IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DAVID HANDLER,

Plaintiff, 

)

)

)

v.

)

)

)

C.A. No. 2022-0672-SG

CENTERVIEW PARTNERS 

HOLDINGS L.P.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Date Submitted: November 7, 2023

Date Decided: April 23, 2024

C. Barr Flinn, Elisabeth S. Bradley, Kevin P. Rickert, Zeliang Liu, Hana Brajuskovic, 

and Elena C. Norman, YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP, 

Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Plaintiff David Handler.

Michael A. Barlow and Hayden Driscoll, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & 

SULLIVAN, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendant Centerview 

Partners Holdings, L.P.

GLASSCOCK, Vice Chancellor
1

The narrow, and rather unusual, subject of this Memorandum Opinion is

whether Plaintiff, David Handler, was an employee of a Delaware L.P., or was in 

fact a partner in the entity that managed that L.P. The L.P. itself is an investment 

firm, a fact perhaps surprising in light of the informality with which the individuals 

involved here conducted themselves and their business, internally. The case arose 

as a request for books and records, standing for which was denied by the L.P. on the 

ground that Handler was not a partner.1

Handler was initially an employee of the L.P., and was given the title 

“Partner,” as were other employees. This was an honorific; such partners were no 

more equity holders than Colonel Harlan Sanders was a field officer, although they 

did in some cases have rights upon liquidation for deferred compensation. For 

several years thereafter, Handler discussed the terms of a partnership in “Topco,” 

the entity managing the Partnership, with the firm’s founders. The dispute here is 

whether Handler was offered and accepted a partnership in Topco, subject only to 

agreement on non-essential terms, or whether, as Defendant asserts, there was never 

a meeting of the minds with respect to a partnership in Topco. The matter comes 

down to one meeting of Handler with the founders, and whether a partnership

1 A companion substantive case, dependent in part upon the outcome here, will address Handler’s 

rights after leaving the company. Centerview P’rs Hldgs. LP v. Handler, C.A. No. 2022-0767-

SG. 
2

agreement was reached at that meeting. Handler alleges that an oral partnership in 

Topco was agreed to at that November 8, 2012 meeting.

The issue of Handler’s status as a partner (and thus his standing to demand 

books and records) was tried. In this post-trial Memorandum Opinion, I find that 

Handler has failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the parties 

reached an agreement under which Handler (and his fellow employee, non-party

David St. Jean) became partners in Topco. The parties’ recollections of the crucial 

meeting are in conflict; the post-meeting correspondence between the founders and 

Handler and St. Jean, and between St. Jean and Handler themselves, supports a 

conclusion that no agreement was reached, and the abundant documentary evidence 

after the meeting is inconclusive. Handler has failed to demonstrate that he is a 

partner in Topco.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND2

A. The Parties

Plaintiff David Handler (“Handler”) joined a subsidiary of Centerview Partner 

Holdings L.P. (the “Company” or, with its subsidiaries, “Centerview”) in 2008 as an 

employee with the title “Partner,” with the goal to help grow the Company’s 

2 Citations to the parties’ joint trial exhibits are referred to by the numbers provided by the parties 

and cited as “JX __”. See Updated Final Joint Trial Exhibit List, Dkt. No. 187. Citations to the 

parties’ stipulated pre-trial order are cited as “PTO ¶ __”. Pretrial Stipulation and [Proposed] 

Order, Dkt. No. 145. References to the trial transcripts are cited as “Tr. __:__”. Tr. of 7-25-2023 

Evidentiary Hr’g — Volume I, Dkt. No. 198; Tr. of 7-26- 2023 Evidentiary Hr’g — Volume II, 

Dkt. No. 199.
3

technology practice group.3 Handler joined the Company together with his friend, 

non-party David St. Jean.4

 Handler resigned from the Company on August 1, 2022.5

Defendant Centerview is an independent investment banking and advisory 

firm.

