The Chancery Daily


Sign up here for a free trial of The Long Form or The Chancery Transactional.

For questions and support, please contact us here.
To subscribe, please contact us here.

Sponsored by NextGen Reporting




The Long Form - March 12, 2018




The Chancery Daily has recently reported a number of rulings in matters before the Court of Chancery involving co-pending criminal investigations or criminal or regulatory proceedings involving the same subject matter. Several of those rulings addressed motions to stay; however, as noted in our February 8, 2018 edition, a ruling in A. Schulman, Inc., et al. v. Citadel Plastics Holdings, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 12459-VCL, order 1 of 2 (Del. Ch. Feb. 7, 2018), addressed a civil litigant's obligation to produce documents related to the subject matter of the litigation that the litigant has separately provided to government officials. Today's edition discusses In re Insys Therapeutics Inc. Derivative LitigationC.A. No. 12696-VCMR (consol.), tr. ruling (Del. Ch. Feb. 8, 2018; filed Mar. 2, 2018), which also addresses a civil litigant's obligation to produce documents that it has provided to the government. Specifically, the Court requires the production of documents provided to the government, but indicates that its ruling is based on the facts presented, which include evidence of spoliation, including the absence of certain documents from books and records previously obtained through inspection under 8 Del. C. § 220, and the "extreme" nature of the conduct giving rise to plaintiffs' claims -- off-label marketing of an extremely powerful opioid pain medication. Perhaps most importantly, the Court emphasizes that it's ruling is one that it wouldn't want "cited back" as authority for a general outcome in other matters -- a disclaimer that TCD highlights so as not to oversell anything. While the disclaimer may render the Insys ruling less useful, we compile a few relevant authorities -- in addition to the Citadel order mentioned above -- that touch upon the issue.

The Court in In re Duke Energy Corp. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 7705-CS (consol.), transcript (Del. Ch. Dec. 11, 2013; filed Dec. 30, 2013), stayed derivative claims, but ordered that all written discovery provided to the defendants in a co-pending federal action be provided to plaintiffs.

The Court in Walter E. Ryan, Jr. v. John F. Gifford, et al. and Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., C.A. No. 2213, letter op. (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2007), ordered production of materials that an issuer had provided to the SEC as part of an investigation.

The Court in Noel Saito v. McKesson HBOC, Inc., C.A. No. *18533-CC, opinion (Del. Ch. Oct. 25, 2002; rev. Nov. 13, 2002), held that when a civil litigant communicates with a law enforcement agency about the subject matter of the litigation and provides information that has not been produced in the litigation, that information is discoverable unless a recognized privilege applies.

The Court in WT Equipment Partners, LP v. Karl M. Parrish, et al., C.A. No. *15616-VCJ, letter op. (Del. Ch. Sept. 7, 1999), held that when a civil litigant communicates with a law enforcement agency about the subject matter of the litigation and provides information that has been produced in the litigation, the litigant generally has no obligation to disclose the communication to its adversaries or to re-produce the same material to reveal what has been provided to the government.

Forum Non Conveniens Dismissal Affirmed
  • The Supreme Court affirms the Superior Court's dismissal for forum non conveniens but finds the Trial Court erred by stating that defendants, who were officers and directors of a Delaware Corporation connected to the case, had no Delaware connections.
  • AFFIRMED: Superior Court judgment
Forum Non Conveniens; Delaware Connection; Corporate Officer; Corporate Director
Derivative Plaintiffs to Receive Discovery Provided to the Government
In re Insys Therapeutics Inc. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 12696-VCMR (consol.), tr. ruling (Del. Ch. Feb. 8, 2018; filed Mar. 2, 2018)
  • The Court clarified that defendants' paper discovery provided to the government in related criminal matters should be produced to plaintiffs in a stayed derivative action, citing spoliation concerns and the extreme nature of the underlying allegations.
  • GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: Motion to clarify judgment
  • Stockholder plaintiffs brought derivative claims against nominal defendant's directors, arising out of potential damage to the company from off-label drug marketing, while a related securities class action and criminal investigation were already underway. The Court previously granted defendants' motion to stay, ordering defendants to provide plaintiffs with all discovery produced in the securities action. Plaintiffs moved for clarification that the prior ruling was not intended to be limited to discovery defendants produced in the securities action. The Court, in an oral ruling which it emphasized was limited to the facts -- involving absence of documents produced in a prior 8 Del. C. § 220 demand and evidence of possible spoliation -- and not intended to be cited as authority in other cases, clarified its intent that plaintiffs receive defendants' "paper discovery," provided to the government and third parties, not limited to the securities action.

