Wilmington corporate and commercial litigation boutique Ross Aronstam & Moritz has edged its way into a position at the forefront of the crowded Delaware community, earning “a top seat at the table” among larger, older and more established institutions. “Ross Aronstam has come a long way,” confirms a local peer, “and they did it
fast! We are all watching them and respect them equally.” The firm has even earned acclaim from out-of-town firms, several of whom are themselves widely championed brand-name “white shoe” firms who have partnered with Ross Aronstam. “A lot of ‘big law’ firms have this high-handed attitude in Delaware,” elaborates one peer. “They come in and go, ‘I respect your opinion, and I want to hear what you have to say, but ultimately, it’s
our case. This is a BIG MISTAKE! Judges in Delaware spot it immediately and hate it. But Ross Aronstam is one firm I have never witnessed this happening to! They get immediate respect, and I don’t just think it’s luck - I think that alone speaks volumes as to their reputation.” Indeed, the firms calling on Ross Aronstam’s services as Delaware counsel read like a “who’s who” of blue-ribbon big law and out-of-town litigation boutiques, and the cases the firm handles illustrate a broad cross section of commercial and Chancery disputes.
All three name partners are namechecked by peers. David Ross is called “the one l would go with for case strategy, if I had to choose only one lawyer in Delaware. He also knows the bench really well.” Ross provides lead counsel to Facebook in several matters. In one, he represents the company and its current and former officers and directors in a purported derivative action seeking to recover based upon alleged issues concerning advertising metrics, competitive practices, and executive compensation. Ross is also co-counsel to Facebook in connection with various litigations arising out of the well publicized Cambridge Analytica privacy breach scandal, including derivative actions and actions seeking to inspect company books and records. In another of his (non-Facebook-related) matters, Ross represents Swipe Acquisition Corporation, the acquirer in action asserting fraud arising out of a substantial indirect acquisition by a fund advised by Platinum Equity Advisors.
Bradley Aronstam is attending to novel matters in the rapidly burgeoning SPAC area; in one such matter, he is partnering Weil Gotshal & Manges in representing Churchill Capital Corp III and the former directors of Churchill in consolidated stockholder litigation challenging Churchill’s SPAC acquisition of MultiPlan Corp.
Garrett Moritz is attending to a diverse basket of matters straddling several practices. He acts with Cravath in representing the directors of Tesla in stockholder litigation challenging Tesla’s acquisition of SolarCity in a stock-for-stock transaction that valued SolarCity at approximately $2.6 billion to $2.8 billion. Shortly before trial, the director defendants other than Elon Musk reached an agreement in principle, subject to court approval, to settle for $60 million to be funded by insurance. Trial was set to proceed in the Court of Chancery in March 2020 with respect to Elon Musk but was delayed due to the COVID-19 crisis. Trial moved scheduling to July 2021. In a more commercial-related matter, Moritz acts with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher in representing Keurig Dr. Pepper affiliate The American Bottling Company in litigation against BA Sports Nutrition, LLC and the Coca-Cola Company for wrongful termination of a distribution contract with The American Bottling Company to distribute the sports drink Bodyarmor in order to wrongfully move distribution to Coca-Cola. ABC’s contract and tortious interference claims seeking to recover hundreds of millions of dollars or more in losses have survived a motion to dismiss. The case is currently in discovery, with a jury trial scheduled for February 2022 in Delaware Superior Court. In a derivative matter concerning corporate governance, Moritz represents McDonald’s in a lawsuit against McDonald’s former CEO Stephen Easterbrook for breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent inducement. The case arises from McDonald’s discovery - after entering into a Separation Agreement with the Easterbrook after learning that he had engaged in a sexual relationship with a subordinate - that Easterbrook had lied about the existence of other sexual relationships with other Company employees during an internal investigation, and that Easterbrook had approved an equity grant to one of the employees, in violation of Company policy. In February 2021, the Court of Chancery denied Easterbrook’s motion to dismiss. The case is currently in discovery and trial is expected to be held in mid-2022.
