Lim v. The PowerWise Group, Inc., C.A. No. 5528-CC, read oral post-trial ruling (November 1, 2010) here; read Order and Final Judgment (November 19, 2010) here. A prior post describing a ruling on a pre-trial motion to compel, and providing more background facts, is available here.
On November 1, 2010, immediately following a one-day trial in a Section 220 books and records action, Lim v. The PowerWise Group, Inc., C.A. No. 5528-CC, Chancellor Chandler ruled from the bench in favor of the shareholder plaintiff. Mary Lim, a founding minority shareholder of The PowerWise Group, Inc., brought suit against PowerWise pursuant to Section 220 on June 1, 2010 to inspect and copy 16 different categories of the corporation’s books and records. Lim’s stated purposes for seeking the inspection included valuation of her shares in the company. During the course of the litigation, Lim narrowed her demand to 12 categories because PowerWise made available to its shareholders a number of documents which satisfied 4 out of the original 16 categories sought by Lim.
In his post-trial oral ruling, Chancellor Chandler ruled that Lim had established a proper purpose in seeking the requested books and records, and he further ruled that Lim had satisfied her burden to show that the requested books and records were “necessary and essential” to her share valuation purpose. Chancellor Chandler then ruled that Lim was entitled to inspect and copy 11 out of the 12 requested categories. Notably, the one category that Chancellor Chandler did not order PowerWise to produce was the category that PowerWise asserted did not exist. Finally, Chancellor Chandler ordered the parties to submit a stipulated order reflecting his oral ruling.
Lim and PowerWise were unable to agree on a mutually acceptable stipulated order, so they submitted competing forms of order to the Court. Chancellor Chandler signed the proposed order submitted by Lim, and it was entered on the docket as the Order and Final Judgment on November 19, 2010. In March 2011, in a letter ruling available here, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with the post-trial ruling.
**Full disclosure: Francis Pileggi represented the plaintiff in this case.