    This transcript is available for purchase from the Chancery Court Reporters. To order, call (302) 255-0524.
Ct. Ch. R. 26; Stay Proceedings; Written Discovery; Criminal Proceedings; Spoliation; 8 Del. C. § 220
Summary Judgment Deferred Pending Hearing on Foreign Law
Rafael Mora Funes v. Andrew Batkin, et al. and IBT Internet Business Technologies Corp., C.A. No. 2017-0687-JRS, transcript (Del. Ch. Jan. 17, 2018; filed Feb. 14, 2018)
  • The Court, in an action to determine membership of a corporate board, deferred ruling on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment pending the outcome of a Ct. Ch. R. 44.1 hearing on a contested issue of foreign law.
  • DEFERRED: Ruling on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
  • Plaintiff, a purported stockholder and director of nominal defendant company, brought suit under 8 Del. C. § 225 to establish that he and a non-party Portuguese entity are nominal defendant's sole stockholders, that he and others are validly elected directors, and that defendants are not directors. Defendants contend that plaintiff is not a stockholder and that the Portuguese entity transferred its shares to another entity and could therefore not have executed the consents. Plaintiff argues that the transfer was cancelled by an administrator appointed in the Portuguese entity's insolvency proceedings, and moved for summary judgment, asking the Court to apply Portuguese law to determine that the purported stock transfer was validly cancelled and that the challenged written consents were valid. In this oral ruling, the Court defers judgment pending a Ct. Ch. R. 44.1 hearing on the application of Portuguese law.

    This transcript is available for purchase from the Chancery Court Reporters. To order, call (302) 735-2113.
Standing; 8 Del. C. § 225; Insurgent Director; Proper Plaintiff; Summary Judgment; Foreign Law; Ct. Ch. R. 44.1; Question of Law; Court-Appointed Expert; Material Fact; Remote Testimony
NEW BUSINESS
  • Nature of Action: Demand for books and records
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: COOCH AND TAYLOR; ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD; JOHNSON FISTEL
  • Entity Defendant(s): Bioverativ, Inc.
  • Nature of Action: Declaratory judgment concerning patent ownership
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: WHITE & WILLIAMS ; McINNES & McLANE
  • Individual Defendant(s): Florian Karrer
  • Entity Defendant(s): US Patent No. 80198807 Delegate, LLC
  • Nature of Action: Demand for appraisal
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: PRICKETT JONES & ELLIOTT
  • Entity Defendant(s): Rice Energy, Inc.
DAILY HEARING & TRIAL SCHEDULE
(W) = Wilmington; (D) = Dover; (G) = Georgetown; (T) = telephonic

Monday, March 12, 2018
09:15 (G) - Stanley Hignett, et al. v. Jasen Adams, et al., C.A. No. 12694-VCG [trial]
10:00 (W) - Certisign Holding, Inc. v. Sergio Kulikovsky, C.A. No. 12055-VCS
04:00 (T) - Thomas Sandys v. Mark J. Pincus, et al. and Zynga, Inc., C.A. No. 9512-CB

Tuesday, March 13, 2018
09:15 (G) - Stanley Hignett, et al. v. Jasen Adams, et al., C.A. No. 12694-VCG [trial]
10:00 (W) - Fortress Insurance, LLC v. Four Assurance Series of Fortress Insurance, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 2017-0120-AGB
02:00 (W) - Full Value Partners, LP v. The Swiss Helvetia Fund, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2017-0303-AGB
CASE ACTIVITY
The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's ruling granting dismissal for forum non conveniens, finding dismissal particularly justified because plaintiff had pursued his core arguments through appeal in a previous Bahamian proceeding, but ruled that the Superior Court erred by stating that two individual defendants, who were directors and officers of a Delaware corporation involved in the case, had no connection to Delaware.
". . . [W]e affirm the Superior Court's decision [in Peter R. Hall v. Maritek Corp., et al., C.A. No. 8C-07-123, opinion (Del. Super. Aug. 24, 2017),] that the case should be dismissed for forum non conveniens. The Superior Court was well within its discretion to dismiss the complaint, particularly because the plaintiff had already advanced the core of his argument based on new evidence [in a previous proceeding in the Bahamas] to the Privy Council during the appellate process from the Bahamian proceedings.

