Title: Franklin v. Glenhill Advisors LLC

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANDREW FRANKLIN, 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
GLENHILL ADVISORS LLC; 
GLENHILL CAPITAL LP; 
GLENHILL CAPITAL 
MANAGEMENT LLC; GLENHILL 
CONCENTRATED LONG MASTER 
FUND LLC; GLENHILL SPECIAL 
OPPORTUNITIES MASTER FUND 
LLC; JOHN EDELMAN; GLENN 
KREVLIN; JOHN MCPHEE; 
WILLIAM SWEEDLER; 
WINDSONG DB DWR II, LLC; 
WINDSONG DWR LLC; 
WINDSONG BRANDS, LLC; 
HERMAN MILLER, INC.; and HM 
CATALYST, INC., 
 
Defendants Below, Appellees,  
 
and 
 
DESIGN WITHIN REACH, INC., 
 
Intervenor-Below, Appellee. 
 
§ 
§  No. 76, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Court of 
§  Chancery of the State of  
§  Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. 2021-1119 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§    
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  July 7, 2023 
 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  September 8, 2023 
 
Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
ORDER 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Andrew Franklin, filed an action in the Court of 
Chancery seeking to reopen the court’s judgment in Almond v. Glenhill Advisors 
LLC1 under Court of Chancery Rule 60(b).  After briefing and oral argument, the 
Court of Chancery dismissed the action, holding that Franklin unreasonably delayed 
in seeking to reopen the judgment.2  The court also determined that Franklin’s 
amended complaint did not sufficiently allege grounds for relief under Rule 60(b).3  
Finally, the court rejected the defendants’ motion for sanctions under Court of 
Chancery Rule 11, concluding that, although Franklin “has repeatedly made 
frivolous efforts to reopen a valid judgment,” the court could not “confidently 
conclude that this action was brought in bad faith or with the intention to harass the 
defendants.”4  The court emphasized, however, that it was “not excusing Franklin’s 
conduct;” expressed its “expectation that this decision will serve to deter Franklin 
from any future efforts to revisit the Judgment;” and “cautioned” Franklin that 
“continuing to press the same arguments may well subject him to Rule 11 sanctions 
in the future.”5 
 
1 2018 WL 3954733 (Del. Ch. Aug. 17, 2018), aff’d, 2019 WL 6117532 (Del. Nov. 18, 2019).   
2 Franklin v. Glenhill Advisors LLC, 2023 WL 569192, at *5–7 (Del. Ch. Jan. 27, 2023). 
3 Id. at *7–10. 
4 Id. at *11. 
5 Id. at *12. 
3 
 
(2) 
Franklin has appealed to this Court from the dismissal of his action.  
After consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we affirm the 
judgment of the Court of Chancery on the basis of and for the reasons stated in the 
court’s January 27, 2023 Memorandum Opinion.  Contrary to Franklin’s contentions 
on appeal, the Court of Chancery appropriately accepted Franklin’s well-pleaded 
allegations, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, as true in 
concluding that Franklin engaged in unreasonable delay and failed to state a 
sufficient basis for relief under Rule 60(b).6 
(3) 
The defendants-appellees have moved for an award of attorneys’ fees, 
asserting that Franklin’s appeal is frivolous.  Although the Court has authority to 
award attorneys’ fees in appropriate cases,7 we decline to do so here.  Like the Court 
of Chancery, we do not conclude that Franklin’s conduct is so “outrageous and 
abusive” or brought in such “bad faith or with the intention to harass the defendants” 
as to justify fee shifting.8  But Franklin has now litigated his claims through trial, an 
action seeking to reopen the judgment, and two appeals in Delaware, in addition to 
his attempt at collateral litigation in New York.  Therefore, like the Court of 
 
6 See Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, 247 A.3d 229, 234 (Del. 2021) 
(discussing standards applicable to consideration of motion to dismiss complaint seeking relief 
from a judgment under Rule 60(b)). 
7 See, e.g., Gatz Props., LLC v. Auriga Capital Corp., 59 A.3d 1223 (Del. 2012) (denying motion 
for fees incurred in defending appeal because “whether the appellants acted in bad faith in pursuing 
this appeal is a question possibly requiring findings of fact that are better addressed by the Court 
of Chancery”). 
8 Franklin, 2023 WL 569192, at *11–12. 
4 
 
Chancery, we warn Franklin that any attempt at further proceedings might result in 
fee shifting. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of 
Chancery is AFFIRMED.  The appellees’ motion for an award of attorneys’ fees is 
DENIED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice