following Derivative Suit By David J. Berger & Ignacio E. Salceda David J. Berger and Ignacio E. Salceda are
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 11/09/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 1:18-cv-10430 Document 1 Filed 11/09/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IBEW LOCAL UNION 98, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IBEW LOCAL UNION 98, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., WAYNE P. YETTER, PETER BRANDT,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE RICK HARTMAN, individually and on : CIVIL ACTION NO. behalf of all others similarly situated, : : CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiff, : FOR
More information[HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES/DELAWARE STATE SENATE] 148th GENERAL ASSEMBLY [HOUSE/SENATE] BILL NO.
[HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES/DELAWARE STATE SENATE] 148th GENERAL ASSEMBLY [HOUSE/SENATE] BILL NO. SPONSOR: AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 8 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO THE GENERAL CORPORATION LAW. BE IT ENACTED
More informationPosted by Jenness E. Parker and Kaitlin E. Maloney, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, on Sunday, May 21, 2017
Posted by Jenness E. Parker and Kaitlin E. Maloney, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, on Sunday, May 21, 2017 Editor s note: Jenness E. Parker is Counsel and Kaitlin E. Maloney is an associate
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE HAROLD FRECHTER, v. Plaintiff, DAWN M. ZIER, MICHAEL J. HAGAN, PAUL GUYARDO, MICHAEL D. MANGAN, ANDREW M. WEISS, ROBERT F. BERNSTOCK, JAY HERRATTI, BRIAN
More informationRecent Delaware Corporate Governance Decisions. Paul D. Manca, Esquire Hogan & Hartson LLP Washington, DC
APRIL 2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recent Delaware Corporate Governance Decisions Paul D. Manca, Esquire Hogan & Hartson LLP Washington, DC BUSINESS LAW AND GOVERNANCE PRACTICE GROUP In three separate decisions
More informationCase 1:17-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:17-cv-01349-UNA Document 1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE TED SHARPENTER, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN RE SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL ) CORPORATION SHAREHOLDERS ) Consolidated LITIGATION ) C.A. No. 20026 OPINION AND ORDER Submitted:
More informationCase 1:17-cv JGD Document 1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:17-cv-11360-JGD Document 1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS LOUIS SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
More informationSHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS AND DEMAND FUTILITY
CORPORATE LITIGATION: SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS AND DEMAND FUTILITY JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN * SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP August 13, 2015 A cardinal precept of Delaware law is that directors, rather
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION JOHN NICHOLAS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2013 CH 11752 Consolidated
More informationHOT TOPICS IN M&A PUBLIC COMPANY LITIGATION
HOT TOPICS IN M&A PUBLIC COMPANY LITIGATION Michael D. Blanchard Brian A. Herman February 13, 2018 2018 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP The Traditional Path of M&A Cases The Plaintiffs Deal Tax and Defendants
More informationForward Momentum: Trulia Continues to Impact Resolution of Deal Litigation in Delaware and Beyond
Forward Momentum: Trulia Continues to Impact Resolution of Deal Litigation in Delaware and Beyond Contributors Edward B. Micheletti, Partner Jenness E. Parker, Counsel Bonnie W. David, Associate > See
More informationCase 1:17-cv GMS Document 1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:17-cv-00204-GMS Document 1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE CHAILE STEINBERG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
More informationNOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION AND SETTLEMENT HEARING
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN RE RAYTHEON COMPANY SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION CONSOLIDATED C.A. NO. 19018 NC NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER
More informationSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C FORM 8-K BARNES & NOBLE, INC.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported):
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SHAREHOLDERS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY Royi Shemesh, David Jasinover, and James Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
More information[HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES/DELAWARE STATE SENATE] 149th GENERAL ASSEMBLY [HOUSE/SENATE] BILL NO.
Draft 3/29/18 [HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES/DELAWARE STATE SENATE] 149th GENERAL ASSEMBLY [HOUSE/SENATE] BILL NO. SPONSOR: AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 8 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO THE GENERAL CORPORATION LAW.
More informationCase 1:17-cv WTL-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1
Case 1:17-cv-02418-WTL-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION PAUL PARSHALL, Individually
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) CONSOLIDATED C.A. No VCG
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE BOISE INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION ) ) CONSOLIDATED C.A. No. 8933-VCG NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND SETTLEMENT HEARING
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI I ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:17-cv-00519-JMS-KSC Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1 WAYNE PARSONS LAW OFFICES WAYNE PARSONS, #1685 1406 Colburn Street, Suite 201C Honolulu, Hawaii 96817 T: (808 845-2211 F: (808
More informationAMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS AMAZON.COM, INC.
