Home

On September 24, 2026, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Williams & Connolly’s trial win for client Vimian Group AB and three of its affiliated entities. The court also granted Vimian’s cross-appeal on two issues, holding that Vimian should have been awarded additional damages below.

Williams & Connolly serves as lead plaintiff counsel in this Delaware contractual indemnification case that arose out of an M&A transaction. After a one-week bench trial in February 2025 and two-day closing argument in May 2025, Judge Meghan A. Adams found in favor of the firm’s clients, awarding $40.2 million in damages against the two defendants who went to trial and a total judgment of more than $48 million. The court also fully rejected the defendants’ counterclaims, through which they sought to escape any liability and had sought $13.5 million in their own damages. In total, including prior settlements with three co-defendants, Williams & Connolly has obtained more than $70 million in compensation for Vimian.

On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court rejected the defendants’ contractual and public policy arguments seeking to undo or limit the indemnification. Turning to Vimian’s cross-appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court held that the trial court mistakenly limited Vimian’s damages in two ways. The Delaware Supreme Court ordered the trial court to award those damages on remand.

On August 10, 2026, a court in the Northern District of Texas granted the Consumer Data Industry Association’s (“CDIA”) motion for summary judgment in substantial part, declaring Texas Business & Commerce Code § 20.05(a)(5) (which precluded reporting of certain types of medical debt) expressly preempted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) § 1681t(b)(1)(E) and permanently enjoining the Texas Attorney General from enforcing the statute.  The Court accepted CDIA’s core position that § 20.05(a)(5) impermissibly imposes a state-law prohibition on a subject matter regulated by FCRA.  The Court held that “the best interpretation of § 1681c and § 1681t(b) is that Congress intended to preempt States from passing legislation more protective of consumers in relation to adverse information on their consumer reports—which includes the reporting of medical debt.”  This is a tremendous win for CDIA, as the decision clarifies the broad scope of preemption under § 1681t(b)(1)(E) with respect to state laws that seek to regulate what types of consumer information can be reported on consumer reports, and it represents a break from the First Circuit’s contrary decision (in CDIA v. Frey) in which the First Circuit adopted a narrow interpretation of § 1681t(b)(1)(E) and found no preemption of medical debt reporting.

On August 5, 2026, the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri granted our client’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, removing it entirely from a lawsuit brought by an investment firm.

In early 2026, plaintiffs filed suit against our client (a law firm) and others in St. Louis County.  Our client moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  After full briefing and oral argument by Joe Terry, the Court granted the motion and dismissed all claims against our client.

On August 3, 2026, the Court of Appeals of Virginia issued a unanimous decision affirming the Circuit Court of Fairfax County’s order confirming an arbitration award in favor of our client, Space Adventures, Inc., and its co-defendants (collectively, “Space Adventurers”), rejecting all challenges to personal jurisdiction and service of process raised by the appellant.

The case arose from a dispute over a 2016 corporate restructuring of Space Adventures, accomplished through several agreements including a Stock Purchase Agreement (“SPA”).  In 2019, a group of former shareholders and directors sued in Nevada state court to challenge the restructuring and unwind the divestiture of Space Adventures’ spaceflight business.  After the Nevada court dismissed the action citing the SPA, the investors filed a demand for arbitration under that agreement.  The arbitrator dismissed the investors’ claims with prejudice and entered judgment for Space Adventurers on its counterclaim for breach of the SPA’s arbitration provisions.  Following the Supreme Court of Nevada’s affirmance of the dismissal, in July 2023 Space Adventurers moved the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, the forum specified in the SPA, to confirm the arbitration award.  The circuit court confirmed the award on May 24, 2024.

In August 2026, following oral argument by Ted Bennett and briefing led by Ricardo Leyva, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of Virginia unanimously affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, holding that the plaintiff was bound by the SPA’s forum and service provisions because he had invoked the SPA to pursue arbitration, that the plaintiff waived his challenge to the SPA’s authenticity by acknowledging before the circuit court that the appellees held a valid arbitration award, and that service was effective.