![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
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.
Please click here to read the entire post.
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.