Search for: "Barnhill v. State" Results 1 - 20 of 76
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Feb 2024, 2:11 pm by The Collins Law Firm, P.C.
We are proud to announce that our $363 million verdict in Kamuda v. [read post]
26 Nov 2023, 7:06 am by Kevin LaCroix
Barnhill, Delaware’s courts have proven to be more receptive to Caremark claims than in the past. [read post]
4 Sep 2023, 5:44 am by Kevin LaCroix
(Please note that these figures do not include state court securities class action lawsuit filings.) [read post]
9 Aug 2023, 10:26 am by Kevin LaCroix
Barnhill, 212 A.3d 805 (Del. 2019), a well-known duty of oversight decision from the Supreme Court of Delaware. [read post]
23 Mar 2023, 12:55 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Barnhill, Delaware courts have sustained a number of breach of the duty of oversight claims. [read post]
7 Mar 2023, 2:01 pm by Kevin LaCroix
” That said, Laster still concluded that the plaintiffs had not stated a claim for breach of the duty of oversight against the director defendants. [read post]
6 Feb 2023, 9:01 pm by renholding
The court stated that it did not need to decide whether liability existed under the prong 1 claim to dispose of the motion to dismiss, but noted that a report prepared by external counsel indicated that the company had a “woefully inadequate compliance system. [read post]
26 Jan 2023, 11:29 am by Kevin LaCroix
Laster is quite correct when he quotes extensively from prior Delaware Supreme Court decisions stating that “the fiduciary duties of officers are the same as those of directors. [read post]
3 Jan 2023, 1:47 pm by Kevin LaCroix
(Please note that these figures reflect only federal court securities suit filings; state court securities suit filings are not included in the numbers and comparisons.) [read post]
25 May 2022, 9:01 pm by Richard Zelichov and Trevor T. Garmey
Securities Litigation, 768 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2014) (violations of Section 303 do not give rise to private right of action under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5) with Stratte-McClure v. [read post]