William Penn Partnership v. Saliba

2 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. In re Nine Systems Corp. S'holders Litig., Consol. C.A. No. 3940-VCN (Del. Ch. Sept. 4, 2014) (Noble, V.C.)

    Potter Anderson & Corroon LLPSeptember 26, 2014

    Relying on Saliba v. William Penn Partnership, 2010 WL 1641139 (Del. Ch.), aff’d, 13 A.3d 749 (Del. 2011), the Court held that a transaction conducted unfairly, even though accomplished at a fair price, may justify shifting certain of the litigation costs to the defendants who breached their fiduciary duties. Because the parties had not briefed the issue of fee-shifting, the Court authorized Plaintiffs to petition for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

  2. In re Nine Systems Corp. S'holders Litig., Consol. C.A. No. 3940-VCN (Del. Ch. Sept. 4, 2014) (Noble, V.C.)

    Potter Anderson & Corroon LLPSeptember 4, 2014

    Relying on Saliba v. William Penn Partnership, 2010 WL 1641139 (Del. Ch.), aff’d, 13 A.3d 749 (Del. 2011), the Court held that a transaction conducted unfairly, even though accomplished at a fair price, may justify shifting certain of the litigation costs to the defendants who breached their fiduciary duties. Because the parties had not briefed the issue of fee-shifting, the Court authorized Plaintiffs to petition for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.