6 Centerview maintains offices in New York, London, San Francisco, Menlo 

Park, and Paris.7

Centerview has a multilayered entity structure, with Topco being the highest 

entity in Centerview’s organizational structure.8 Topco is the sole manager of 

Centerview Partners Advisory Holdings LLC (“CPAH”), which in turn owns 99% 

of Centerview Partners LLC (“CP LLC”), Centerview’s investment banking 

operating company.9

Topco was formed as a Delaware limited liability company on December 7, 

2004 as “Pruzan Holding LLC.”10 A later-filed Certificate of Amendment was filed 

with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on June 6, 2006, which changed 

Topco’s name to “Centerview Partners Holding LLC,” which subsequently 

converted into a Delaware limited partnership on November 19, 2013, with the 

3 PTO ¶ 18.

4 Id.

5 Id.

6 Id. ¶ 19. 

7 Id.

8 Id. ¶ 20. 

9 Id. 10 Id. ¶ 21.
4

current name “Centerview Partners Holdings LP,”11 to which I will refer, in its 

various incarnations, as “Topco.”

Through CP LLC, Centerview’s wholly owned broker-dealer subsidiary, 

Centerview conducts its U.S. advisory business.12

Non-parties Robert Pruzan and Blair Effron are two of Centerview’s founders, 

and are limited partners in Topco (collectively, the “Founders”).

13

11 Id.

12 Id. ¶ 22. 

13 Id. ¶ 23.

Centerview Partners Holdings LP 

(“Centerview”) f/k/a Topco, Pruzan 

Holding LLC, Centerview Partners 

Holding LLC

Centerview Partners 

Advisory Holdings LLC 

(“CPAH”)

Centerview Partners 

LLC (“CP LLC”)

(operating company)

99% 
5

B. The 2008 Letter 

On June 16, 2008, pursuant to an offer letter (the “2008 Letter”), Handler and 

two non-parties, David St. Jean and an undisclosed third party, joined Centerview as 

employees of CP LLC, with the title of “Partner,” creating a “Tech Team” practice 

in the Company.14 Although the 2008 Letter referenced Handler and St. Jean as 

“Partners,” it did not reflect an actual partnership agreement at Centerview, but 

reflected an at-will employee status.

15 The 2008 Letter, however, guaranteed that 

Handler and St. Jean would earn 35% of revenues they generated up to $25 million, 

40% of all revenues between $25 to $40 million, and 50% above the $40 million 

threshold.16

In addition, the 2008 Letter enabled Handler and St. Jean to participate in a 

fixed share of the Centerview Partners Profit Pool after 2010.17 The 2008 Letter also 

gave Handler and St. Jean a collective 6.5% “Equity Interest,” which constituted “an 

interest in the terminal value of Centerview upon a liquidity event (sale, IPO etc) . . 

.” (“TVIs”).

18 The 2008 Letter explicitly stated that TVIs did not entitle Handler 

and St. Jean to a share of profits of the firm, ownership, or governance rights.

19

14 JX2; PTO ¶ 18. 15 JX2 at 2; Dep. of David Handler 35:20–36:3 (“First Handler Dep.”). Centerview purportedly 

gives its senior employees the title “partner” in order to provide them with the freedom to build 

their own client relationships. Def.’s Post-Trial Opening Br. 2, Dkt. No. 201 (“DF PTOB”).

16 JX2 at 1. 

17 Id.

18 Id.

19 Id.
6

Further, the 2008 Letter provided that if either Handler or St. Jean left Centerview 

before a liquidity event occurred, their “Equity Interest” was subject to repurchase

at its tax value at the date of grant plus interest at 2.5%.

20

C. Partnership Proposals & Negotiations Prior to the Purported Oral 

Partnership Agreement 

After 2008, there were several failed attempts between the Founders and 

Handler to renegotiate the relationship created by 2008 Letter Agreement into a 

partnership agreement.

21 In 2011, St. Jean expressed a disdain for only receiving a 

“40% payout” from Centerview and failure to reach a partnership agreement.22 In 

response, Effron expressed a commitment to working with St. Jean to achieve the 

latter result.23 Soon after, Handler began to voice his concerns to the Founders about 

not being a Topco partner, threatened to leave the Company, and told a third party 

about his frustrations.

24 Eventually, on September 20, 2012, the Founders presented

Handler and St. Jean a 60-page draft limited partnership agreement (“LPA”) 

expressing the Founders’ intent to add Handler and St. Jean as partners in Topco.25 

20 Id. The 2008 Letter defined “Equity Interest” as “an interest in the terminal value of Centerview 

upon a liquidity event . . . and will not entitle any of you to a share of profits of the firm or have 

any other incidents of ownership.” Id. 21 JX23; JX7; JX11; JX15-17; First Handler Dep. 50:3–53:4, 90:4–91:25, 105:6–11. 22 JX12.

