Attorney’s Fees – Delaware Docket

Stockholder’s Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim against Chairman of Barnes & Noble Education, Inc. Dismissed by Delaware Court of Chancery

Apr 30 2020

By: Joanna Diakos and Marissa Leon

In Bay Capital Finance, L.L.C. v. Barnes and Noble Education, Inc. (C.A. No. 2019-0539-KSJM), the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court”) enforced a company’s advance notice provision in its bylaws, dismissed a stockholder’s breach of fiduciary claim against a company’s chairman and ordered the stockholder to pay the defendants’ attorneys’ fees as a result of its bad faith litigation conduct.

Chancery Court Awards Fees in Corporate Benefit Doctrine Case

Jul 16 2018

By: Annette Becker and Will Smith

In Full Value Partners, L.P. v. Swiss Helvetia Fund, Inc., et. al., C.A. No. 2017-0303-AGB (Del. Ch. June 7, 2018), the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the plaintiff stockholder’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees under the corporate benefit doctrine because the plaintiff’s claim in the underlying stockholder litigation was meritorious when filed and produced a benefit to the defendant corporation.

Court of Chancery Holds That Plaintiff Failed to Meet Burden of Proof With Respect to Mistake-Based Reformation Claim

May 15 2018

By: Scott Waxman and Tami Mack

In Richard B. Gamberg 2007 Family Trust v. United Restaurant Group, L.P., C.A. No. 10994-VCMR (Del. Ch. January 26, 2018), the Court of Chancery held that limited partner, Richard B. Gamberg 2007 Family Trust (the “Plaintiff”), failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to various claims against United Restaurant Group L.P. (the “Partnership”), Atlantic Coast Dining, Inc. (the “General Partner”), and the directors/shareholders of the General Partner (the “Shareholder Defendants”; together with the Partnership and the General Partner, the “Defendants”), which included a mistake-based reformation claim, among other breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims.

Chancery Court Preserves Advancement for Corporate Officers Despite Exclusive Remedies and Seller Release Provisions in Stock Purchase Agreement

Jul 07 2017

By Whitney Smith and Dean Brazier

In Mark S. Davis, et al. v. EMSI Holding Company, C.A. No. 12854-VCS (Del. Ch. May 3, 2017) the Delaware Chancery Court granted a motion for summary judgment brought by former officers of the defendant (“EMSI”) seeking advancement of legal fees for their defense in a related action, EMSI Acquisition, Inc. v. Contrarian Funds, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 12648-VCS (Del. Ch. May 3, 2017). In granting the motion, the Court considered whether the plaintiffs had waived or released their right to advancement in the exclusive remedies provision or the seller release provision of the Stock Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) entered into in connection with the sale of EMSI. The Court concluded that the SPA provisions did not waive or release the officers’ right to advancement of defense costs under EMSI’s bylaws and a sufficient nexus existed between the plaintiffs’ role as former officers and the claims in EMSI Acquisition requiring their defense.

Chancery Court Reaffirms Liberal Interpretation of Mandatory Indemnification Statute, Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of Former CFO

Mar 21 2017

By: Megan Wotherspoon and Tami Mack

In Horne v. OptimisCorp, C.A. No. 12268-VCS (Del. Ch. March 3, 2017) the Chancery Court granted plaintiff William Horne’s motion for summary judgment, holding that his demand for indemnification of fees and costs he incurred in connection with the successful defense of a case brought by defendant OptimisCorp against him and others were reasonable on their face. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of a plaintiff, awarding in excess of $1 million in litigation fees and expenses incurred in the underlying action and in connection with the prosecution of the indemnification action, and interest on such amounts.

Plaintiff’s Counsel Recovery in a Derivative Case Settling Under the Transitive Property Limited to Actual Benefit to Plaintiffs

Sep 21 2016

By: Nicholas Froio and David Noll

In Baker v. Sadiq, C.A. No. 9464-VCL (Del. Ch. August 16, 2016), the Court held that the proper calculation of an attorney’s contingency fee for a derivative action settled using the transitive property is based upon the actual settlement value. Baker concerned fees owed to plaintiff’s counsel (“Counsel”) after the settlement of a derivative action by minority shareholders for misappropriation by the majority shareholder. The settlement of those claims was a buyout of the minority shareholders at a better pro rata value than could be expected from the derivative action. By holding that the appropriate measure of fees is based upon actual cash payments, Plaintiff’s counsel received approximately one ninth of its expected award to be collected from an entity with no assets.

Tag:Attorney’s Fees