in
Advanced Search
On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

M&A Litigation 2013

Released on: Jul. 11, 2013
Running Time: 03:07:37

Running Time Segment Title Faculty Format
[01:06:23] Addressing Disputes Over Stockholder Meetings Stephen P. Lamb ~ Former Vice Chancellor, Delaware Court of Chancery, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
A. Thompson Bayliss ~ Abrams & Bayliss
Jenness E. Parker ~ Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP
Gary A. Bornstein ~ Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
 On-Demand MP3 MP4
[00:59:40] New Trends in Controlling Stockholder Litigation Anne C. Foster ~ Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
Stuart J. Baskin ~ Shearman & Sterling LLP
William M. Lafferty ~ Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
Hon. Henry duPont Ridgely ~ Justice, Delaware Supreme Court
 On-Demand MP3 MP4
[00:59:02] Litigating Over Deal Protections in the Court of Chancery Joel E. Friedlander ~ Bouchard Margules & Friedlander, P.A.
Theodore N. Mirvis ~ Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
Pamela S. Tikellis ~ Chimicles & Tikellis LLP
Peter E. Kazanoff ~ Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
Hon. John W. Noble ~ Vice Chancellor, Delaware Court of Chancery
 On-Demand MP3 MP4
What better way to learn about M&A litigation than from the attorneys that litigate the nation’s most important M&A disputes and the judges who preside over them? We have assembled judges from the Delaware Supreme Court and the Court of Chancery - the most experienced and respected courts on M&A matters - and distinguished M&A litigators to give you their perspectives on the best ways to handle corporate M&A disputes.

Whether you are just embarking on a litigation career or are a veteran of fast-paced, high-stakes merger disputes, this course will give you unique insights into M&A litigation. Our stellar faculty will provide you with proven strategies and tips to handle successfully every phase of a merger dispute.

Lecture Topics  [Total time 03:07:37]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.
  • Introduction and Opening Remarks* [00:02:32]
    David R. Marriott
  • Addressing Disputes Over Stockholder Meetings [01:06:23]
    A. Thompson Bayliss, Gary A. Bornstein, Stephen P. Lamb, Jenness E. Parker
  • New Trends in Controlling Stockholder Litigation [00:59:40]
    Stuart J. Baskin, Anne C. Foster, William M. Lafferty, Hon. Henry duPont Ridgely
  • Litigating Over Deal Protections in the Court of Chancery [00:59:02]
    Theodore N. Mirvis, Hon. John W. Noble, Pamela S. Tikellis, Peter E. Kazanoff, Joel E. Friedlander

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • Judicial Review of Tactical Adjournments or Rescheduling of Stockholder Meetings
    Stephen P. Lamb
  • Recent Delaware Court of Chancery Pronouncement on Deal Protections
  • Chapter 12: Conducting a Contested Stockholder Meeting
    Alan Miller
  • Delaying Judgment Day: How to Defer Stockholder Votes in Contested M&A Transactions
    Lois F. Herzeca
  • The Shareholder Judgment Rule: Delaware’s Permissive Response to Corporate Vote-Buying
  • David Et Al. v. Human Genome Sciences Et Al, CIV. No. 12-965–Memorandum Order, SLR (July 26, 2012)
  • Crown Emak Partners v. Kurz, 992 A.2D 377 (Del. Ch. April 21, 2010)
  • Kurz v. Holbrook, 989 A.2D 140 (Del. Ch. Feb. 9, 2010)
  • The Business Strategy Immunity: Nuts and Bolts
    Stuart J. Baskin
  • Letting Information Sink in: An Analysis of Delaware Cases Assessing the Time Necessary to Absorb Supplemental Disclosures
    A. Thompson Bayliss
  • The Rise of “Strong Form” Special Committees
    A. Thompson Bayliss
  • Too Many Cooks in Too Many Kitchens: The Problem of Identical Shareholder Suits in Multiple States
  • M&A Transactions Involving Controlling Stockholders
  • Controlling Stockholders May Face Liability If Found to Have Acted in Coercive Manner in Exit Sale
  • Special Committee Loses Perspective in Making Deal with Controlling Stockholder
  • The Evolution of M&A Litigation in the Chandler Era
    Ronald J Gilson
  • Here Comes the Shareholder Litigation
  • The Right Solution to the Wrong Problem: The Status of Controlling Shareholders After In Re John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc
  • In Re John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc. Shareholder Litig., 2009 WL 3165613 (Del. Ch. Oct. 2, 2009)
  • In Re Synthes, Inc. Shareholder Litig, 50 A.3D 1022 (Del. Ch. Aug. 17, 2012)
  • In Re Southern Peru Copper Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litig., 52 A.3D 761 (Del. Ch. Dec. 20, 2011)
  • Kahn v. Lynch Communications Systems, 638 A.2D 1110 (Del. 1994)
  • Takeover Law and Practice
    Theodore N. Mirvis
  • Multi-Jurisdictional Litigation: Who Caused This Problem and Can it Be Fixed?
    Edward B. Micheletti
  • An Overview of Legal Challenges to the Deal
    Grant J. Esposito, Judson E. Lobdell
  • The Availability of Takeover Defenses and Deal Protection Devices for Anglo-American Target Companies
  • Recent Developments in Deal Protection in U.S. and U.K. Markets
    Richard Hall
  • Stretching the Limits of Deal Protection Devices: From Omnicare to Wachovia
  • Deal Protection: One Size Does Not Fit All
  • Breacher Beware: Contract Damages in Delaware M&A Decisions
    Jeffrey R. Wolters
  • Reining in the “Liquidity Conflict” Under Delaware Law
    Jeffrey R. Wolters
  • Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 493 A.2D 946 (1985)
  • In Re Complete Genomics, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 7888–VCL (Del. Ch. Nov. 27, 2012) Telephonic Oral Argument and the Court’s Ruling
  • In Re Ancestry.Com Inc. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 7988–CS (Del. Ch. Dec. 17, 2012) Ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction
  • In Re Toys “R” US, Inc., Shareholder Litig., 877 A.2D 975 (Del. Ch. June 24, 2005)