23 Id.

24 JX24; JX26; Tr. 14:22–16:2 (Handler). 25 JX30. 
7

Handler, for numerous reasons, rejected the proposed LPA without offering a 

counterproposal and continued to express his intent to leave the Company.26 On 

October 24, 2012, in an email to Pruzan, Effron recounted an offsite meeting, stating 

that Handler and St. Jean wanted further negotiations to concern terms to “continue 

to be partners rather than trying to negotiate current agreement draft.”27 In other 

words, in an offsite meeting Handler and St. Jean conveyed to Effron that they were 

focused on changing their employment terms under the 2008 Letter, instead of 

negotiating the proposed Topco partnership agreement.28

Three days later, Handler and St. Jean sent the Founders an “addendum” to 

the 2008 Letter that served as their employment contract; the addendum addressed

their annual compensation and suggested the establishment of a new technology

focused private equity fund.

29 In response, the Founders began preparing a draft

term sheet, which, contrary to the addendum, described a classic partnership with 

shared participation, risk, and reward.

30

26 Tr. 29:14–15, 30:15–31:1 (Handler). Handler rejected the LPA because it gave the Founders 

the right to effectively cancel the deal or change it in a material way, among other reasons. Id.

27 JX35.

28 Id.

29 JX39 at 3; Tr. 215:6–11 (Handler). In regard to compensation, the addendum provided that the 

Tech Team would be paid 60% of revenue it generated, by Centerview Partners, LLC. 

30 JX43; JX44; JX47.
8

D. The Purported Oral Agreement 

On November 8, 2012, Handler and St. Jean met with the Founders at the 

University Club in New York (the “November 8th Meeting”), where the Founders 

presented the proposed term sheet.

31 The term sheet included a compensation 

change for Handler and St. Jean and identified issues the parties would need to 

negotiate if they ultimately were to reach a written partnership agreement.32 In 

particular, the proposed term sheet described traditional partnership concepts, such 

as sharing in profits and losses in the Company.

33 The proposed term sheet also 

detailed that Handler and St. Jean would receive a collective 14.5% equity grant in 

Topco, 12.5% immediately granted an additional vested 2% in June 2014, along with 

“Capital Priority Accounts.”34 

There is a discrepancy among the parties’ recollection of the conversation that 

occurred at the University Club. Handler contends that the parties orally agreed to 

proceed with Handler and St. Jean as partners in Topco with some refinements and 

adjustment to the proposed term sheet’s terms.35 Handler sets forth the following 

terms of the purported oral partnership agreement: 

a) Handler and St. Jean became senior partners at Topco;

31 JX52; Tr. 36:4–40:1 (Handler). 32 JX52.

33 Id.; Tr. 41:3–22 (Handler). 34 JX52 at 4. 35 Tr. 55:22–56:3, 145:7–11, 149:1–7, 153:9–10 (Handler); Tr. 45:19–46:7 (Handler).
9

b) Handler and St. Jean’s possible revenue share was to be 40% at $20 

million of revenue and above;

c) Handler and St. Jean’s share of the firm-wide profit pool would be 

no less than 20% for the first two years and then calculated based on 

the pro rata revenue contributions between the two new Topco 

partner groups;

d) Handler and St. Jean would cover some of the costs of junior 

professionals;

e) The Founders would receive an additional fixed 2% of profits for 

their firm management;

f) Handler and St. Jean would receive a share of the “Investment 

Capital” equal to their calculated profit share; it would constitute 

Priority Capital Amounts, and, if retained, it would be held in 

Topco’s Priority Capital Accounts;

g) Handler and St. Jean were each granted 7.25% of equity in Topco 

(6.25% and another 1% to be granted later in 2014); and

h) Handler would have no restrictive covenants or forfeiture of 

economics upon departure.

36 That is, he was free to leave the 

Company at will, and take his equity with him.

Centerview asserts that the parties never came to a partnership agreement; the 

proposed term sheet was never signed, and the conversation left several important 

terms open for negotiation.

37 Centerview points out that the parties did not make 

any subsequent written reference to any oral partnership agreement, and it was not 

referenced in subsequent exchanges of draft LPAs.

