In a recent letter ruling, the Delaware Court of Chancery provided a practical analysis to support its reasoning in connection with the selection of lead counsel in a class action challenging a merger. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Rubin, et al., C.A. No. 6323-N (revised April 29, 2011), decision available here. By contrast to the more formal and comprehensive recitation of factors recited in the seminal Hirt case as applied in other recent Chancery cases, such as the Del Monte case, summarized here, this ruling made the candid observation that an application of the Hirt factors were not determinative and did not exorably lead to a selection that distinguished the many counsel competing for the title of lead counsel. The Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Blog has an insightful post here with proposals to address the related issue of multi-jurisdictional class action litigation.