Showing 7 posts in Fee Awards.
Sciabacucchi v. Howley, C.A. No. 2021-0938-LWW (Del. Ch. July 3, 2023)
A stockholder filed a derivative action alleging breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment in connection with a board compensation committee’s decision to award compensation to directors. Months later, the parties reached a therapeutic settlement, including that dividend-equivalent payments to directors on their unexercised stock options would no longer be in cash; rather, they would be applied to reduce the options’ exercise price. The plaintiff valued the alleged benefit to the company at $23.8 million. In exchange for the therapeutic terms, the plaintiff released all claims. The plaintiff’s counsel sought a fee and expense award of $2.8 million, which the defendants agreed not to oppose. More ›
Hollywood Firefighters Pension Fund v. Malone, C.A. 220-0880-SG (Nov. 8, 2021)
A plaintiff may be entitled to a mootness fee if it shows that its action had merit and produced a corporate benefit. This case outlines the Court of Chancery’s analysis in valuing non-monetary benefits and, in turn, the appropriate mootness fee. More ›
Chancery Shifts Fees, Finds That Defendant’s Litigation Tactics in Books and Records Case Crossed The Line Between Aggressive Litigation And Glaringly Egregious Conduct
Pettry, et al. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., C.A. Nos. 2020-0132-KSJM; 2020-0138-KSJM; 2020-0155-KSJM; 2020-0173-KSJM (Del. Ch. July 22, 2021).
Delaware follows the American Rule: all litigants pay their own attorneys’ fees, no matter the outcome of the litigation. In rare cases where a litigant’s conduct is “glaringly egregious,” Delaware courts will make an exception and shift fees. This is known as the “bad faith” exception. More ›
Morrison v. Berry, C.A. No. 12808-VCG (Del. Ch. July 12, 2021)
Delaware courts generally do not award special compensation to lead plaintiffs in class action litigation. Delaware courts typically limit awards to out-of-pocket costs and expenses, unless lead plaintiffs take on extra—essentially, exceptional—burdens in the litigation. Submitting a modest award request does not necessarily portend success that an applicant will receive an award. More ›
Chancery Awards Attorneys’ Fees for Monetary and Therapeutic Benefits from Goldman Sachs Director Compensation Settlement and Considers Objector’s Fee Request
Stein v. Blankfein, C.A. No. 2017-0354-SG (Del. Ch. Jul. 12, 2021)
This decision concerns fee applications under the “corporate benefit” doctrine for benefits achieved in derivative litigation. More ›
Lyons Ins. Agency Inc. v. Wilson, C.A. No. 2017-0092-SG (Del. Ch. Apr. 29, 2021).
In this action, the Court of Chancery noted that it heard “perhaps the most cogent, and certainly the briefest, argument for fee shifting under the bad faith exception I have been privileged to hear: ‘perjury is bad faith.’” Plaintiff Lyons Insurance Agency Inc. (“Lyons”) sued its former employee Howard Wilson, an insurance broker, for breach of the non-compete in his employment contract. At a hearing for a preliminary injunction, Wilson testified that he needed to follow his clients to another firm because he could not entice them to stay at Lyons. Throughout the litigation, he maintained that he had not intended to rob Lyons of business. But, before a damages hearing, Wilson submitted an affidavit repudiating his earlier testimony. At the damages hearing, he testified that he conspired with the other firm to breach his employment agreement, recanting his earlier testimony. More ›
Chancery Denies Fees to Stockholder who Compelled Admittedly-Overdue Annual Meeting, But Primarily for his Own Interest in Forcing a Buyout
A plaintiff who achieves a corporate benefit for the enterprise may be eligible for attorney’s fees, but he is not entitled them. Here, after trial on a paper record, the stockholder-plaintiff obtained an order directing the corporation to hold an annual meeting to elect directors (its first in eight years) and to produce certain books and records. The Court agreed that compelling an annual meeting met the minimum requirements to be eligible for a fee award, but the Court concluded that the circumstances made a fee award inequitable. More ›Share