Showing 93 posts in
Discovery.
By Morris James LLP on December 7, 2006
Posted In Discovery,
Fiduciary Duty
Cantor v. Perelman, Civil Action No. 97-586-KAJ, 2006 WL 3462596 (D. Del. Nov. 30, 2006).
Plaintiff and defendants filed motions to exclude the testimony and reports of several experts. The Court granted the motions to exclude the entire proposed testimony of one expert from both parties. The motions were denied with respect to all other experts in all other respects.
This action originates from a plan of reorganization in bankruptcy litigation involving Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc. (“Marvel”) and the Trustees of the MAFCO Litigation Trust (“Trust”) created as part of the Reorganization Plan. The Trust was created to pursue breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against defendants comprising Perelman, a controlling stockholder and chairman of Marvel, and other directors of the Marvel companies. The instant opinion is connected to the issue of three tranches of notes (“Notes”) issued in 1993 and 1994 by Marvel, raising $553.5 million by using Marvel stock as collateral. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by using Marvel resources to sell the Notes and including restrictions on the issue of debt or dilution of Perelman’s shareholding in those Notes.
More ›
Share
By Morris James LLP on May 10, 2006
Posted In
Appraisal, Discovery
In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., C.A. No. 1554-N, 2006 WL 1388749 (Del. Ch. May 10, 2006).
Respondent in appraisal action sought two-tier, rather than one-tier, confidentiality order.
More ›
Share
By Morris James LLP on May 8, 2006
Posted In
Business Torts, Discovery
Cherry Line, S.A. v. Muma Services f/k/a Murphy Marine Services, Inc., C.A. No. 03-199-JJF, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 29818 (D. Del. May 8, 2006).
Defendant filed a motion for sanctions and for dismissal for failure to prosecute.
More ›
Share
By Morris James LLP on February 28, 2006
Harry A. Akande v. Transamerica Airlines, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1039-N, 2006 WL 587846 (Del. Ch. Feb. 28, 2006).
This is a motion to amend the Complaint under Court of Chancery Rules 15(a) and 15(aaa) for the third time before the Court of Chancery, involving a foreign judgment enforcement action. Plaintiff sought to withdraw his petition for receivership and add factual predicates to various claims he made. In an earlier hearing, the Court of Chancery permitted plaintiff's motion for discovery and converted the defendants' motion for dismissal upon plaintiff's motion to one of summary judgment.
More ›
Share
By Morris James LLP on February 22, 2006
Madison Real Estate Immobbilien-Anlagegesellschaft Beschrankt Haftende KG v. GENO One Financial Place L.P. and GENO Auslandsimmobilien GmbH, No. Civ.A. No. 1928-N, 2006 WL 456779 (Del. Ch. Feb. 22, 2006).
The plaintiff is a German entity organized under that country's laws, as is the second named German limited liability defendant. The latter party is also a general partner in the first defendant entity. The plaintiff was one of two bidders that made an unregulated tender offer for a part of the first-named defendant's Delaware limited partnership interest. Plaintiff filed a motion in the Court of Chancery for expedited injunction proceedings, seeking to enjoin the defendant's general partner from approving any transfer agreements related to the tender offers.
More ›
Share
By Morris James LLP on February 9, 2006
Unisuper Ltd., et al. v. News Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 1699-N, 2006 WL 375433 (Del. Ch. Feb. 09, 2006).
Defendants filed cross-motions requiring depositions of thirteen named plaintiffs' under Ch. Ct. R. 30(b)(6) in either Delaware or New York. Plaintiffs filed motions for protective orders, to limit the numbers of deponents and contended depositions could occur outside the United States via videoconferencing.
The plaintiffs' Australian company had reincorporated in Delaware.
Plaintiff sought equitable relief requesting its shareholders to be permitted to vote on a poison pill's extension. The court treated this matter as a representative one, rather than an individual shareholder suit.
More ›
Share
By Morris James LLP on September 20, 2005
Posted In Discovery
Bonham v. HBW Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 820-N, 2005 WL 2335464 (Del. Ch. Sept. 20, 2005).