We note that in one respect the Superior Court erred. In its decision, the Superior Court stated that the two individual defendants had no connection to Delaware. That was not so, as they were directors and officers of a Delaware entity connected to the case. The responsibility that fiduciaries of Delaware entities owe to their entities and their equity holders is important, and one our state takes seriously. But, the Superior Court was within its discretion to hold that in the context of this particular dispute, Delaware was not a convenient forum."
In re Insys Therapeutics Inc. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 12696-VCMR (consol.), tr. ruling (Del. Ch. Feb. 8, 2018; filed Mar. 2, 2018)
Plaintiffs, stockholders of nominal defendant Insys, brought derivative claims against the company's directors for breach of fiduciary duty after first obtaining inspection of corporate books and records under 8 Del. C. § 220, alleging that the board approved off-label marketing of the company's opioid pain medication and were aware of "red flags" showing that Insys had paid kickbacks to physicians.

A related securities class action and criminal investigations involving related events preceded this lawsuit, and after plaintiffs filed their complaint, certain individual defendants in this action were indicted. Defendants moved to dismiss or stay this action pending resolution of the securities action and criminal investigation. The Court granted the motion to stay but ordered defendants to provide plaintiffs with all discovery produced in the securities action in In re In re Insys Therapeutics, Inc. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 12696-VCMR (consol.), letter op. (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2017).

Plaintiffs moved alter or clarify the prior ruling to require that defendants produce discovery provided to the government in the various co-pending actions, not limited to discovery provided in the securities action, and preserve electronically stored information during the stay.

The Court, in an oral ruling, denied plaintiffs' motion to the extent that it sought to reargue the prior stay ruling, but clarified that the intent of the prior discovery ruling was to provide plaintiffs with "paper discovery" to which they would be entitled under Ct. Ch. R. 26, consistent with that permitted in In re Duke Energy Corp. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 7705-CS (consol.), transcript (Del. Ch. Dec. 11, 2013), not limited to the securities class action. The Court emphasized that its ruling was based on the specific facts of the case, including evidence of possible spoliation and the extreme nature of the allegations in the underlying litigation, and should not be "cited back" as authority in another case. Finally, the Court ordered defendants to identify electronic devices and documents that have been preserved.
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
The Court granted in part derivative plaintiffs' motion for clarification of the Court's prior rulings granting a partial stay pending a related securities action and criminal proceedings, and ordering defendants to produce discovery from the securities action, clarifying that the intent of the prior ruling was to permit plaintiff to receive all paper discovery provided to the government that plaintiffs would be entitled to receive under Ct. Ch. R. 26. The Court noted that the ruling was based on the facts presented, involving evidence of spoliation, and the extreme facts of the underlying allegations, and that the ruling should not be cited as general authority in another case.
"First, I would like to clarify that I recognize that this is not just a tag-along suit to a federal securities action. Instead, it also relates to, and I believe will be influenced by, what happens in many lawsuits and investigations that the company and numerous employees are currently the subject of and are currently facing.

The second thing that I want to stress is that I don't think this is the typical case that we all see. This is an extreme case in terms of both the underlying substantive allegations and the concerns that have already been raised about potential discovery issues. I'm not going to speak on the substantive allegations, but a few quick points on some of the document and discovery issues that have been raised.

In the context of [8 Del. C. § 220] demand, documents were requested from huge blocks of time, where you might expect documents to have existed, but they don't exist. Further, documents have come to lead plaintiffs' attention that were not produced in response to the 220 demand that one might otherwise have expected to have been produced. And lead plaintiffs have flagged spoliation concerns arising directly from e-mails between employees at the company. Those are just some of the discovery issues that have come up at this early stage.

Because of those discovery concerns and, frankly, the underlying allegations, which I think are extreme at this stage, in the words of our Chief Justice, I don't want this transcript quoted back to me later. This is very much a ruling limited to these specific facts.

With that being said, my original intention was to follow the spirit of [In re Duke Energy Corp. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 7705-CS (consol.), transcript (Del. Ch. Dec. 11, 2013)]. In Duke, then-Chancellor Strine recognized that if the plaintiffs can receive 'paper discovery,' then 'they will be more prepared to conduct the discovery that will eventually occur in this case.' . . . But it wasn't my intention to limit discovery just to the federal securities action. However, to be clear, I am not going to order the defendants to summarily hand over everything they've produced to various government agencies. As the United States Supreme Court held in the [United States v. Morton Salt Co., No. 273, opinion (U.S. Feb. 6, 1950),] on the one hand, 'an administrative agency charged with seeing the laws are enforced may . . . exercise powers of original inquiry' and 'can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not.' On the other hand, civil litigation has more strict bounds.