SECTION 1. OFFICES AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS OF AMAZON.COM, INC. The principal office of the corporation shall be located at its principal place of business or such other place as the Board of Directors
More informationCase 4:18-cv HSG Document 1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Michael Schumacher (#0) RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. Jackson Street, #0 San Francisco, CA Telephone: () - Facsimile: (0) -0 Email: ms@rl-legal.com Attorneys for Plaintiff
More informationCase 5:17-cv DDC-KGS Document 1 Filed 09/21/17 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 5:17-cv-04086-DDC-KGS Document 1 Filed 09/21/17 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS DAVID PILL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 11-1976 IRENE DIXON, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, ATI LADISH LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court
More informationC. Barr Flinn PARTNER
C. Barr Flinn PARTNER bflinn@ycst.com Wilmington P: 302.571.6692 Practices Appeals Bankruptcy Litigation Expedited Litigation Intellectual Property Litigation Internal Investigations Litigation Monitoring
More informationYour Board of Directors opposes the following proposals for the reasons stated after each proposal
STOCKHOLDER PROPOSALS Some of the following stockholder proposals contain assertions about IBM that we believe are incorrect. We have not attempted to refute all of these inaccuracies. Your Board of Directors
More informationDelaware Law Update: Don t Ask, Don t Waive Standstills
Delaware Law Update: Don t Ask, Don t Waive Standstills Subcommittee on Acquisitions of Public Companies February 1, 2013 Jennifer Fonner DiNucci Cooley LLP Patricia O. Vella Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell
More informationCase 1:17-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 07/27/17 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:17-cv-01036-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/27/17 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE DERRICK MCNEIL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL POLICE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated shareholders of Landry s Restaurants, Inc.,
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) THIS CAUSE, designated a complex business case by Order of the Chief Justice
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF WAKE DOUGLAS D. WHITNEY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARLES M. WINSTON, EDWIN B. BORDEN, JR., RICHARD L. DAUGHERTY, ROBERT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE DAVID BRESLAU, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Plaintiff, RUBY TUESDAY, INC., JAMES F. HYATT, STEPHEN I.
More informationNOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY KENTON CIRCUIT COURT DIVISION I CITY OF PONTIAC GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. Civil Action No. 07-CI-00627
More informationDelaware Chancery Court Resets the Rules of the Road for Disclosure-Only Settlements
Delaware Chancery Court Resets the Rules of the Road for Disclosure-Only Settlements Robert S. Reder* Lauren Messonnier Meyers** Warns that courts will be increasingly vigilant while outlining two alternative
More informationPost-EBay: Permanent Injunctions, Future Damages
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Post-EBay: Permanent Injunctions, Future Damages
More informationMERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS
THE CORPORATE & SECURITIES LAW ADVISOR Volume 22 Number 2, February 2008 MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS What You Don t Say Can Hurt You: Delaware s Forthright Negotiator Principle In United Rentals, Inc. v.
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION. Date Submitted: April 3, 2018 Date Decided: July 11, 2018
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE THE CIRILLO FAMILY TRUST, v. Plaintiff, ARAM MOEZINIA, LEWIS TEPPER, MARK WALTER, and DAVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A.
More informationINDEPENDENT LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE, GOOD FAITH, AND THE INTERPRETATION OF VENTURE CAPITAL CONTRACTS D. GORDON SMITH*
INDEPENDENT LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE, GOOD FAITH, AND THE INTERPRETATION OF VENTURE CAPITAL CONTRACTS D. GORDON SMITH* INTRODUCTION Benchmark Capital (hereinafter Benchmark) ensured its position among the elite
More information:li([i~.j~}. ~.J Case No VCP
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Huey Shen Wu, et al., C.A. No. 7946-VCP, order (Del. Ch. Nov. 2, 2012 EFiled: Nov 02 2012 03:58P ~fa'f~~'\ Transaction 10 47528085 :li([i~.j~}. ~.J Case No. 7946-VCP ~~~t~~
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION. Date Submitted: October 14, 2014 Date Decided: January 5, 2015
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE APPRAISAL OF ANCESTRY.COM, INC. ) ) CONSOLIDATED C.A. No. 8173-VCG MEMORANDUM OPINION Date Submitted: October 14, 2014 Date Decided: January 5, 2015
More informationFreeport-McMoRan Inc. Amended and Restated By-Laws. (as amended and restated through June 8, 2016) ARTICLE I
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. Amended and Restated By-Laws (as amended and restated through June 8, 2016) ARTICLE I Name The name of the corporation is Freeport-McMoRan Inc. ARTICLE II Offices 1. The location
More informationCase 1:18-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 12/11/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:18-cv-01957-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/11/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
More informationNOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN RE MAYTAG CORPORATION SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION Consolidated C.A. No. 1362-CC NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
More informationDELAWARE STATE SENATE 149th GENERAL ASSEMBLY SENATE BILL NO. 180 AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 8 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO THE GENERAL CORPORATION LAW.
