Plaintiff sought to enjoin a merger. He alleged that the defendants, directors of the company to be acquired, had breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose pertinent information to the shareholders, failing to maximize shareholder value, and agreeing to a coercive and unreasonable termination fee.
The Court noted that it was uncertain whether plaintiff
Plaintiff sought to enjoin a foreclosure sale to be conducted for the benefit of the secured lender. Plaintiff was a general contractor who had done substantial work on the property which was the subject of the sale, for which it was owed more than $ 8 million. Efforts of the owner of the property to
The Court approved an award of attorneys’ fees of $4 million to class counsel. It found the fees to be reasonable under the percentage of fund approach, the lodestar-multiplier approach, and the fee factors considered in North Carolina cases based on Rule 1.5 of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Court found sufficient grounds for the appointment of a receiver, given disputes between the developer of timeshare properties and the homeowners association.
Defendant had sufficiently pled an agency relationship to survive a motion to dismiss.
The Court found that an arbitration agreement involved commerce so as to implicate the Federal Arbitration Act, and found the arbitration provision to be enforceable. The principal issue, however, was whether the Court had jurisdiction to award provisional relief. In this case, that meant the appointment of a receiver.
The Court found that it had
The Court denied plaintiff’s Motion to Compel because it failure to file a brief in support of its Motion, as required by Rule 15.11 of the Business Court Rules.
The Court denied an objection to designation of a case as a complex business case, apparently made on the ground that the law of North Carolina might not apply. The Court held that "[]t is sufficient for purposes of removal to the Business Court that there are issues concerning which law applies which will have
Plaintiffs were not entitled to pursue a derivative action, because they were not shareholders of the company at the time of the acts complained of. One of the defendants was a trust, to which a shareholder of the company had transferred shares. The Court held that the trust, as transferee, could not maintain the action
Plaintiff’s counsel violated the Rules of Professional Responsibility by contacting a former employee of the defendant, who had participated substantially in the legal representation of the defendant before his termination. The Court struck the affidavit from the witness proferred by the plaintiff, and ruled that he could not be presented by the plaintiff as a