The plaintiffs will get whatever nonprivileged relevant paper discovery they would be entitled to under [Ct. Ch. R. 26]. And to clarify, when I say 'paper discovery,' I mean from the universe of documents already produced to the government or other third parties. There will obviously need to be a strict confidentiality agreement in place before anything is produced, which means the parties are going to need to meet and confer and figure all of that out.

Defendants, which includes the company, are also going to give the plaintiffs a list of electronic devices and documents that have been preserved."
In re Insys Therapeutics Inc. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 12696-VCMR (consol.), tr. ruling at 3, 5-6 (Del. Ch. Feb. 8, 2018; filed Mar. 2, 2018)
Rafael Mora Funes v. Andrew Batkin, et al. and IBT Internet Business Technologies Corp., C.A. No. 2017-0687-JRS, transcript (Del. Ch. Jan. 17, 2018; filed Feb. 14, 2018)
Plaintiff Funes, an alleged stockholder and director of nominal defendant IBT, brought this 8 Del. C. § 225 action to confirm that he and others were validly elected IBT directors by written consent, maintaining that he and non-party "IBT Portugal," both of which signed the consents, are nominal defendant's sole stockholders.

Defendants who purport to be IBT's duly elected directors contend that plaintiff owns no stock, and IBT Portugal previously transferred its shares to another entity, so that consents they signed were ineffective. Plaintiff responds that an administrator, appointed by the Portuguese courts in an insolvency proceeding to oversee IBT Portugal, cancelled the stock transfer.

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, seeking a declaration that the cancelation was valid under Portuguese law, the consents were effective, and he and the Portuguese entity were duly elected. Defendants opposed, arguing that the cancelation did not comply with Portuguese law, and that the motion could not be granted regardless of the cancellation's effectiveness because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether plaintiff is a stockholder -- and if not, defendants argue plaintiff lacks standing to assert claims under Section 225 because "[o]nly directors seeking to retain their office and stockholders have standing."

The Court defers ruling on plaintiff's motion in this oral ruling, finding further development of the record necessary to resolve contested issues of Portuguese law and ordering a hearing on the issue under [Ct. Ch. R. 44.1]. Though expressing doubt that plaintiff lacks standing, the Court also defers ruling on that issue.
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
The Court, in colloquy with defense counsel in an 8 Del. C. § 225 action to resolve contested board membership, challenged defendants' argument that plaintiff -- an alleged newly elected director -- lacked standing because a § 225 action must be asserted by an incumbent director or a stockholder, but deferred ruling on the issue.
". . . . [S]tockholders vote on the board that they wish to manage the company. The incumbent board holds over, says, 'We're not going.' The slate of directors that appear to have been elected by the stockholders initiate an action in this Court under [8 Del. C. § 225] to challenge the hold. Stockholders, for whatever reason, elect not to bring that action, aren't joined in the action. Is it your position that the directors who appear to have been elected at the election of stockholders have no standing to challenge?

. . . What about in a public company, how does it work there? If the public stockholders don't want to be bothered after an election with being involved in litigation and there is a dispute, now, as between the directors, the holdovers, the incumbents, and those newly elected, it just doesn't get resolved?

. . . What if the new directors run in and they say, 'Here we are. We got to the office first. We happen to have the keys. We're sitting in the board chairs, now we're the incumbents,' how does that get resolved? Do they have standing, but the guys who were there the day before don't?

. . . So you have a slate of directors over here who claim that they are entitled to sit on this board and their claim now, by virtue of your defenses, is contested. Your folks, likewise, say, 'We should be on the board.' Their entitlement to those seats, likewise, contested. . . . [L]et's say the stockholders didn't file. What you are saying is that that contest cannot be joined and decided unless the folks who happen to be in the seat at the moment as directors initiate the action.

. . . I don't know how [defendants' argument] serves any policy that we want to advance, where a company can be held in gridlock because the stockholders don't feel like litigating.