Presentation Material

  • Addressing Disputes Over Stockholder Meetings
    A. Thompson Bayliss, Gary A. Bornstein, Stephen P. Lamb, Jenness E. Parker
Chairperson(s)
David R. Marriott ~ Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
Speaker(s)
Stuart J. Baskin ~ Shearman & Sterling LLP
A. Thompson Bayliss ~ Abrams & Bayliss
Gary A. Bornstein ~ Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
Anne C. Foster ~ Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
Joel E. Friedlander ~ Bouchard Margules & Friedlander, P.A.
Peter E. Kazanoff ~ Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
William M. Lafferty ~ Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
Stephen P. Lamb ~ Former Vice Chancellor, Delaware Court of Chancery, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Theodore N. Mirvis ~ Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
Hon. John W. Noble ~ Vice Chancellor, Delaware Court of Chancery
Jenness E. Parker ~ Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP
Hon. Henry duPont Ridgely ~ Justice, Delaware Supreme Court
Pamela S. Tikellis ~ Chimicles & Tikellis LLP

PLI makes every effort to accredit its On-Demand Web Programs and Segments.  Please check the CLE Calculator above for CLE information specific to your state.

On-Demand Web Programs and Segments are approved in:

Alabama1, Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho*, Illinois , Iowa2*, Kansas, Kentucky*, Louisiana, Maine*, Mississippi, Missouri3, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire4, New Jersey, New Mexico5, New York6,  North Carolina7, North Dakota, Ohio8, Oklahoma9, Oregon*, Pennsylvania10, Rhode Island11, South Carolina, Tennessee12, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia13, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin14 and Wyoming*.

Iowa, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin DO NOT approve Audio Only On-Demand Web Programs.

Minnesota  approves live webcasts ONLY

Please Note: The State Bar of Arizona does not approve or accredit CLE activities for the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirement. PLI programs may qualify for credit based on the requirements outlined in the MCLE Regulations and Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. Rule 45.

*PLI will apply for credit upon request. Louisiana and New Hampshire: PLI will apply for credit upon request for audio-only on-demand web programs.


1Alabama: Approval of all web based programs is limited to a maximum of 6.0 credits.
 

2Iowa:  The approval is for one year from recorded date. Does not approve of Audio-only On-Demand Webcasts.

3Missouri:  On-demand web programs are restricted to six hours of self-study credit per year.  Self-study may not be used to satisfy the ethics requirements.  Self-study can not be used for carryover credit.
 

4New Hamphsire:  The approval is for three years from recorded date.

5New Mexico:  On-Demand web programs are restricted to 4.0 self-study credits per year. 


6New York:  Newly admitted attorneys may not take non-traditional course formats such as on-demand Web Programs or live Webcasts for CLE credit. Newly admitted attorneys not practicing law in the United States, however, may earn 12 transitional credits in non-traditional formats. 

7North Carolina:  A maximum of 4 credits per reporting period may be earned by participating in on-demand web programs. 


8Ohio:  To confirm that the web program has been approved, please refer to the list of Ohio’s Approved Self Study Activities at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us.  Online programs are considered self-study.  Ohio attorneys have a 6 credit self-study limit per compliance period.  The Ohio CLE Board states that attorneys must have a 100% success rate in clicking on timestamps to receive ANY CLE credit for an online program.

9Oklahoma:  Up to 6 credits may be earned each year through computer-based or technology-based legal education programs.


10Pennsylvania:  PA attorneys may only receive a maximum of four (4) hours of distance learning credit per compliance period. All distance learning programs must be a minimum of 1 full hour.
 

11Rhode Island:  Audio Only On-Demand Web Programs are not approved for credit.  On-Demand Web Programs must have an audio and video component.

12Tennessee:  The approval is for the calendar year in which the live program was presented.

13Virginia: All distance learning courses are to be done in an educational setting, free from distractions.

14Wisconsin: Ethics credit is not allowed.  The ethics portion of the program will be approved for general credit.  There is a 10 credit limit for on-demand web programs during every 2-year reporting period.  Does not approve of Audio-only On-Demand Webcasts.


Running time and CLE credit hours are not necessarily the same. Please be aware that many states do not permit credit for luncheon and keynote speakers.


If you have already received credit for attending some or the entire program, please be aware that state administrators do not permit you to accrue additional credit for repeat viewing even if an additional credit certificate is subsequently issued.


Note that some states limit the number of credit hours attorneys may claim for online CLE activities, and state rules vary with regard to whether online CLE activities qualify for participatory or self-study credits. For more information, call Customer Service (800) 260-4PLI (4754) or e-mail info@pli.edu.

 
Related Items

Live Seminars  Live Seminars

M&A Litigation 2014 (New York, NY) Jun. 26, 2014

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

M&A Litigation 2014  
M&A Litigation 2013 David R. Marriott, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
 
M&A Litigation 2012 David R. Marriott, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
 
Print Share Email
Related Treatises

Fashion Law and Business: Brands & Retailers

Social Media and the Law

Post-Grant Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • RSS
  • facebook
  • twitter

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2013 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.