[brief] PRELIMINARY STATEMENT  This appeal is the latest in a thirty-one-year campaign by the [...] to evade liability to [...] and its co-plaintiff [...] (“[...],” and together with [...], “Plaintiffs”) for the [...]’ history of theft, deception, and breaches of fiduciary duties over the lifetime of their partnership with Plaintiffs.  In 2013, the Chancery Division entered final judgment against the [...] for violations of New Jersey’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and for numerous contract and tort claims and awarded attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiffs.  Five years ago, the Appellate Division issued a comprehensive decision rejecting a litany of unfounded challenges by the [...] to the final judgment, affirming virtually all of the Chancery Division’s factual findings and conclusions, and remanding this matter on a few limited grounds.  Consistent with the unprincipled strategy they have employed throughout this litigation, after the Appellate Division’s remand, the [...] sought at every turn to delay this matter’s conclusion, including filing and appealing from an unsuccessful motion to recuse as Special Master an esteemed former federal judge who had previously served in the role and who was appointed again upon remand to resolve Plaintiffs’ fee applications, and presenting meritless legal arguments based on factual misrepresentations and convoluted interpretations of the Appellate Division’s prior decision, all in an effort to muddy the record and the Appellate Division’s instructions to the trial court on remand.  These efforts have proven unsuccessful.  But the [...] remain undeterred.  On this third appeal, the [...] similarly resort to hyperbole, misstatements of fact and law, self-invented bright-line rules, and attempts to relitigate issues that the Appellate Division has already decided against them.  They also tack on a fanciful claim that for three decades the New Jersey courts have held a personal grudge against them that has led to a cascade of errors.  Once the [...]’ efforts at misdirection are set aside, it is clear that their challenges to the Chancery Division’s decision and judgment on remand find no support in the law or the record.  First, the [...]’ accusation that the New Jersey courts have treated them unjustly is unfounded and nothing but an attempt to convince this Court that it should revisit binding decisions.  Second, contrary to the [...]’ contention, the Special Master was not required to recuse from deciding [...]’s fee application due to participating in a two-hour, court- ordered mediation in an unrelated matter involving unrelated parties simply because [...]’s counsel represented a party in that case.  Third, no matter how the [...] try to twist the Appellate Division’s remand mandate on attorneys’ fees, the trial court and the Special Master properly followed the panel’s instructions and made careful and detailed factual findings to determine the appropriate fee award to [...].  Fourth, the trial court’s punitive damages award, apportioning liability for individual Wilf Defendants, is well-supported by the factual findings of the Honorable [...], P.J.Ch. (ret.), all of which the Appellate Division affirmed.  Finally, the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion to apply compound (as opposed to simple) interest to [...]’s prejudgment interest award, as for decades [...] has not had the use of monies to which it is entitled, but which the [...] have been free to use and invest at [...]’s expense.  For all these reasons and the reasons that follow, the Appellate Division should affirm the Chancery Division’s judgment.