• Contact

    • Service

    Business Litigation

    Montgomery McCracken’s Business Litigation Practice represents corporations and unincorporated business entities, their officers, directors, partners and managers, their financial advisors, and their shareholders and creditors in a wide array of adversarial and summary proceedings. These matters have been pursued and resolved in venues across the country, including the Delaware Court of Chancery, the nation’s preeminent business tribunal. Additionally, our business litigators work with their transactional colleagues to mitigate litigation risk at the deal table, often by recommending and overseeing litigation-tested process enhancements.

    Business Litigation and Dispute Resolution

    Members of our Business Litigation Practice have litigated and resolved shareholder class and derivative proceedings, partner and member disputes, proceedings under the Delaware General Corporation Law and alternative entity laws, and other matters involving fiduciary and contract obligations. We have both defended and prosecuted claims against corporate fiduciaries, including some of the most highly compensated executives in the United States. We represent boards of directors, board committees, independent and affiliated directors and director groups, C-suite officers, managers and managing partners, as well as sophisticated shareholders, both individual and institutional.

    We frequently are called upon to litigate disputes involving transactions, which range from asset sales and financings to change in control transactions. We serve as primary counsel and also work in coordination with reputable firms located throughout the country and abroad. And we have resolved business disputes through private settlements, agency proceedings, mediation, arbitration, and trial. Where appropriate, we explore risk-sharing financial arrangements (including various types of alternative and contingent fee arrangements) with clients to mitigate the burden of potentially costly litigation.

    Litigation Risk Assessment and Mitigation

    Our Business Litigation attorneys do more than merely litigate. We bring insight gleaned from litigating business disputes to bear on efforts to avoid litigation. To do this, we work collaboratively with our corporate and transactional colleagues to assess litigation risk at the deal table, and to explore process enhancements designed to foreclose litigation, or mitigate exposure should a transaction (or a prospective transaction) be challenged.

    Incorporates a Broad Array of Collateral Specialties

    Consistent with the multi-disciplinary approach characteristic of our firm, the Business Litigation Practice draws upon a wide array of related practice specialties, including Alternative Dispute Resolution, Antitrust, Bankruptcy and Financial Restructuring, Class Action Defense, Cybersecurity and Data Privacy, Family Office, Financial Services, Insurance Recovery, Intellectual Property, Labor and Employment, Tax, and Trade Secret and Noncompete Litigation. Where appropriate, our business litigators work collaboratively with members of these and other practices in an effort to more fully understand and analyze the breadth and implications of a given dispute and achieve an outcome informed by nuanced, but often very important, legal considerations.

    Experience

    We represent clients before enforcement agencies in Washington, DC and Philadelphia, and have enabled our antitrust clients to efficiently resolve difficult cases through our effective advocacy.

    REPRESENTATIVE MATTERS
    • Julius W. Erving II v. ABG Intermediate Holdings 2, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 2021-0816-NAC (Del. Ch. 2023) (defense of claims alleging breach of contractual brand development and marketing obligations)
    • Jack v. Jack Acquisitions, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 19-0052-CFC (Del. Sup. 2020) (defense of assignment and indemnity disputes arising under stock purchase agreement)
    • Blackthorn Partners, L.P. v. John C. Malone, et al., C.A. No. 5260-VCS (Del. Ch.) (prosecution of fiduciary duty claims against directors of Liberty Media Corporation in connection with sale of business unit to DirecTV)
    • AIG Corp. Consol. Derivative Litig., C.A. No. 769-N (Del. Ch.) (defense of former CEO of Gen Re in connection with shareholder derivative claims)
    • Redwood Regional Medical Group, Inc. v. Cancer Clinics of Excellence, et al., C.A. No. 6273-CS (Del. Ch.) (defense of Delaware limited liability company against direct and derivative claims asserted by members)
    • Ortsman v. ADESA, et al., C.A. No. 2670-VCL (Del. Ch.) (representation of Adesa’s CEO, COB and CFO against shareholder breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from private equity acquisition transaction)
    • In re Compucom Systems, Inc. Stockholders Litig., C.A. No. 499-N, 2005 WL 2481325 (Del. Ch. Sept. 29, 2005) (defense of special committee in connection with shareholder breach of fiduciary duty claims)
    • Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana v. Scrushy, C.A. No. 20529, 2004 WL 423122 (Del.Ch. March 2, 2004) (defense of former HealthSouth director (then the CEO of Caremark Rx) in connection with direct and derivative shareholder claims)
    • MTA Canada Royalty Corp. v. Compania Minera Pangea, S.A. DE C.V., C.A. No. N19C-11-228 AML CCLD (Del. Super.) (defense of mining interest in connection with disputed conditional payment obligation under a commercial assignment agreement)
    • Chiarenza v. TransNet Corporation, C.A. No. 5597-CS (Del. Ch.) (defense of Delaware corporation in connection of shareholder books and records proceeding and anticipated fiduciary duty claims)
    • In re Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. Shareholders Litig., C.A. No. 20507 (Del. Ch.) (representation of sophisticated shareholder group challenging proposed freeze-out transaction)
    • Miron v. Microsoft Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1149-CC (Del. Ch.) (defense of corporation and board designees in connection with direct and derivative shareholder claims)
    • Encompass Services Holding Corp. v. Prosero Inc., C.A. No. 578-N, 2005 WL 332810 (Del. Ch. Feb. 3, 2005) (statutory shareholder appraisal action)
    • Sicking v. JetStar Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 2232-N (Del. Ch.) (statutory shareholder appraisal action)
    • Olson v. Microsoft Corp., et al., C.A. No. 06C-01-355 (Del. Super.) (defense of corporation in connection with contract-based claims)
    • CertainTeed Corp. v. Celotex Corp., C.A. No. 471-N (Del. Ch.) (defense of seller corporation and related entities in connection with claims arising from asset acquisition transaction)

    Business Litigation Leadership

    View Full Team

    R. Montgomery Donaldson

    Wilmington

    SHARED THINKING

    View all insights

    Thirteen Montgomery McCracken Attorneys Selected to the 2025 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

    Montgomery McCracken is pleased to announce that thirteen of the firm’s attorneys have been selected to the 2025 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Super Lawyers Rising Stars lists. The following attorneys […]

    Read More

    Louis R. Moffa Receives Professional Lawyer of the Year Award

    Montgomery McCracken is pleased to announce that Louis R. Moffa, Jr. has been recognized by the New Jersey Commission on Professionalism in the Law. He was selected by the Camden […]

    Read More

    Delaware’s SB21: March 2025 Amendments to DGCL Sections 144 and 220

    Delaware Governor Matt Meyer signed Senate Bill 21 into law on March 26 this year. Setting aside the polarized rhetoric that occasioned the Bill’s proposal and journey through the approval process, […]

    Read More

    Montgomery McCracken Elects Four New Partners

    Montgomery McCracken is pleased to announce that Michael J. Duffy, Carson B. Morris, Stefania A. Rosca, and Kimberly L. Sachs have been elected to the firm’s partnership. Morris, located in the […]

    Read More

    Contact Us

    Collaboration is Our Best Practice