David Matusiewicz1 and Christine Belford were married from 2001 to 2006, during which time they had three children, L.M.1, L.M.2, and K.M.1 (the “children”). The couple and their children also lived with Belford’s one child from a previous marriage, K.M.2.2 After their divorce, Belford and David engaged in a bitter custody dispute, during which David accused Belford of being an unfit mother and ... More...    $0 (09-09-2018 - DE)

Three Members of Matusiewicz Family Receive Life Sentences

WILMINGTON, Del. – David C. Weiss, Acting United States Attorney for the District of Delaware, Kevin L. Perkins, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Baltimore Division, and Nathaniel McQueen, Jr., Colonel, Delaware State Police, announced today that United States District Court Judge Gerald A. McHugh sentence... More...    $0 (02-18-2016 - DE)

Plaintiffs Edward Deane, George Wihbey, and William Cunningham (the
“Plaintiffs”) are members of Defendant New Media Investors II-B, LLC (“New
Media”), a Delaware entity, established in 2000 as a vehicle for investing in
Jenzabar, Inc. (“Jenzabar”), a software and internet services company.1 In 2004,
Jenzabar was recapitalized and New Media received junior preferred stock and ... More...    $0 (12-29-2015 - DE)

Non-party Timothy Burns formed ESG Capital Partners II, LP (the ―Partnership‖)
for a limited purpose. After raising money from investors, the Partnership would
purchase shares of stock of Facebook, Inc. before that company‘s then-anticipated initial
public offering. Preferably once Facebook had completed a successful IPO, the
Partnership would distribute to its inve... More...    $0 (12-20-2015 - DE)

Husband and Wife were married for twenty-two years. They separated in
September 2012, and their divorce became final in 2013. The couple had over $6
million in assets, including a $1.5 million house, investment accounts, retirement
accounts, and other property. Husband worked as an associate and then as a partner in a major law firm,
earning a substantial income. In May 2... More...    $0 (12-07-2015 - DE)

This case presents a question of first impression: Can a disinterested controlling
stockholder ratify a transaction approved by an interested board of directors, so as to shift
the standard of review from entire fairness to the business judgment presumption, by
expressing assent to the transaction informally without using one of the methods the
Delaware General Corporation Law... More...    $0 (10-28-2015 - DE)

Because the facts are not in dispute and have been discussed in previous opinions
by this Court4 and the Superior Court,5 we need not recite them in detail. On August 3,
2008, Kelty was helping his mother-in-law, Shirley Lovegrove, and her husband, John
Lovegrove, trim tree branches on their property. Before Kelty, who was standing in the
tree, cleared a branch, he would fast... More...    $0 (10-20-2015 - DE)

A five-day trial took place on June 22-25 and 30, 2015. The parties submitted over
900 exhibits, called six fact witnesses and five expert witnesses, and lodged twenty-three
depositions. The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
Quadrant principally challenged Athilon’s payments of allegedly excessive service and licensing fees to an affiliate of Merced, as... More...    $0 (10-20-2015 - DE)

To understand the arguments that have been raised in this case, it is easier
first to describe what HFA is not, rather than what it is. HFA is not a recorded
subdivision in Sussex County. There is no plot plan, recorded or otherwise,
showing the numbered lots within HFA. Instead, HFA consists of several parcels
of land along a private road near Bridgeville.1 These parcels w... More...    $0 (10-04-2015 - DE)

To understand the arguments that have been raised in this case, it is easier
first to describe what HFA is not, rather than what it is. HFA is not a recorded
subdivision in Sussex County. There is no plot plan, recorded or otherwise,
showing the numbered lots within HFA. Instead, HFA consists of several parcels
of land along a private road near Bridgeville.1 These parcels w... More...    $0 (10-04-2015 - DE)

Non-party Carlyle Capital Corporation, Ltd. (“CCC”) was a limited company
organized under the laws of the Island of Guernsey, Channel Islands in August 2006
The facts are drawn from the allegations in the plaintiffs‟ First Amended Verified Complaint (the “Complaint”), which are assumed true for purposes of the defendants‟ motion to dismiss, as well as documents integral to th... More...    $0 (09-14-2015 - DE)