38 It is Centerview’s position that 

the parties agreed to a modification of the 2008 agreement which addressed Handler 

and St. Jean’s compensation as employees, not as partners.39

36 See generally, JX52; see also Tr. 51:10, 174:1–175:6 (Handler); see also Tr. 38:4–45:15, 54:15–

55:1 (Handler); JX474 ¶ 18; JX413 at No.16.

37 JX52; First Handler Dep. 123:1–6.

38 Tr. 160:13–18 (Handler). 39 See Tr. 361:5–19 (Pruzan); see, e.g., Tr. 139:19–142:15, 387:5–20, 388:1–4 (Centerview).
10

E. Aftermath of the Purported Oral Agreement 

1. First Communications

The day after the purported oral agreement, Handler and Effron exchanged 

emails, with Effron expressing that he was looking forward to a “long and fruitful 

partnership[.]”40 Handler responded to Effron’s email stating, “We need to absorb 

what you’ve put in front of us . . . We’ll look to schedule some time to get together 

once we’ve had a chance to go through everything . . . .”41 A month later on 

December 16, 2012, St. Jean sent an email to Pruzan and copied Handler stating: 

“[w]hile we are both genuinely excited about getting to a final arrangement along 

the lines we have been discussing . . . we are not done working through the details 

of that agreement.”42 The email further stated, “Clearly, when we are finally done .

. . we will stand with you [] to invest capital . . . .”43

Afterwards, Handler sent the proposed term sheet to his attorney, stating, “to 

move forward on this we will need some senior level support from you.”44 In 

addition, St. Jean and Handler exchanged drafts of the proposed term sheet with 

revisions.

45 On December 14, 2012, St. Jean sent Handler an updated term sheet.46

40 JX54. 

41 Id. at 2.

42 JX138. 

43 Id.

44 JX55. 

45 Id.

46 JX62.
11

The revised draft included new governance rights and, under receipt of profit points,

included the note “TBD Currently Under Discussion,” with another note stating that 

the parties should “discuss this methodology and structure further.”47

2. The Parties Exchange Numerous Draft LPAs

On January 8, 2013, Handler wrote the Founders via email stating he wanted 

to discuss with the Founders “a go forward agreement in the similar spirit that [the 

Founders] laid . . . out in November.”48 In that same email, Handler requested to 

speak with the Founders about the firm regarding a “general conversation about the 

firm, some constructive observations I have, recruiting (MS hires, London, etc).”49

Handler prepared an agenda for a January 25, 2013 meeting in which the 

Founders and Handler were to discuss a written partnership agreement.50 The topics 

for the agenda included “[David Handler & David St. Jean] response to [the 

Founder’s] Proposal” and “Open/New Issues for Discussion.”51 Handler also 

prepared a chart to facilitate this meeting.52 The chart listed terms that were agreed 

upon between the parties, while also listing terms that were still under discussion.53

For example, Handler listed “Legal Agreements Between [the Founders]” as 

47 Id. at 6. 

48 JX74 (emphasis added). 49 JX74; see also JX79; Tr. 111:8–114:23 (Handler). 50 JX79. 

51 Id.

52 JX81. 

53 Id. at 4. 
12

“Unclear” under the header “BE/RP Draft (November 2012)” and “DH/DSJ 

Response” as “For Discussion.”54

For several more months, the parties carried on business as usual without 

executing a partnership agreement. For instance, the parties met again to discuss a 

partnership agreement in March 2013, but at the meeting’s conclusion, the 2008 

Letter, i.e. the employment agreement, remained operative, as evidenced in a 

memorandum detailing the meeting.

55 A month later, in an email to a third-party 

organization, where Handler chairs the board of directors, Handler expressed that he 

still had not signed partnership agreements with Centerview.

56 Again two months 

later, Handler, in an email to his accountant, expressed that the partnership 

agreement had not been executed.57 In response to receiving a revised written 

partnership agreement from St. Jean, Handler responded: “I have to actually sign 

this thing?”58

Following the Founders proposing the concept of admitting Handler and St. 

Jean to the partnership, arising as of 2012, the parties never signed a written 

agreement. They continued to exchange drafts of the partnership agreement

throughout the end of 2013.

