Case Title: Invenergy Renewables LLC v. Leaf Invenergy Company

Citation: 

Docket Number: 293, 2019

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2019-09-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
INVENERGY RENEWABLES LLC,  
§ 
a Delaware limited liability company, 
§ No. 293, 2019 
 
 
 
§  
 
Defendant Below-Appellant/ 
§  Court Below—Court of Chancery 
 
 
 
§ of the State of Delaware 
 
v. 
 
§  
 
 
 
§ C.A. No. 11830 
LEAF INVENERGY COMPANY,  
§   
a Cayman Islands exempt limited  
§ 
liability company,  
§ 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below-Appellee/ 
§ 
 
Cross-Appellant. 
§ 
 
Submitted: September 18, 2019 
Decided: 
September 19, 2019 
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
(1) 
This expedited appeal follows our recent opinion in Leaf Invenergy v. 
Invenergy1 (Leaf I).  In Leaf I, we concluded that Invenergy breached the terms of 
the LLC agreement it had with one of its investors—Leaf Invenergy (“Leaf”)—by 
conducting a “Material Partial Sale” without redeeming Leaf for a contractually 
defined “Target Multiple.”  We held that “Leaf is entitled to damages in the amount 
of the Target Multiple on the condition that Leaf surrenders its membership interest 
in Invenergy”2 and remanded the case to the Court of Chancery. 
                                         
1 210 A.3d 688 (Del. 2019). 
2 Id. at 704. 
2 
(2) 
After our remand, the Court of Chancery entered a final judgment and 
order that included prejudgment interest from December 15, 2015, the closing date 
of the aforementioned Material Partial Sale.  Invenergy appeals the calculation of 
prejudgment interest, which amounts to nearly $30 million. 
(3) 
“A party is entitled to prejudgment interest running from the date 
payment is due.  The determination of the date when payment is due is a matter of 
law subject to plenary review.”3 
(4) 
Invenergy argues that prejudgment interest should not have been 
calculated from December 15, 2015 but rather from June 20, 2018, because on that 
date, Leaf surrendered its membership interest to Invenergy via a redemption 
agreement4 and, as mentioned, our opinion in Leaf I awarded damages “on the 
condition that Leaf surrenders its membership interest.” 
(5) 
We disagree with Invenergy.  “Where . . . the underlying obligation to 
make payment arises ex contractu, we look to the contract itself to determine when 
interest should begin to accrue.”5  Under the LLC agreement, which is the relevant 
contract here, Leaf was entitled to the Target Multiple when Invenergy closed the 
TerraForm deal, which occurred on December 15, 2015. 
                                         
3 Hercules, Inc. v. AIU Ins. Co., 784 A.2d 481, 508 (Del. 2001). 
4 Although the parties executed this agreement before the submission date of Leaf I, the parties did 
not appear to have made this agreement a part of the appellate record in Leaf I. 
5 Citadel Holding Corp. v. Roven, 603 A.2d 818, 826 (Del. 1992). 
3 
(6) 
Contrary to what Invenergy’s argument suggests, it was not our opinion 
that ultimately entitled Leaf to the Target Multiple. Rather, what entitled Leaf to the 
Target Multiple was the LLC agreement and Invenergy’s undertaking of a Material 
Partial Sale that triggered the contractual provisions we interpreted in Leaf I.  And 
because Leaf’s contractual right to the Target Multiple was not contingent upon a 
prior unconditional surrender of its membership interests, neither does Leaf’s 
prejudgment failure-to-surrender diminish Leaf’s right to prejudgment interest on 
damages for an undisputed counterparty breach.  That we required Leaf to surrender 
its membership interest is nothing more than a judicial effort to enforce the terms of 
the parties’ agreement, which provided that payment of the Target Multiple would 
redeem Leaf’s interests. 
(7) 
Leaf’s informal request for fees is denied.  “Although we have authority 
under Supreme Court Rule 20(f) to award attorneys’ fees in the case of a frivolous 
appeal, we will not consider an informal request in the absence of a formal motion 
made and presented in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules.”6 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of 
Chancery is AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                         
6 Glanden v. Quirk, 128 A.3d 994, 1006 (Del. 2015).