in
Advanced Search
On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

M&A Litigation 2012

Released on: Jul. 12, 2012
Running Time: 03:05:08

Running Time Segment Title Faculty Format
[01:07:14] Tackling Procedure: Corporate Benefit Fee Awards and the Motion to Expedite Pamela S. Tikellis ~ Chimicles & Tikellis LLP
Peter E. Kazanoff ~ Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
Edward B. Micheletti ~ Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Hon. John W. Noble ~ Vice Chancellor, Delaware Court of Chancery
 On-Demand MP3 MP4
[00:57:06] Unique Challenges of Delaware Court of Chancery Practice Joel E. Friedlander ~ Bouchard Margules & Friedlander, P.A.
Anne C. Foster ~ Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
Alan S. Goudiss ~ Shearman & Sterling LLP
A. Thompson Bayliss ~ Abrams & Bayliss
 On-Demand MP3 MP4
[00:59:09] Litigating Over Alleged Process Flaws in M&A Deals Theodore N. Mirvis ~ Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
William M. Lafferty ~ Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
Gary A. Bornstein ~ Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
Hon. Henry duPont Ridgely ~ Justice, Delaware Supreme Court
 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 successfully handle every phase of a merger dispute.

Lecture Topics  [Total time 03:05:08]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Introduction and Opening Remarks* [00:01:39]
    Robert H. Baron
  • Tackling Procedure: Corporate Benefit Fee Awards and the Motion to Expedite [01:07:14]
    Peter E. Kazanoff, Edward B. Micheletti, Hon. John W. Noble, Pamela S. Tikellis
  • Unique Challenges of Delaware Court of Chancery Practice [00:57:06]
    A. Thompson Bayliss, Anne C. Foster, Alan S. Goudiss, Joel E. Friedlander
  • Litigating Over Alleged Process Flaws in M&A Deals [00:59:09]
    Gary A. Bornstein, William M. Lafferty, Theodore N. Mirvis, Hon. Henry duPont Ridgely

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

  • Recent Efforts to Increase the Predictability of Fee Awards in M&A Litigation
    Peter E. Kazanoff
  • Corporation Law Highlights From the Delaware Courts in 2011 (And First Quarter 2012)
    Edward B. Micheletti
  • Multi-Forum Deal Litigation: A Growing Concern
    Edward B. Micheletti
  • Multi-Jurisdictional Litigation: Who Caused This Problem, and Can It Be Fixed?
    Edward B. Micheletti
  • Evaluating Attorney Fee Requests in Mergers & Acquisitions Litigation
  • Getting Litigation to Move at the Speed of Business: The Art of the Motion to Expedite in the Court of Chancery
  • The Business Strategy Immunity: Nuts and Bolts
    Stuart J. Baskin
  • Recent Developments in Delaware M&A Law
    Anne C. Foster
  • Does Your Deal Lawyer Belong in the Witness Chair? Assessing Whether to Raise the Advice of Counsel Defense in M&A Litigation
    A. Thompson Bayliss
  • Guidelines for Persons Litigating in the Court of Chancery
  • Delaware Quarterly, Recent Developments in Delaware Business and Securities Law April 2011-June 2011
    John E. Schreiber
  • Quasi-Appraisal: The Unexplored Frontier of Stockholder Litigation?
    Stephen P. Lamb, Justin G. Hamill
  • Preserving the Attorney-Client Privilege in Corporate Transactions and Review of Board Committee Actions
  • Financial Advisors and the Attorney-Client Privilege
  • Litigating Over Alleged Process Flaws in M&A Deals
    William M. Lafferty, Gary A. Bornstein
  • Takeover Law and Practice
    Theodore N. Mirvis
  • Anatomy of a Merger Litigation
    Marcia Kramer Mayer, Douglas J. Clark
  • Recent Developments in Shareholder Litigation Involving Mergers and Acquisitions, March 2012 Update
  • Duty Follows Function: Two Approaches to Curing the Mismatch Between the Fiduciary Duties and Potential Personal Liability of Corporate Officers
    Stephen P. Lamb
  • Lessons From Southern Peru's Special Committee Saga
    Diane Holt Frankle
  • Delaware Award Guides Special Committees on Controlling Stockholder Transactions
  • Unliquidated Derivative Claims Continue to Have Little Value
  • In re Southern Peru Copper Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 961-CS (Oct. 14, 2011)
  • In re Del Monte Foods Company Shareholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 6027-VCL (June 27, 2011)
  • Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986)
  • Lambrecht v. O'Neal, 3 A.3d 277 (Del. 2010)
  • In re Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation, 2011 WL 2176479 (Del. Ch. 2011)
  • Trados How Did We Get There? Where Do We Go From Here? (PowerPoint Slides)
    William M. Lafferty
  • Multi-Jurisdictional Issues in Stockholder/Deal Litigation (PowerPoint Slides)
    Theodore N. Mirvis
  • Index to M&A Litigation 2012

Presentation Material

  • Unique Challenges of Delaware Court of Chancery Practice
    A. Thompson Bayliss, Anne C. Foster, Hon. J. Travis Laster, Alan S. Goudiss
  • Trados - How Did We Get There? Where Do We Go from Here?
    William M. Lafferty
  • Litigating Over Alleged Process Flaws in M&A Deals
    William M. Lafferty
  • Multi-jurisdictional Issues in Stockholder / Deal Litigation
    Theodore N. Mirvis
Chairperson(s)
Robert H. Baron ~ Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
Speaker(s)
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.
Alan S. Goudiss ~ Shearman & Sterling LLP
Peter E. Kazanoff ~ Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
William M. Lafferty ~ Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
Edward B. Micheletti ~ Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Theodore N. Mirvis ~ Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
Hon. John W. Noble ~ Vice Chancellor, Delaware Court of Chancery
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 2013 (New York, NY) Jun. 27, 2013

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

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

Social Media and the Law

Post-Grant Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Likelihood of Confusion in Trademark Law

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • RSS
  • facebook
  • twitter

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