Slide 1
Slide 2
Slide 3
Slide 5
Slide 4
Slide 6
Slide 7
Slide 8
Slide 9
Slide 10
Slide 11
Slide 12
Slide 13
Slide 14
Slide 16
Slide 17
Slide 18
Slide 19
Slide 20
Slide 21
Slide 23
Slide 24
Slide 24
Slide 25
Slide 26
Slide 27
Slide 28
Slide 29
Slide 30
Slide 31
Slide 32
Slide 33
Slide 34
Slide 35
Slide 36
Slide 37
Slide 38
Slide 39
Slide 40
Slide 41
Slide 42
Slide 43
Slide 44
Slide 45
Slide 46
Slide 47
Slide 48
Slide 49
Slide 50
Slide 51
Slide 52
Slide 53
Slide 54
Slide 54
Slide 55
Slide 56
Slide 57
Slide 58
Slide 58
Slide 59
Slide 59
Slide 60
Slide 61
Slide 61
Slide 62
Slide 63

Genuine Parts Company (GPC) Can Move Ahead with its ‘Breach of Contract’ Lawsuit Vs. Essendant

Toner News Mobile › Forums › Toner News Main Forums › Genuine Parts Company (GPC) Can Move Ahead with its ‘Breach of Contract’ Lawsuit Vs. Essendant

Tonernews.com, October 22, 2019. USA
  • This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 6 years ago by news.
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #86627

    news
    Keymaster
    Genuine Parts Company (GPC) Can Move Ahead with its ‘Breach of Contract’ Lawsuit Vs. Essendant, a Delaware Court Has Ruled.
    By Andy Braithwaite.
    Image result for lawsuit
    Last October, GPC filed a lawsuit against Essendant claiming it (Essendant) had breached its contractual obligations regarding the proposed merger with S.P. Richards (SPR) and that GPC was entitled damages far in excess of the $12 million break-up fee it received.
    Essendant motioned to dismiss GPC’s claims on the basis that the break-up fee was the “exclusive remedy” for the termination of the SPR merger agreement. This argument has been rejected by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in a 9 September ruling. “I see no basis to conclude that GPC’s acceptance of the termination fee precludes it from pursuing breach of contract claims as a matter of law,” wrote the court’s Vice Chancellor Joseph Slights in his memorandum opinion.
    GPC alleges that Essendant violated the terms of its merger agreement for SPR by concealing its contact with Essendant’s eventual acquiror, Sycamore Partners, until after it had already signed the agreement with GPC. The judge agreed that there was enough in GPC’s claims to pursue the lawsuit.
    “I am satisfied GPC has adequately alleged enough in total from which I can infer that Essendant, at least indirectly, encouraged or facilitated a proposal with respect to a competing transaction,” Slights wrote.
    The case continues.
  • Author
    October 22, 2019 at 12:30 PM
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty, or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the content on our site.