paint-brush
Former Twitter Execs Sue the Company: Get to Know Their Counselby@legalpdf
175 reads

Former Twitter Execs Sue the Company: Get to Know Their Counsel

by Legal PDF: Tech Court CasesJanuary 25th, 2024
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

The information contained here in is for the use by the Court for statistical and administrative purpose

People Mentioned

Mention Thumbnail
featured image - Former Twitter Execs Sue the Company: Get to Know Their Counsel
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases HackerNoon profile picture

PARAG AGRAWAL VIJAYA GADDE, and NED SEGAL v. twitter Court Filing, retrieved on April 10, 2023 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This is part 37 of 38.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO RULE 3 (A) OF THE RULES OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY

The information contained here in is for the use by the Court for statistical and administrative purpose in this document shall be deemed binding for purposes of the merits of the case.


  1. Case caption: Parag Agrawal, Vijaya Gadde, and Ned Segal v . Twitter, Inc.


2. Date filed: April 10, 2023


3. Name and address of counsel for plaintiff( s) :


Jeffrey M. Gorris (Bar No. 5012)

David Hahn (Bar No. 6417)

Friedlander & Gorris, P.A.

1201 North Market Street, Suite 2200

Wilmington, DE 19801( 302) 573-3500


4. Short statement and nature of claim(s) asserted: This action seeks an expedited ruling requiring Defendant to comply with its obligations to advance legal fees and expenses.


5. Substantive field of law involved ( check one) :


6. Identify any related cases, including any Register of Wills matter. This question is intended to promote jurisdiction efficiency by assigning cases involving similar parties or issues to a single judicial officer. By signing this form, an attorney represents that the attorney has done reasonable diligence sufficient to respond to this question. Solak v. Twitter, Inc., No. 2022-0491-KSJM; Twitter, Inc. v. Musk, No. 2022-0613-KSJM; Crispo v. Musk, No. 2022-0666-KSJM


7. State all bases for the court's exercise of subject matter jurisdiction by citing to the relevant statute. Specify if 8 Del. C. § 111, 6 Del. C. § 17-111, or 6 Del. C. § 18-111. State if the case seeks monetary relief, even if secondarily or in the alternative, under a merger agreement, asset purchase agreement, or equity purchase agreement. 8 Del. C. § 145(k)


8. If the complaint initiates a summary proceeding under Sections 8 Del. C. 145(k ), 205, 211(c ), 220, or comparable statutes, check here X (If#8 is checked, you must either (i) file a motion to expedite with a proposed form of order identifying the schedule requested or (ii) submit a letter stating that you do not seek an expedited schedule and the reason (s)—e.g., you have filed to preserve standing and do not seek immediate relief.)


9. If the complaint is accompanied by a request for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, a status quo order, or expedited proceedings other than in a summary proceeding, check here _____. (If# 9 is checked, a motion to expedite must accompany the transaction with a proposed form of order identifying the schedule requested.)


10. If counsel believe that the case should not be assigned to a Master in the first instance, check here and attach a statement of good cause. X




Continue Reading Here.


About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.


This court case 2023-0409 retrieved on October 4, 2023, from int.nyt.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.