MetCap Securities LLC v. Pearl Senior Care, Inc., 2007 WL 195442 (Del. Ch., June 29, 2007), read opinion here.  This is a Chancery Court decision on a Motion for Reargument pursuant to Chancery Court Rule 59(f), of a decision previously summarized on this blog here. See MetCap Secs, LLC v. Pearl Senior Care LLC, 2007 WL 1498989 (Del. Ch., May 16, 2007)(challenging designation of "deal lawyer" for multiple parties).  In this most recent letter decision on a Motion for Reargument, the court addressed an argument that it incorrectly concluded that the amended complaint failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment.  The court patiently explained that it properly applied the law of unjust enrichment and emphasized that more was required “than a mere showing of enrichment of one party and impoverishment of another.  There must be some relationship or connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment.”  Moreover the court explained the proper application of the tentative draft of the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment.  Lastly, the court reluctantly was forced by the arguments of the parties, to explain in footnote 21  that the liability to be found pointed in the direction of one of the attorneys involved in the disputed transaction.