59 On October 18, 2013, Handler sent a partnership 

54 Id.

55 JX88 at 4. 56 Tr. 94:4–10 (Handler); JX93. 

57 JX97. 

58 JX103.

59 JX103; JX125. 
13

agreement with revisions to the Founders and St. Jean.60 The email, to which the 

agreement was attached, mentioned the November 8th Meeting, among others, and 

expressed an intention to “come together along the lines of those discussions.”61 The 

email stated further that “[a]s an alternative, we can just leave things as they are 

today. It’s not the preferred outcome we’d like to see but it’s perfectly fine. From 

a day-to-day perspective nothing will change.”62

Ultimately, the Founders rejected Handler’s proposed partnership agreement 

and themselves executed the limited partnership agreement (the “Topco LPA”), 

converting Centerview Partners Holdings LLC into Topco on November 19, 2013.

63

The Topco LPA did not include Handler and St. Jean as limited partners of Topco.

64

Nevertheless, the Founders continued to seek to add Handler and St. Jean to the 

Topco partnership by sending Handler a revised draft limited partnership agreement 

to sign on May 18, 2014.

65 Within the draft LPA’s whereas clauses it noted that “an 

agreement of limited partnership was entered into” and that the limited partnership 

agreement was being sent to Handler because “the parties hereto desire to enter into 

this Agreement in connection with the admission of additional limited partners and 

60 JX125. 

61 Id.

62 Id.

63 JX126; JX135. 64 JX126; JX135. 65 JX169; JX170; JX171. 
14

to amend and restate” the limited partnership agreement.

66 In response, Handler 

stated he would “take a look and circle up with [Pruzan].”67

3. Handler’s Compensation Increases and Varies 

After the November 8th Meeting, Handler’s compensation at the Company 

increased,

68 but his compensation continued to be recorded through W-2 forms.69

From 2012 to 2018, Handler’s compensation varied, as Handler’s compensation 

remained subject to year-end negotiations with the Founders.70 The Founders had 

discretion to implement compensation principles flexibly, purportedly in a manner 

that benefited the firm and addressed issues for specific employees.71

For example, at a certain time, Handler’s compensation did not coincide with 

the Tech Team’s financial performance when it performed poorly.72 As a result, the 

Founders agreed to “gross[] up” Handler’s profit points when the Tech Team failed 

to perform according to expectations in 2015,73 causing Centerview to absorb the 

Tech Team’s costs and losses.74 Handler also received Priority Capital Amounts as 

66 JX170 at 006.

67 JX171. 

68 Tr. 361:5–19 (Pruzan); see, e.g., Tr. 139:19–142:15, 387:5–20, 388:1–4 (Centerview). 69 See JX163; Tr.154:13–155:11 (Handler). 70 Tr. 348:2–4, 406:4–9 (Pruzan); JX300 (anticipating year end compensation discussion by 

detailing methodology for compensation). 71 JX250 at 3. One compensation principle included “revenue contribution to the . . . firm minus 

a charge for ‘management fees’ . . . adjusted for the profit points allocated to all other teams vs 

their annual contribution.” Id. at 2. 

72 JX352 at Tab 2013 Cell E:20, Tab 2014 Cell E:21, Tab 2015 Cell E:21; JX 250 at 492; JX 260. 

73 JX250 at 492; JX260.

74 JX250 at 492.
15

part of his compensation from 2012–2015.

75 But, Handler did not receive Priority 

Capital Amounts after 2015.76

In the next year, Pruzan provided Handler with a compensation proposal that 

did not include priority amounts, but gave Handler a maximization of cash payouts.77

In response, Handler submitted a compensation proposal, which set forth two

principal terms for deliberation but did not demand a deferral of the Priority Capital 

Amounts.78 Eventually, in a 2018 compensation proposal to Handler, Pruzan

informed Handler that Centerview would no longer give profit gross ups to the Tech 

Team.79 Handler’s response to the proposal expressed an interest in participating in 

the “Investment Capital Account,” acknowledged that he had not participated in it 

for three years, and did not express that his lack of participation violated an oral 

partnership agreement.

80

4. Handler Elects to Receive TVIs in CPAH

During negotiations in 2013, Handler elected to receive TVIs in CPAH—the 

Topco subsidiary—via a 83(b) form pursuant to the 2008 Letter.

81 The 83(b) form, 

75 JX319 at 2. 

76 JX249; see, e.g., JX352 at 2016 Tab Cell E:35, 2017 Tab Cell E:35 (showing that Handler’s 

compensation tracker did not reflect priority amounts after 2015). 

