Among the multitude of court decisions on DGCL Section 220 highlighted on these pages, a rare bird is the shifting of fees by the court based on the bad-faith exception to the American Rule. In a rare instance that should not be considered anything other than unusual, the Court of Chancery recently granted, in a
attorneys' fees
Chancery Applies Fitracks Procedures to Challenged Advancement Award
By Francis Pileggi on
Posted in Court of Chancery Updates
Last month, in a comprehensive advancement decision captioned White v. Curo Texas Holdings, LLC, C.A. No. 12369-VCL (Del. Ch. Feb. 21, 2017), the Delaware Court of Chancery applied what has become known in Delaware as the “Fitracks Procedures” to determine the appropriate amount of an advancement award when the exact amount of…
Chancery Imposes Fees for Bad Faith Litigation Tactics
By Francis Pileggi on
Posted in Court of Chancery Updates
ASB Allegiance Real Estate Fund v. Scion Breckenridge Managing Member LLC, C.A. No. 5483-VCL (Del. Ch. Sept. 16, 2013)
This Chancery decision, on remand from the Delaware Supreme Court, awarded attorneys’ fees based on the bad faith exception to the American Rule. The Supreme Court had remanded because the award of fees was originally based…
Award of Fees Upheld; Motion for Reargument Denied
By Francis Pileggi on
Posted in Court of Chancery Updates
Cartanza v. Cartanza, C.A. No. 7618-VCP (Del. Ch. July 8, 2013).
Bottom line: This short letter ruling amplified the reasoning in the court’s prior decision in this case, highlighted here, in which the court awarded fees in connection with a motion to compel a deposition. The point of this short post is…
BJR Protected Allegedly Interested Director Transaction; When Section 220 Tolls Statute of Limitations
By Francis Pileggi on
Posted in Court of Chancery Updates
Sutherland v. Sutherland, C.A. No. 2399-VCN (Del. Ch. May 30, 2013).
Issue Addressed: Whether certain directors violated their fiduciary duties by benefiting from a system of charging for administrative expenses for personal matters that was more favorable to certain directors.
Short Answer: No.
Background: Many prior Delaware decisions in this long-running…
Supreme Court Affirms Liability of SIGA Technologies to PharmAthene Based on Failure to Negotiate in Good Faith
By Francis Pileggi on
Posted in Delaware Supreme Court Updates
SIGA Technologies, Inc. v. PharmAthene, Inc., Del. Supr., No. 314, 2012 (May 24, 2013). This Delaware Supreme Court decision was the subject of a BloombergBusinessweek article on Sunday, May 26. The Court of Chancery’s opinion was highlighted on these pages at this link. Also, several other prior Chancery decisions in this case were also…
Settlement Agreement Enforced Without All Signatures
By Francis Pileggi on
Posted in Court of Chancery Updates
Whittington v. Dragon Group LLC, C.A. No. 2291-VCP (Del. Ch. May 1, 2013). Multiple prior decisions in this case have been highlighted on these pages and they provide more background details for the interested reader.
Issue Addressed: Whether a settlement agreement needs to be fully executed by all parties in order to be…
Chancery Penalizes Obstruction in Efforts to Take Deposition
By Francis Pileggi on
Posted in Court of Chancery Updates
Cartanza v. Cartanza, C.A. No. 7618-VCP (Del. Ch. April 16, 2013).
Issue Addressed: Whether attorneys’ fees should be awarded due to defense counsel obstructing the efforts of opposing counsel to depose his client.
Short Answer: Yes.
Brief Overview
This letter ruling is a useful tool for the toolbox of any litigator. In essence,…
Chancery Addresses Reasonableness of Fees Awarded Pursuant to Contract
By Francis Pileggi on
Posted in Court of Chancery Updates
Edgewater Growth Capital Partners L.P. v. H.I.G. Capital, Inc., C.A. No. 3601-CS (Del. Ch. April 18, 2013). This ruling explains both an issue about attorneys’ fees and the revision of a previous Chancery opinion in this case highlighted on these pages here.
Issue Addressed: The standard that applies to award fees pursuant to…
Chancery Awards Fees in Disclosure Only Settlement
By Francis Pileggi on
Posted in Court of Chancery Updates
In re: Paetec Holding Corp. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 6761-VCG (Del. Ch. Mar. 19, 2013).
This Chancery opinion explains why attorneys’ fees were awarded in the amount of $500,000 based on a settlement of a challenge to a merger that resulted in additional disclosures prior to the deal closing. This is an excellent overview…