Search results
Order by most recent / most popular / relevance
Results: 1-5 of 5
Second Circuit holds that corporations cannot be sued under alien tort statute
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- September 24 2010
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that corporations are not subject to liability under “customary international law”, otherwise known as the “law of nations” and that, as such, corporations cannot be held liable under the U.S. Alien Tort Statute
Weak internal controls and GAAP violations supported inference of scienter in securities class action
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- December 18 2009
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied defendants’ motion to dismiss in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit, where defendant corporation had to restate its financials after making a series of disclosures regarding poor accounting controls
Delaware has jurisdiction over corporation based on claims arising out of performance of predecessor's contracts
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- June 10 2011
The Superior Court of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that, following a merger, the defendant corporation continued to transact business within Delaware and, in connection with that business, caused injury within the state
Directors' bonuses tied to sale rendered them interested
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- June 10 2011
The Delaware Court of Chancery sustained in part the claims of a plaintiff investor challenging a company's sale of its primary asset based upon allegations that the vote of the individual director defendants approving the sale was tainted by bonuses they received tied to that sale
Delaware court authorizes new theory of tortious interference with contract
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- April 15 2011
Deciding an issue of first impression, the Superior Court of Delaware recently authorized the assertion of claims based on a new theory of tortious interference with contract, but ruled that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under that theory