77 JX 250 at 493; Pruzan Dep. 179:2–19.

78 JX262.

79 JX301 at 490.

80 JX318. 

81 JX23; First Handler Dep. 102:9–22; JX 129. As mentioned previously, the TVIs in CP LLC did 

not reflect ownership interest in the firm, profits or losses, or governance rights. 
16

to which Handler was a signatory, provided that “[u]pon termination of service, the 

Interest is subject to repurchase by the Company.”82 A memorandum attached to 

the 83(b) form also specified that “[Handler’s] interests [were] subject to a 

substantial risk of forfeiture as a result of the Company’s right to repurchase 

[Handler’s] interests for the original fair market value as of the grant date, plus 2.5% 

per annum thereon, upon a termination of [Handler’s] employment . . . .”83 This 

language coincided with the specifications concerning the TVIs that was originally 

referenced in the 2008 Letter, under which Handler was an employee, not a partner.

84

After his election, Handler began to receive Schedule K-1s, which recorded 

his TVIs in CPAH, but not in Topco.

85 To third parties, Handler represented and 

disclosed that his TVIs were in CPAH, by providing them with those Schedule K1s.86 In 2018, Handler sought information concerning his interests in Centerview.87

Handler received a document that showed that his “Equity – Terminal Interests (B 

Units)” were held at “Centerview Partners Advisory Holdings LLC.”88 Handler did 

not express an opposition upon receipt of this information.89

82 JX129 at 066.

83 Id. at 067. 

84 Id.

85 Tr. 155:12–20 (Handler).

86 JX186 at 2 (Handler sent Schedule K-1 to accountant); JX345 at 2 (Handler sent CPAH 83(b)

form to regulators); Tr. 153:10–154:2 (Handler) (admitting that he did not disclose he held Topco 

interests to gaming regulators).

87 JX304. 

88 JX302 at 2.

89 JX304; Tr. 152:3–10 (Handler). 
17

5. Events Leading to the Books and Records Demand Letter 

From the November 8th Meeting up until 2022, Handler did not express an 

intent to leave the Company.90 In fact, Handler relocated his family to Silicon Valley 

to open a Centerview office, which prevented the firm from hiring a lateral partner 

to do so.

91 However, on January 2, 2022, Handler voiced concerns to the Founders 

about his compensation via email.92 Handler asserted that his compensation was 

well below what he was owed pursuant to “any standard . . . and . . . the 2008 

[employee] [L]etter agreement.”93 The email did not mention the purported oral 

partnership agreement in Topco.

Handler served a books and records demand on Topco, CPAH, and CP LLC

on May 23, 2022.94 Centerview refused Handler’s request asserting that he was not 

a partner of Topco, and therefore was not entitled to books and records on May 31, 

2022.

95 Thereafter, the parties engaged in numerous communications in 

disagreement from June 3, 2022, to July 15, 2022.

96 Handler resigned from the 

Company on August 1, 2022.

97

90 PL PT OB 29 (citing JX74); see also JX79; Tr. 111:8–114:23 (Handler). 91 Tr. 77:18–79:18, 120:10–121:16 (Handler). 92 JX377. 

93 Id. at 2. 

94 PTO ¶ 24.

95 Id. ¶ 25. 

96 Id. ¶¶ 26–30.

97 Id. ¶ 18.
18

F. Procedural Background

On August 1, 2022, Handler filed a complaint pursuant to 6 Del. C. § 17-305 

to enforce the books and records demand served upon Topco on May 23, 2022, along 

with a motion to expedite (the “Books and Records Action”).

98 Defendant filed its 

answer on August 30, 2022.99 Defendant had previously filed a complaint in this 

Court in a separate action seeking a declaratory judgment that Handler was not a 

partner of Topco (the “Plenary Action”).100 Handler filed his answer and 

counterclaims on October 4, 2022.101 Soon after, Topco filed a motion for judgment 

on the pleadings in the Books and Records Action.102 On November 3, 2022, I held 

a scheduling conference and stayed the Plenary Action and bifurcated the Books and 

Records Action to first determine the validity of Handler’s assertion that he is a 

partner of Topco (the “Standing Issue”).

103 

Topco filed a renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings on November 8, 

2022.104 On January 9, 2023, Handler filed a motion to compel production of 

98 Verified Compl. Pursuant to 6 Del. C. Section 17-305 to Compel Inspection of Books and 

Records, Dkt. No. 1. 