Defendants moved to stay discovery pending resolution of their motion to dismiss.
More ›
Share
By Morris James LLP on September 15, 2005
Posted In Discovery
Federal Ins. Co. v. Lighthouse Constr., Inc., 230 F.R.D. 387 (D.Del. 2005).
A subrogation action was brought by a property insurer to recover for loss incurred by a roof collapse against a building contractor. The contractor sought leave of the Court to file a third-party complaint against the erection contractor. The insurer also sought leave to file a claim against the erection contractor.
The Court held that the contractor could file a third-party claim for indemnity against the erection contractor. However, the Court also ruled that the plaintiff-insurer was barred by a two-year statute of limitations from filing a third-party claim against the erection contractor.
More ›
Share
By Morris James LLP on June 20, 2005
Posted In Discovery
iGames Entertainment, Inc. v. Chex Services, Inc., C.A. No. 04-180-KAJ, 2005 WL 3657156 (D.Del. June 9, 2005).
This matter springs from a commercial dispute. The present opinion pertains to plaintiff's
Daubert Motion seeking to exclude a part of the proposed expert testimony of defendants' expert. The expert intended to testify on accounting matters. The Court granted plaintiff's motion holding that the challenged parts of the proposed testimony failed the test of relevancy.
More ›
Share
By Morris James LLP on April 10, 2005
Posted In Discovery
Tracinda Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler AG, 362 F.Supp.2d 487 (D.Del. 2005).
Tracinda Corporation ("Tracinda"), a Nevada entity with its principal place of business in California, was engaged in investing in companies and at the time was Chrysler's largest shareholder. Tracinda brought this action against defendants comprising of DaimlerChrysler AG, Daimler-Benz AG ("Daimler"), Jurgen Schrempp and Manfred Gentz, (collectively "Defendants") who were citizens of Germany alleging: (1) violations of securities laws; (2) common law fraud; and (3) conspiracy in connection with the 1998 merger between Chrysler Corporation ("Chrysler") and Daimler-Benz AG ("Daimler-Benz"). In this Memorandum Opinion, the Court examined a number of evidentiary objections brought by both parties. The objections included: expert opinion testimony, statements made by the CEO of the German manufacturer that were published in a newspaper, investment banker documents discussing business combination scenarios between the merger parties, third-party research reports, meeting notes on the merger, failure to include charts and privileged attorney-client matters.
More ›
Share
By Morris James LLP on March 1, 2005
Posted In
Business Insurance, Discovery
TIG Ins. Co. v. Premier Parks, Inc., C.A. No. 02C-04-126 PLA, 2005 WL 468300 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 1, 2005).
This case involved whether TIG Ins. Co. ("TIG") met its contractual obligations to provide adequate counsel to defend Premier Parks, Inc. ("Six Flags") in an employment discrimination case. After initially granting plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, the court limited its ruling on reargument after it became clear that complying with the court's order would require manual searches of files rather than simple electronic searches.
More ›
Share
By Morris James LLP on February 25, 2005
Posted In Discovery
Jurimex Kommerz Transit G.M.B.H. v. Case Corp., No. Civ.A. 00-083 JJF, 2005 WL 440621 (D.Del. Feb. 18, 2005).
Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel deposition testimony of defendant's subsidiaries in a matter involving an international transaction. The motion was granted in part and denied in part.
More ›
Share
By Morris James LLP on February 17, 2005
Posted In Discovery
Belanger v. Fab Indus., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 054-N, 2005 WL 493593 (Del. Ch. Feb. 17, 2005).
The court granted defendant's motion for protective order in a case arising out of a dissolution petition under 8
Del. C. §275.
More ›
Share
By Morris James LLP on February 9, 2005
Posted In Discovery,
Jurisdiction
American Scheduling, Inc. v. Radiant Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 725-N, 2005 WL 736889 (Del. Ch. Feb. 09, 2005).
This is a motion to quash jurisdictional discovery. The court granted the motion, quashing the discovery.
More ›
Share