DELAWARE STATE SENATE 149th GENERAL ASSEMBLY SENATE BILL NO. 180 SPONSOR: Sen. Townsend & Sen. Henry & Rep. Mitchell & Rep. M. Smith Sens. Delcollo, Ennis, Hansen; Reps. Brady, J. Johnson, Lynn, Paradee,
More informationRedefining Director Liability in Duty of Care Cases: The Delaware Supreme Court Narrows Van Gorkom
Missouri Law Review Volume 61 Issue 3 Summer 1996 Article 6 Summer 1996 Redefining Director Liability in Duty of Care Cases: The Delaware Supreme Court Narrows Van Gorkom Bryan C. Bacon Follow this and
More informationUNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C FORM 8-K
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Date of Report (Date of earliest event
More informationReasonable Royalties After EBay
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Reasonable Royalties After EBay Monday, Sep
More informationTHE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) Consolidated C.A. No VCL
THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE REHABCARE GROUP, INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION Consolidated C.A. No. 6197 - VCL NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION,
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SAMUEL ZALMANOFF, v. Plaintiff, JOHN A. HARDY, KENNETH I. DENOS, FRASER ATKINSON, ALESSANDRO BENEDETTI, RICHARD F. BERGNER, HENRY W. HANKINSON, ROBERT
More informationCase 3:17-cv RS Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-00-rs Document Filed 0/0/ Page of David E. Bower (SBN ) MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC 00 Corporate Pointe, Suite 0 Culver City, CA 00 Tel: () - Fax: () 0-0 Counsel for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More informationCAUSE NO. DC C
CAUSE NO. DC-13-06601-C JACOB HULSEBUS, IBEW LOCAL 363 PENSION TRUST FUND, IBEW LOCAL 363 MONEY PURCHASE PENSION PLAN and PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
More informationCase 5:12-cv M Document 55 Filed 06/06/12 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:12-cv-00436-M Document 55 Filed 06/06/12 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA DEBORAH G. MALLOW IRA SEP INVESTMENT PLAN, individually and derivatively
More informationCase 2:17-cv DS Document 2 Filed 07/21/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
Case 2:17-cv-00830-DS Document 2 Filed 07/21/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH ROBERT BERG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Plaintiff,
More informationRESTATED AND AMENDED BYLAWS OF JACK HENRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (Effective September 22, 2017) ARTICLE I. Registered and Corporate Offices
RESTATED AND AMENDED BYLAWS OF JACK HENRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (Effective September 22, 2017) ARTICLE I Registered and Corporate Offices Section 1.1 Registered Office. The registered office of the corporation
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION ESSEX COUNTY. Docket No. ESX-L
In re Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Shareholder Litigation SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION ESSEX COUNTY Docket No. ESX-L-4370-07 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION OFFICIAL
More information2013 REVISIONS TO THE TENNESSEE BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT
2013 REVISIONS TO THE TENNESSEE BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT TREVOR MCELHANEY * I. INTRODUCTION ** The Tennessee Business Corporation Act, as amended ( TBCA ), is the primary governing authority over the formation
More informationSubmitted: April 5, 2005 Decided: May 4, 2005
WILLIAM B. CHANDLER III CHANCELLOR COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE 34 THE CIRCLE GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947 Submitted: April 5, 2005 Decided: May 4, 2005 Jessica
More informationSubmitted: April 24, 2006 Decided: May 22, 2006
EFiled: May 22 2006 5:15PM EDT Transaction ID 11343150 COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DONALD F. PARSONS, JR. VICE CHANCELLOR New Castle County CourtHouse 500 N. King Street, Suite 11400 Wilmington,
More informationNOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION DETERMINATION
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN RE CHAPARRAL RESOURCES, INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION CONSOLIDATED C.A. NO. 2001-VCL NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation et al v. Ute Distribution Corporation et al Doc. 10 Case 2:06-cv-00557-DAK Document 10 Filed 07/14/2006 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
More informationAMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS DXC TECHNOLOGY COMPANY. effective March 15, 2018
AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS OF DXC TECHNOLOGY COMPANY effective March 15, 2018 BYLAWS OF DXC TECHNOLOGY COMPANY ARTICLE I OFFICES Section 1. Offices. The Corporation may have offices in such places, both
More informationExpectation Damages Now A Real Possibility In Delaware
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Expectation Damages Now A Real Possibility In Delaware
More informationCase 1:18-cv ADB Document 1 Filed 05/14/18 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSSETS
Case 1:18-cv-10965-ADB Document 1 Filed 05/14/18 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSSETS STEVE BARTA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
More informationAMENDED AND RESTATED BY-LAWS OF AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION (a Delaware Corporation) Effective as of February 12, 2016
AMENDED AND RESTATED BY-LAWS OF AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION (a Delaware Corporation) Effective as of February 12, 2016 AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION (a Delaware Corporation) AMENDED AND RESTATED BY-LAWS TABLE
More informationAnalysis of the 2014 Amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law. Jeffrey R. Wolters, Esq. James D. Honaker, Esq.
