Title: Teucrium Trading, LLC v. Riker

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TEUCRIUM TRADING, LLC,  
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DALE RIKER and BARBARA 
RIKER, 
 
Plaintiffs Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 251, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below–Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. 2022-1030 
§   
§   
§ 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 12, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
July 25, 2023 
 
Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After consideration of the amended notice of interlocutory appeal and its 
exhibits, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
In 2020, the appellant, Teucrium Trading, LLC (“TTL”), filed suit 
against Dale and Barbara Riker, former TTL officers, in the Court of Chancery (“the 
Plenary Action”).  The Rikers then demanded that TTL advance certain fees and 
expenses the Rikers had incurred and would continue to incur in connection with the 
Plenary Action, relying on advancement rights granted in TTL’s Amended and 
Restated LLC Agreement.  When TTL refused to advance fees and expenses as 
requested, the Rikers filed the underlying advancement action in the Court of 
2 
 
Chancery.  On June 13, 2023, the Court of Chancery issued a bench ruling granting 
summary judgment to the Rikers, finding that they had demonstrated their 
entitlement to mandatory advancement under the LLC Agreement as a matter of law 
and that they were entitled to fees on fees (“the Ruling”).  The Court of Chancery 
instructed the parties to meet and confer regarding any remaining allocation disputes 
or specific disagreements about time entries and directed any outstanding issues to 
be resolved under the Fitracks process.  TTL timely moved to certify the Ruling for 
interlocutory review under Supreme Court Rule 42.  The Rikers opposed that 
application. 
 
(2) 
On July 7, 2023, the Court of Chancery denied TTL’s application.1  The 
Court of Chancery accepted TTL’s assertion that the Ruling decided a substantial 
issue of material importance—a threshold consideration under Rule 422—because it 
resolved the underlying question of liability for advancement on each claim for 
which the Rikers sought advancement.  But the Court of Chancery concluded that 
none of the Rule 42(b)(iii) factors TTL cited—specifically, factors A (the Ruling 
decided an issue of first impression in the State), B (the Ruling conflicts with other 
trial court decisions), G (interlocutory review may terminate the litigation), and H 
 
1 Riker v. Teucrium Trading, LLC, 2023 WL 4411609 (Del. Ch. July 7, 2023). 
2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(i). 
3 
 
(interlocutory review would serve the considerations of justice)—supported 
interlocutory review. 
(3) 
First, the court held that the Ruling did not decide an issue of first 
impression but rather applied straightforward and well-settled principles of contract 
interpretation to the LLC Agreement and the Plenary Action.  Second, the Court of 
Chancery concluded that TTL had not identified any trial court decision that squarely 
conflicted with the Ruling. Third, the Court explained that a successful interlocutory 
appeal would not terminate the litigation because TTL still would be responsible for 
advancement on the claims not challenged in TTL’s motion for summary judgment, 
and the Fitracks review procedure therefore would continue regardless.  Fourth, the 
Court of Chancery ruled that interlocutory review would not serve considerations of 
justice because Delaware public policy favors prompt advancement.  Finally, the 
Court of Chancery found that there was nothing exceptional about the Ruling and 
the uncertain benefit from interlocutory review was outweighed by the associated 
costs.   
(4) 
We agree with the Court of Chancery that interlocutory review is not 
warranted in this case.  Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
Court’s sound discretion.3  In the exercise of its discretion and giving due weight to 
the Court of Chancery’s analysis, the Court has concluded that the application for 
 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 
4 
 
interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for certification under Rule 
42(b).  Exceptional circumstances that would merit interlocutory review of the 
Ruling do not exist,4 and the potential benefits of interlocutory review do not 
outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs caused by an interlocutory 
appeal.5 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal be 
REFUSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow    
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii). 
5 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii).