blog
Davis v. EpicentRx, Inc., C.A. No. 2024-0365-LM (LWW) (Del. Ch. Apr. 28, 2026)
By: Tyler O'Connell and Sarah Ennis
The defendant corporation took exception to a Magistrate’s bench ruling on plaintiff’s motions for contempt and to appoint a receiver. The Magistrate had appointed a limited-purpose receiver over the corporation to enforce the payment of contempt sanctions and fees-on-fees arising from the corporation’s repeated violations of a Fitracks advancement order. The defendant corporation took exception, arguing that the appointment of a receiver was unwarranted. The Court agreed, finding that because the corporation cured the underlying advancement arrearage before the ruling, the coercive purpose of a receivership had already been achieved. Thus, appointing a receiver was no longer necessary to coerce compliance with the advancement order. The Court reasoned, in the circumstances, a receiver would be a disproportionate means to collect collateral penalties such as monetary sanctions and fees-on-fees. The exceptions were therefore granted, and the appointment of the limited-purpose receiver was vacated.