99 Def.’s Answer to Verified Compl., Dkt. No. 9. 

100 Centerview P’rs Hldgs. LP v. Handler, C.A. No. 2022-0767-SG, Dkt. No. 1. Handler filed his 

Answer and Counterclaims on October 5, 2022. Dkt. No. 18. 

101 Centerview P’rs Hldgs. LP v. Handler, C.A. No. 2022-0767-SG, Answer and Countercl., Dkt. 

No. 17. 

102 Def.s Mot. for J. on the Pleadings, Dkt. No. 12. 

103 Tel. Scheduling Conf., Dkt. No. 32.

104 Def.’s Renewed Mot. for J. on the Pleadings, Dkt. No. 36. 
19

documents and information from Defendant.105 Magistrate judge Bonnie W. David 

recommended that the motion be granted in part and denied in part in a Final Report 

and Recommendation on February 13, 2013.106 Handler filed a letter to Magistrate 

David to seek relief in connection with the February 13, 2023 Order,107 which Topco 

opposed.108 Magistrate David held argument on the issues and delivered a Final 

Report and Recommendation in a bench ruling on February 28, 2023.109

On March 3, 2023, Topco filed a motion for a protective order110 and notice 

of exceptions to the Magistrate’s February 28, 2023 Final Report,

111 with Handler 

filing his oppositions on March 8, 2023.112 The Court heard oral argument on the 

motion and exceptions on March 9, 2023, and issued a bench ruling granting in part 

and denying in part the motion but adopting the Magistrate’s Final Report with 

modification.113

105 Pl.'s Mot. to Compel Prod. of Docs. and Info. from Def., Dkt. No. 61. 

106 Adopting Order, Dkt. No. 92. 

107 Letter to The Hon. Bonnie W. David from Elisabeth S. Bradley Regarding Order Granting Mot.

to Compel, Dkt. No. 91. 

108 Letter to The Hon. Bonnie W. David from Michael A. Barlow on behalf of Def. Centerview 

P’rs Hldg. LP in response to Handler’s Feb. 24, 2023 letter, Dkt. No. 93. 

109 Teleconference Status before Master Bonnie David on 2.28.2023 re: The Master delivered a 

final report under Rule 144 on discovery issues. Dkt. No. 94. 

110 Centerview P’rs Hldgs. LP's Mot. for a Protective Order, Dkt. No. 98. 

111 Centerview P’rs Hldgs. LP's Notice of Exceptions to the Master's Feb. 28, 2023 Final Report, 

Dkt. No. 99. 

112 Pl. David Handler's Opp’n to Centerview P’rs Hldgs. LP's Mot. for a Protective Order, Dkt. 

No. 107; Pl. David Handler's Opp’n to Centerview P’rs Hldgs. LP's Exception to the Master's 

Report, Dkt. No. 109. 

113 Hr’g on Exceptions to Master's Ruling and Mot. for Protective Order on 3.9.2023 before Vice 

Chancellor Laster- Mot. granted in part and denied in part, Dkt. No. 114. 
20

Centerview filed a motion for continued confidential treatment on June 30, 

2023,

114 which was opposed by Handler.115 Thereafter, on July 12, 2023, Handler 

filed his motion for sanctions against Defendant,116 with Defendant opposing the 

motion.117 I held an evidentiary hearing in this action on July 25, 2023 and July 26, 

2023.118 I heard post-trial oral arguments on the Standing Issue, motion for 

sanctions, and motion for continued confidential treatment on November 7, 2023.

119

I took the matter under advisement that day.120

This Memorandum Opinion solely addresses the Standing Issue, and other 

non-related motions will be addressed in a separate letter opinion, to the extent 

necessary. To the extent that those motions seek sanctions in the form of certain 

inferences in favor of Handler, I have not identified a circumstance where such an 

inference, supported by equity, would change my decision here.

II. ANALYSIS

Before me is the Standing Issue, which requires a determination of Handler’s 

status within Centerview, as either a partner or employee. In dispute is a purported 

oral partnership agreement as alleged by Handler, that establishes his status as a 

114 Centerview P’rs Hldgs. LP’s Mot. for Continued Confidential Treatment, Dkt No. 157. 

115 Pl.'s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. for Continued Confidential Treatment, Dkt. 161. 

116 Pl.'s Mot. for Sanctions, Dkt. No. 164.

117 Centerview P’rs Hldgs. LP’s Opp’n to Handler’s Mot. for Sanctions, Dkt. No. 184; Pl.'s Reply 

in Further Supp. of His Mot. for Sanctions, Dkt. No. 186. 118 Trial before Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock dated 7.25.23 through 7.26.23, Dkt. No. 189. 