Caris Life Sciences, Inc. (―Caris‖ or the ―Company‖) was a privately held
Delaware corporation. Through subsidiaries, it operated three business units: Caris
Diagnostics, TargetNow, and Carisome.1 Caris Diagnostics was consistently profitable.
TargetNow generated revenue but not profits. Carisome was in the developmental stage.
To achieve the dual goals... More...    $16260332 (07-28-2015 - DE)

WILMINGTON, DE – A federal jury has convicted David T. Matusiewicz, his mother, Lenore Matusiewicz, and his sister, Amy Gonzalez, of interstate stalking and cyberstalking, in violation of federal law. The jury also found all three defendants criminally responsible for the death of Christine Belford, who was murdered in the lobby of the New Castle County Courthouse by co-conspirator Thomas Matusi... More...    $0 (07-10-2015 - DE)

The plaintiff in this action invested in a Delaware limited liability company
(―LLC‖) whose business was providing non-legal administrative services to law firms
and their mortgage lender clients in connection with mortgage foreclosures. That
business was created by the principal defendants: five individuals who practiced law in
Colorado and Arkansas. Seeking to monetize their ... More...    $0 (06-23-2015 - DE)

A father filed a motion to modify a child custody and visitation agreement in
the Family Court. The trial judge denied the father’s motion, holding that contract
principles govern the agreement and bar the trial court from modifying
unambiguous contract language. On appeal, the father claims that the trial judge
erroneously applied contract principles to a custody and visitation ... More...    $0 (04-18-2012 - DE)

The respondent-appellant, Henry Greg Hughes (“Mr. Hughesâ€�), filed an appeal from the Family Court’s final judgment regarding attorney’s fees; its June 15, 2011 order dividing the marital property; and its May 12, 2010 order granting the motion of the petitioner-appellee, Sandra K. Peterson (“Ms. Petersonâ€�), to rescind the parties’ separation agreement.2 We find no merit to any of the... More...    $0 (03-13-2012 - DE)

The respondent-appellant, Danielle M. Stewart (the “Wifeâ€�), appeals from a Family Court final judgment in favor of the petitioner-appellee, Thomas D. Stewart (the “Husbandâ€�), arising from the Husband’s Petition to Modify Alimony and the Wife’s Motion for Specific Performance and Rule to Show Cause. In this appeal, the Wife contends that the Family Court erred when it reformed the parti... More...    $0 (03-15-2012 - DE)

In this appeal we consider whether the Court of Chancery lacked subject matter jurisdiction to partition a parcel of land, and whether its decision was based on an adequate factual record. After the partition process had concluded, and appellants learned that they would not receive the divided parcel they wanted, they claimed that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to partition the land because i... More...    $0 (02-25-2010 - DE)

1. Appellant Mir Mousavi and Appellee Shahla Vakili married on August 12, 1974. They separated in June 1996 and the Family Court entered a final decree of divorce on May 24, 2000. Both parties are physicians and have accumulated a multi-million dollar estate during their marriage. Befo... More...    $0 (12-22-2003 - DE)

This is an appeal from a decision and order of the Family Court of Delaware concerning a property division following the divorce of Laurie and Michael Wolinski. Following a hearing on January 29, 2002, the trial judge issued a Decision and Order on March 25, 2002. On June 28, 2002, the trial judge issued a Letter Decision and Order granting in part and denying in part Wife's Motion for Reargu... More...    $1 (04-14-2003 - DE)

This is a child custody case between Father and Mother, divorced since 1997, concerning their eleven-year-old daughter. Both parents had joint legal custody with the child residing primarily with Mother. Father had extensive visitation. Mother decided to move to North Carolina and requested a visitation modification in the Family Court. Father filed an answer denying that it was in the child'... More...    $2 (04-14-2003 - DE)