About This Blog
Summaries and analysis of recent Delaware court decisions concerning business-related litigation.
Subscribe by Email
Morris James Blogs
Showing 11 posts from August 2005.
Polak v. Kobayashi, No. Civ. A. 05-330 JJF, 2005 WL 2008306 (D.Del. Aug. 22, 2005). Plaintiff filed a motion to remand a matter involving several Delaware state law claims, alleging lack of subject matter jurisdiction and because complete diversity of citizenship did not exist. Alternatively, plaintiff claimed that the Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction on the Burford abstention doctrine. Defendant filed a motion to remove the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446 to the District Court for the District of Hawaii. The court denied the motion to remand. More ›
China Three Gorges Project Corp. v. Rotec Industries, Inc., No. Civ. A. 04-1510 JJF, 2005 WL 1813025 (D.Del. Aug. 2, 2005). This action involves a Petition to Confirm a Foreign Arbitral Award filed by Petitioner China Three Gorges Project Corporation ("China Gorges") and respondent's Motion to Dismiss or in The Alternative, To Modify The Foreign Arbitral Award. The Court granted the petition to confirm the award and denied the respondent's motions. More ›
Court of Chancery Grants Motion to Amend Arguments in Brief On Eve of Oral Argument in Exchange for Payment of Attorneys' FeesLillis v. AT&T Corp., C.A. No. 717-N, 2005 WL 2149748 (Del. Ch. Aug. 23, 2005). Plaintiffs, former owners of options to purchase shares in AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. ("Wireless"), brought suit against Wireless and AT&T Corp., seeking compensation for the value of their options, which were canceled when Wireless merged with Cingular Wireless Corp. Plaintiffs were officers and directors of MediaOne Group, Inc., a broadband telecommunications company, which AT&T purchased. At MediaOne, plaintiffs were to receive stock options as part of their compensation under the 1994 Stock Plan. After AT&T acquired MediaOne, AT&T exchanged the MediaOne options for new options in AT&T and, subsequently, for options in Wireless. More ›
Court of Chancery Finds Proper Purpose in Books and Records Case Where Beneficial Owners Demonstrate that CEO Received Excessive CompensationHaywood v. Ambase Corp., C.A. No. 342-N, 2005 WL 2130614 (Del. Ch. Aug. 22, 2005). Plaintiffs Haywood and Cronin were beneficial owners of defendant AmBase Corporation's ("AmBase") common stock. Ambase was a publicly held Delaware corporation, and its primary purpose at the time was to pursue pending litigation against the United States government based on the impact of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act. Richard Bianco was the chairman and chief executive officer of AmBase. More ›
In Appraisal Action, Court of Chancery Employs Discounted Cash Flow and Comparable Companies Methods To Value Shares Purchased by 98% Owner in Cash-Out MergerAndaloro v. PFPC Worldwide, Inc., C.A. No. 20289, 2005 WL 2045640 (Del. Ch. Aug. 19, 2005). Andaloro v. PFPC Worldwide, Inc., C.A. No. 20336, 2005 WL 2045640 (Del. Ch. Aug. 19, 2005). This was a consolidated appraisal and equitable fiduciary duty action (the court did not address the fiduciary claim in this opinion). It arose out of a merger in which PFPC Worldwide, Inc. ("PFPC"), was acquired by its parent PFPC Holding Corp. ("Holding"), which held over 98% of PFPC's stock before the merger. (The merger was also approved by PFPC's ultimate parent and Holding's immediate parent, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. ("PNC").) The merger resulted in the elimination of the minority shareholders' position in PFPC for $34.26 per share. More ›
AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 2005 WL 2155695 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 18, 2005). The Plaintiff filed a notice of partial dismissal in an attempt to dismiss certain defendants. The defendants who were purportedly dismissed moved to quash the notice of dismissal. The court found that one defendant insurer could be dismissed because the entire action was being voluntarily dismissed. However, the court granted the motion to quash as to the other defendant because the dismissal only eliminated certain claims as opposed to the entire action. Plaintiff also sought leave of the court to dismiss a second group of defendants pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). The court denied this motion. More ›