Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Brown, et al., (Del. Supr., Dec. 21, 2007), read opinion here. The best summary of this Delaware Supreme Court decision is supplied by the Court in the introductory paragraphs of its opinion:

"[The Court decides] … whether an out-of-state litigant should be awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses in connection with a settlement of a Delaware corporate class action. Appellant, Alaska … had filed a class action in California, alleging substantially the same claims as those alleged in the Delaware action. The Delaware plaintiffs agreed to settle their claims after they had negotiated a $7 per share increase in the disputed transaction. Appellant did not agree to settle at that price, and the price later increased another $9 per share."

"Applying settled Delaware law, the Court of Chancery presumed that the Delaware action contributed to the initial price increase, and the court awarded fees to the Delaware plaintiffs. The Court of Chancery denied appellant a presumption of causation as to either the first or the second price increase. We hold that the Court of Chancery was correct  with respect to the first price increase. But, because appellant was the only litigant opposing the transaction at the time of the second price increase, appellant was entitled to a presumption of causation. Accordingly, we remand this matter for further consideration of the attorneys’ fees and expenses, if any, that should be awarded to appellant."

The Chancery Court’s decision was the subject of my short blog post here.