Analysis of the 2014 Amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law Jeffrey R. Wolters, Esq. James D. Honaker, Esq. ela Analysis of the 2014 Amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law 1 Corp.
More informationMEMORANDUM. Defendants. X. The court has before it an application to approve a proposed class action
SUPREME COURT : QUEENS COUNTY IA PART 4 MEMORANDUM MICHAEL JIANNARAS, on Behalf of X INDEX NO. 21262/09 Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, MOTION SEQ. NO. Plaintiff, BY: GRAYS, J. - against - DATED:
More informationPierre Schroeder, et al. v. Philippe Buhannic, et al., C.A. No JTL, order (Del. Ch. Jan. 10, 2018)
EFiled: Jan 10 2018 08:00A[ Transaction ID 61547771 Case No. 2017-0746-JTL IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE "^^P PIERRE SCHROEDER and PIERO GRANDI, Plaintiffs, PHILIPPE BUHANNIC, PATRICK
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION THE PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE FUNDS, On Behalf of Itself and Others Similarly Situated, vs. Plaintiff, CFC INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
More informationCase 1:19-cv CFC Document 1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:19-cv-00485-CFC Document 1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
More informationNOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF MONROE ------------------------------------------------------------------------- X IN RE BAUSCH & LOMB INC. : BUYOUT LITIGATION : -------------------------------------------------------------------------
More informationCase 1:17-cv MW-GRJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/17 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:17-cv-00303-MW-GRJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/17 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ANTHONY PAPPALARDO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
More informationRecent Judicial Developments in Delaware Corporate Law
Recent Judicial Developments in Delaware Corporate Law December 2, 2013 A number of recent decisions from the Delaware courts are discussed below. The decisions involve developments relating to mergers
More informationCERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED ARTICLE I NAME
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED The undersigned does hereby make and acknowledge this Certificate of Incorporation for the purpose of forming a business corporation pursuant
More informationDelaware Court Denies Motions to Dismiss in Two Shareholder Derivative Actions Challenging Timing of Stock Option Grants
February 2007 Delaware Court Denies Motions to Dismiss in Two Shareholder Derivative Actions Challenging Timing of Stock Option Grants By Kevin C. Logue, Barry G. Sher, Thomas A. Zaccaro and James W. Gilliam
More informationCase 2:17-cv JD Document 1 Filed 10/20/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:17-cv-04692-JD Document 1 Filed 10/20/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CHUCK SHAMMAS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
More informationYOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT:
Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Settlement Hearing and Right to Appear If You Were a Stockholder of Windstream Holdings, Inc. to whom its April 26, 2015 One-for-Six Reverse Stock Split Shares
More informationPlaintiff, * CIRCUIT COURT. ZAIS FINANCIAL CORP., et al. * BALTIMORE CITY, PART 23. Defendants. * Case No.: 24-C
59931634 Dec 08 2016 03:15PM SEAN DEXTER * IN THE Plaintiff, * CIRCUIT COURT v. * FOR ZAIS FINANCIAL CORP., et al. * BALTIMORE CITY, PART 23 Defendants. * Case No.: 24-C-16-004740 * * * * * * * * * * *
More informationCase 1:18-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:18-cv-00218-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
More informationAMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF VMWARE, INC.
AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF VMWARE, INC. VMWARE, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (the Corporation ), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY AS FOLLOWS:
More information