Wimbledon Fund LP - Absolute Return Fund
Series v. SV Special Situations Fund LP, C.A. No. 4780-CS (Del.
Ch., Dec. 22, 2011), read letter ruling here. Read
summaries of prior Delaware decisions in this matter here.
This is the latest iteration of several prior Delaware
decisions in this case involving a hedge fund that sought to withdraw its
investment in an LP. In sum and substance, this latest installment
addresses the reasons why the Court decided to shift fees, and make the
plaintiff hedge fund responsible for the fees of the defendant based on,
primarily, the litigation tactic of the hedge fund not to seek discovery after
a cross-motion for summary judgment was filed, and to appeal the loss of a
summary judgment motion without referring to additional evidence that the
plaintiff had in its file. The Supreme Court remanded and required the
trial court to allow the record to be supplemented and directed the trial court
to conduct an additional hearing based on that new evidence.
There are many other background details and nuances
as well as copious citations to caselaw that provided the theoretical
underpinning for the award of attorneys' fees in this ruling that expresses the
displeasure of the Court of Chancery with certain litigation tactics employed
in connection with the summary judgment motions.
This letter is educational for litigators who are faced
with either a summary judgment motion or a cross-motion for summary judgment,
and who have to make a decision about whether they want to seek additional
discovery before responding to the motion, or before asking the court to rule
on the motion.
Read more Delaware business
litigation case summaries and commentary on Delaware
Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog, a blog hosted by Francis G.X.
Pileggi, of Eckert Seamans.
For more information about LexisNexis
products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.