Wimbledon Fund LP – Absolute Return Fund Series v. SV Special Situations Fund LP, C.A. No. 4780-CS (Del. Ch., Dec. 22, 2011), read letter ruling here. Read summaries of prior Delaware decisions in this matter here.
This is the latest iteration of several prior Delaware decisions in this case involving a hedge fund that sought to withdraw its investment in an LP. In sum and substance, this latest installment addresses the reasons why the Court decided to shift fees, and make the plaintiff hedge fund responsible for the fees of the defendant based on, primarily, the litigation tactic of the hedge fund not to seek discovery after a cross-motion for summary judgment was filed, and to appeal the loss of a summary judgment motion without referring to additional evidence that the plaintiff had in its file. The Supreme Court remanded and required the trial court to allow the record to be supplemented and directed the trial court to conduct an additional hearing based on that new evidence.
There are many other background details and nuances as well as copious citations to caselaw that provided the theoretical underpinning for the award of attorneys’ fees in this ruling that expresses the displeasure of the Court of Chancery with certain litigation tactics employed in connection with the summary judgment motions.
This letter is educational for litigators who are faced with either a summary judgment motion or a cross-motion for summary judgment, and who have to make a decision about whether they want to seek additional discovery before responding to the motion, or before asking the court to rule on the motion.