Representative Matters

  • Obtained dismissal of a complaint by an investor alleging negligent misrepresentation claims against company in connection with a capital fundraising round. van den Wildenberg v. Sign-Zone Holdings, L.P., 2025 WL 354975 (Del. Ch. Jan. 31, 2025). The dismissal was affirmed on appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court on October 17, 2025.

  • Successfully opposed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in May 2025 in connection with an attempt to stay proceedings in a lower court due to a claimed agreement to arbitrate.

  • Succeeded in representing a co-lead band member in August 2024 in securing a corporate custodian in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware to break deadlocks involving an internationally known rock band.
  • Represented an elected public official in an investigation into allegations of harassment.
  • Successfully represented a New York-based hedge fund in the prosecution of a multi-day arbitration in New York City involving claims based on a litigation funding agreement. The award to the funder, made in 2022, included an award of its attorneys’ fees.
  • Tried a complex fraud and breach of fiduciary duty case in December 2020 in the Delaware Court of Chancery after more than two years of litigation that involved the misappropriation of several millions of dollars paid into an investment fund. Following oral argument in October 2021, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s post-trial finding of a breach of fiduciary duty.
  • Represented an international mining company in an arbitration before the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre involving the shipment of cargo from China to Europe.
  • Successfully represented a shareholder of Anixa Biosciences, Inc. in a derivative action challenging the improper re-pricing of options after certain officers and directors came into possession of material inside information. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was defeated after oral argument (Howland v. Kumar, 2019 WL 2479739 (Del. Ch. June 13, 2019)) and the Court eventually approved a significant settlement on October 4, 2019 that included 15 corporate governance reforms implemented by the Company and the repayment of money by three named defendants.
  • Successfully argued a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in which the court affirmed a grant of summary judgment by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in an action involving an attempt to pierce the corporate veil under Delaware law. Cohen v. Schroeder, No. 17-1301. 2018 WL 1109632 (Feb. 28, 2018).
  • Represented two members of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange in a federal securities fraud class action brought against the stock exchange and various members under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of the case. Rabin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, et al., No. 16-2511. 2017 WL 4812550 (Oct. 25, 2017).
  • Represented New Castle County, Delaware in connection with its denial of a high-profile development plan based on traffic issues. The Delaware Superior Court denied the developer’s request to allow the plan to proceed. Golf Course Assoc., LLC v. New Castle County, et al., 2016 WL 1425367 (Del. Super. Mar. 28, 2016), and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the decision on appeal. Del. Supreme Ct., No. 200, 2016 (Dec. 9, 2016).
  • Served as lead counsel in a shareholder class action brought in the Chancery Court of Delaware on behalf of shareholders of Pet360, Inc. involving its September 2014 acquisition by PetSmart, Inc. The case centered on the low valuation of Pet360, Inc. and the wrongful process used during the acquisition. In September 2016, in the course of extensive discovery, the action settled with additional consideration being paid to former Pet360 shareholders.
  • Obtained a temporary restraining order in the Chancery Court of Delaware that required a client's competitor to take down its website. The court found the competitor’s website infringed on the client’s website in violation of Delaware’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
  • Secured partial judgment on behalf of a stockholder and putative class in a high profile Chancery Court matter challenging a Delaware corporation’s non-reciprocal fee-shifting bylaw and whether the bylaw applied to the stockholder’s challenge to the fairness of a reverse stock split. Four days after completing the stock split (which had the effect of involuntarily cashing out the challenging stockholder), the company adopted a fee-shifting bylaw. The court ruled based on principles of contract law that the fee-shifting bylaw was not applicable because it was adopted after the stockholder was cashed out of the company. Stougo v. Hollander (First Aviation Services, Inc.) 111 A.2d 590 (Del. Ch. 2015).
  • Successfully defended the management company and owner of a Delaware hotel against an employment claim brought by an individual who had accepted an offer of employment as an executive. Obtained a critically favorable pretrial ruling respecting available damages under a discrete area of the law in February 2015 – just weeks before trial was to commence in Delaware Superior Court.
  • Retained by New Castle County, Delaware to take over representation of the county in a high-profile rezoning matter involving what would have been one of the largest construction projects in county history. Succeeded at trial in the Chancery Court of Delaware, and the Delaware Supreme Court upheld the ruling on March 25, 2014. Barley Mill, LLC v. Save Our County, Inc., et al., 89 A.3d 51 (Del. Sup. 2014).
  • Successfully intervened in an action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a client owed a substantial sum of money in connection with work it had performed related to the pending lawsuit. After a six-day evidentiary hearing, the court rendered a favorable decision in early 2014 resulting in a sizeable recovery for the client.
  • Successfully prosecuted a breach of fiduciary duty and statutory violation case in the Delaware Chancery Court brought by a group of founders and shareholders of a health care technology company in connection with several rounds of venture capital financings. The decision in that case, Carsanaro v. Bloodhound Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 7301-VCL (March 15, 2013), is often cited in discussions about venture capital financing of Delaware corporations.