Posts in Fee Awards

Chancery Evaluates Supplemental Disclosures to Determine the Corporate Benefit and Awards Plaintiffs a Proportional Fee

Allen v. Harvey, C.A. No. 2022-0248-MTZ (Del. Ch. Oct. 30, 2023)
Delaware cases provide guidance on the standard for evaluating the “corporate benefit” from supplemental disclosures in advance of a stockholder vote – and the fees that should be awarded to plaintiffs for prompting such disclosures. This case involved supplemental disclosures of potential sources of conflicts held by a special committee’s chair and advisors in advance of a merger vote. The Court held that such disclosures were not extraordinary, but they still warranted a proportional fee award. More ›

Share

Chancery Rejects Declining-Percentage Method, Awards $266.7 Million in Attorneys’ Fees for $1 Billion Class Action Settlement

In re Dell Techs. Inc. Class V S'holders Litig., C.A. No. 2018-0816-JTL (Del. Ch. July 31, 2023, revised Aug. 22, 2023)
Stockholders filed class actions in the Court of Chancery challenging the terms of a redemption of a special class of common stock. After years of litigation and the filing of pre-trial briefs, nineteen days before trial, the parties reached a cash settlement of $1 billion. The plaintiff's counsel submitted a fee application for 28.5 percent of the common fund. Stockholders holding more than 25 percent of the class objected to the fee application and asked that the Court instead apply the declining-percentage method used for calculating fees in federal securities litigation. More ›

Share

Chancery Approves Reduced Fee Award for Derivative Settlement Based on Therapeutic Benefits

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 ›

Share

Chancery Awards $9.5 Million Mootness Fee for Reduction of Voting Control and Other Benefits

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 ›

Share

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 ›

Share

Court of Chancery Denies Lead Plaintiff’s Application for Incentive Fee from Overall Fee Award

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 ›

Share

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 ›

Share

Chancery Shifts Attorneys’ Fees, Reasoning Perjury Is Bad Faith Per Se

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 ›

Share

Chancery Denies Fees to Stockholder who Compelled Admittedly-Overdue Annual Meeting, But Primarily for his Own Interest in Forcing a Buyout

Martin v. Harbor Diversified, Inc., C.A. 2018-0762 SG (Del. Ch. Feb. 5, 2020).

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