. . . I will close the circle on the standing issue. I'll look at it more carefully . . . . so I am not making a final determination today regarding standing."
Rafael Mora Funes v. Andrew Batkin, et al. and IBT Internet Business Technologies Corp., C.A. No. 2017-0687-JRS, transcript at 39-41, 51-52, 66 (Del. Ch. Jan. 17, 2018; filed Feb. 14, 2018)
The Court deferred ruling on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in an 8 Del. C. § 225 action to resolve contested board membership where the parties contested application of Portuguese law, recognizing that matters of foreign law may be determined on a motion for summary judgment, but finding further development of the record necessary through a Ct. Ch. R. 44.1 hearing, at which witnesses in Portugal would be permitted to testify remotely, which the Court found a superior approach in this case to using a court-appointed foreign-law expert.
". . . As is well-settled, summary judgment can be granted only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the Court determines that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In deciding a motion for summary judgment, I view the evidence and all inferences drawn from that evidence in favor of the non-moving party. A motion for summary judgment should be denied when the Court determines '. . . the legal question presented needs to be assessed in [a] 'more highly textured factual setting . . .' or [when] the Court 'decides that a more thorough development of the record would clarify the law or its application.' ' And that's a quote from this Court's decision in the [Carlo Vichi v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics, NV, et al. and LG Philips Displays Finance, LLC, C.A. No. 2578-VCP, opinion (Del. Ch. Nov. 28, 2012)].

Under [Ct. Ch. R. 44.1], matters of foreign law present questions of law . . . and are, therefore, generally susceptible to resolution on summary judgment. Again, the Vichi matter is instructive on that point.

If, however, genuine issues of material fact with respect to the applicable foreign law exist or additional evidence would be helpful to the Court in making its decision, then the Court can defer the decision on summary judgment to allow that evidence to be developed. In those instances, the Court has probably more than two options, but two of which I am aware: One is to retain its own foreign law expert, as the [Superior] Court did in [Saudi Basic Industries Corp. v. Mobil Yanbu Petrochemical Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 00C-07-161-JRJ], in [Anajai Calano Pallano, et al. v. AES Corp., et al., C.A. No. 09C-11-021-JRJ, order (Del. Super. Jan. 24, 2011),] and others; or the Court can hold a hearing pursuant to Rule 44.1, at which it receives evidence from the parties' experts regarding the competing views on foreign law and then makes its determination as a matter of law based on that record. And by way of example of a Rule 44.1 hearing, I point to this Court's decision in [Vivian Czarninski Baier de Adler v. Upper New York Investment Co., LLC, et al., C.A. No. 6896-VCN, memo. op. (Del. Ch. Oct. 31, 2013)]. In my view, this latter process will be most efficient here.

Accordingly, at this stage, I am going to defer ruling on the motion for summary judgment and I am going to ask the parties to confer regarding a schedule leading up to and including an evidentiary hearing under Rule 44.1. At the conclusion of that hearing, it's my intent to address and decide the matters of Portuguese law that are in dispute. Depending upon the outcome of that process, I'll either return to the motion for summary judgment based on the submissions that I've already received or I may ask for supplements from the parties at that point.

. . . I know that Portugal is five hours ahead of us. I don't think it's necessary for you-all to pay for these folks to travel to Delaware, much less to Dover, although I'm sure their lives would be enriched by that experience. I would be happy to do this by some sort of video conferencing. But I do think it would be useful to have them presented live, because I have some questions for them."
Rafael Mora Funes v. Andrew Batkin, et al. and IBT Internet Business Technologies Corp., C.A. No. 2017-0687-JRS, transcript at 61-64 (Del. Ch. Jan. 17, 2018; filed Feb. 14, 2018)
SUMMARIES OF NEW COMPLAINTS
  • Plaintiff(s): Stewart N. Goldstein
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: COOCH AND TAYLOR - Bruce McNew (#967); ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD - Randall J. Baron; David T. Wissbroecker; Christopher H. Lyons (#5493); JOHNSON FISTEL - W. Scott Holleman
  • Entity Defendant(s): Bioverativ, Inc.
  • Nature of Claim(s): Plaintiff Goldstein brought this action seeking inspection of defendant Bioverativ's books and records to investigate potential wrongdoing and breaches of fiduciary duties by the company's directors in connection with a proposed acquisition of the company.
    Count 1: Inspection of Books and Records Under 8 Del. C. §220
  • Field of Law: Corporate - demand for books and records
  • Basis for Jurisdiction: 8 Del. C. § 220 - inspection of corporate books and records
  • Preliminary Motions: Motion for expedited proceedings
  • Plaintiff(s): Lexington Services, Ltd.
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: WHITE & WILLIAMS - Marc S. Casarino (#3613); McINNES & McLANE - John T. McInnes; Jodi-Ann McLane; Ashley Brandin
  • Individual Defendant(s): Florian Karrer
  • Entity Defendant(s): US Patent No. 80198807 Delegate, LLC
  • Nature of Claim(s): Defendant Lexington Services brought this action concerning defendants' alleged execution and recordation of a fraudulent patent assignment agreement, which has placed a cloud on the title of the patent harming plaintiff's current and future attempts to license and enforce the patent. Plaintiff seeks a declaration to quiet title of the patent and recission of the fraudulent assignment agreement.
    Count 1: Fraudulent Conveyance
    Count 2: Fraud
    Count 3: Equitable Fraud
    Count 4: Slander of Title
    Count 5: Quiet Title
    Count 6: Conversion
    Count 7: Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations
    Count 8: Conspiracy to Defraud
    Count 9: Declaratory Judgment
  • Field of Law: Trade Secrets/Trademarks/Other Intellectual Property
  • Basis for Jurisdiction: 10 Del. C. § 3104 - personal service on non-residents (long arm statute); 6 Del. C. § 18-105 - service of process on LLC ; 6 Del. C. § 18-109 - service of process on LLC managers
  • Plaintiff(s): Merlin Partners, LP
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: PRICKETT JONES & ELLIOTT - Marcus E. Montejo (#4890)
  • Entity Defendant(s): Rice Energy, Inc.
  • Nature of Claim(s): Plaintiff stockholder Merlin Partners brought this action for statutory appraisal of its shares of defendant Rice Energy's common stock.
  • Field of Law: Corporation Law
  • Basis for Jurisdiction: 8 Del. C. § 262 - appraisal rights
WEEKLY HEARING & TRIAL SCHEDULE - Mar. 12 - Mar. 16, 2018
(W) = Wilmington; (D) = Dover; (G) = Georgetown; (T) = telephonic

Monday, March 12, 2018
09:15 (G) - Stanley Hignett, et al. v. Jasen Adams, et al., C.A. No. 12694-VCG [trial]
10:00 (W) - Certisign Holding, Inc. v. Sergio Kulikovsky, C.A. No. 12055-VCS
04:00 (T) - Thomas Sandys v. Mark J. Pincus, et al. and Zynga, Inc., C.A. No. 9512-CB

Tuesday, March 13, 2018
09:15 (G) - Stanley Hignett, et al. v. Jasen Adams, et al., C.A. No. 12694-VCG [trial]
10:00 (W) - Fortress Insurance, LLC v. Four Assurance Series of Fortress Insurance, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 2017-0120-AGB
02:00 (W) - Full Value Partners, LP v. The Swiss Helvetia Fund, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2017-0303-AGB

Wednesday, March 14, 2018
09:15 (G) - Stanley Hignett, et al. v. Jasen Adams, et al., C.A. No. 12694-VCG [trial]
10:00 (W) - Lilly Lea Perry v. Dieter Walter Neupert, et al., C.A. No. 2017-0290-JTL
02:00 (T) - Sinovac Biotech Ltd. v. 1Globe Capital, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0143-JTL

Thursday, March 15, 2018
09:15 (G) - Stanley Hignett, et al. v. Jasen Adams, et al., C.A. No. 12694-VCG [trial]
09:15 (W) - Fred L. Pasternack v. Northeastern Aviation Corp., C.A. No. 12082-VCMR [trial]
02:00 (W) - In re Galena Biopharma, Inc., C.A. No. 2017-0423-JTL

Friday, March 16, 2018
09:15 (G) - Stanley Hignett, et al. v. Jasen Adams, et al., C.A. No. 12694-VCG [trial]
09:15 (W) - Fred L. Pasternack v. Northeastern Aviation Corp., C.A. No. 12082-VCMR [trial]
10:00 (W) - In re PLX Technology, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 9880-VCL (consol.)
02:00 (W) - In the Matter of the Rehabilitation of Freestone Insurance, C.A. No. 9574-VCL - AND - Destra Targeted Income Unit Investment Trust, et al. v. Parmjit Singh Parmar, et al. and Constellation Health Group, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 13006-VCL