119 Closing Arg. Post Trial before Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock dated 11.7.23, Dkt. No. 219. 

120 Id.
21

partner in Topco. Plaintiff has the burden of proving each element of the oral 

partnership agreement by a preponderance of the evidence.121 This standard of proof 

requires that the evidence shows that the fact at issue is more likely than not.122 I 

find that Handler has not met this burden and that the record demonstrates that 

Handler was an employee when he left his employment with Centerview on August 

1, 2022.

A. Plaintiff Fails to Overcome his Burden to Establish there was an Oral 

Partnership Agreement Creating his Partnership in Topco

Handler asserts that the November 8th Meeting resulted in an oral agreement 

to create a limited partnership in Topco.

123 Handler further asserts that the parties 

operated and performed in accordance with the purported oral partnership 

agreement.124 Defendant, in turn, contends that the November 8th Meeting did not 

result in an oral partnership agreement.125 Defendant also contends that Handler did 

121 Grunstein v. Silva, 2014 WL 4473651, at *16 (Del. Ch. Sept. 5, 2014), aff'd, 113 A.3d 1080 (Del. 

2015), and aff'd sub nom. Dwyer v. Silva, 113 A.3d 1080 (Del. 2015). Although the issue here is simply 

whether Handler is a partner of Topco for purposes of the books-and-records statute, the matter is akin 

to a specific performance of the supposed oral partnership agreement, which would require clear and 

convincing evidence from Handler. Osborn ex rel. Osborn v. Kemp, 991 A.2d 1153, 1158 (Del. 2010)

(holding that “[a] party must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is entitled to specific 

performance . . . .”). The parties in briefing have asserted that the standard of evidence is 

preponderance, however, and for purposes of this Memorandum Opinion, I accept and apply that 

standard.

122 Id.

123 Pl. David Handler’s Opening Post-Trial Br. on the Standing Issue OB 24–27, Dkt, No. 202 

(“PL PT OB”). 124 Id. at 27–32. 

125 Def.’s Post-Trial Opening Br. 12–15, Dkt. No. 201 (“DF PT OB”). 
22

not assert that the oral partnership agreement existed until this present litigation 

ensued.126

Pursuant to traditional partnership principles, a partnership is created by “the 

association of [two] or more persons (i) to carry on as co-owners a business for profit 

form a partnership, whether or not the persons intend to form a partnership, and (ii) 

to carry on any purpose or activity not for profit, forms a partnership when the 

persons intend to form a partnership.”127 Under Delaware law, a limited partnership 

agreement “means any agreement, written, oral or implied, of the partners as to the 

affairs of a limited partnership and the conduct of its business”128 and “shall be 

entered into or otherwise existing either before, after or at the time of the filing of a 

certificate of limited partnership[.]”129 “The creation of a partnership is a question 

of intent.”130 A partnership exists if the parties had a “common obligation to share 

losses as well as profits.”131 Traditional contract principles apply to partnership 

agreements, as such a partnership agreement is only enforceable if it contains all 

material terms.132

126 Id. at 33. 

127 6 Del. C. § 15-202(a). 

128 6 Del. C. § 17-101(14). 129 See 6 Del. C. § 17-201(d). 130 Grunstein v. Silva, 2011 WL 378782, at *9 (Del. Ch. Jan. 31, 2011) (quoting Hynansky v. Vietri, 

2003 WL 21976031, at *5 (Del. Ch. Aug. 7, 2003)). 

131 Id. at 9 (quoting Ramone v. Lang, 2006 WL 905347, at *12 (Del. Ch. Apr. 3, 2006)). 

132 Id.
23

Under Delaware law, an enforceable contract exists when “(1) the parties have 

made a bargain with ‘sufficiently definite’ terms; and (2) the parties have manifested 

mutual assent to be bound by that bargain.”133 Mutual assent “is to be determined 

objectively based upon the[ ] [parties'] expressed words and deeds as manifested at 

the time rather than by their after-the-fact professed subjective intent[.]”134

Therefore, the Court must determine “whether a reasonable negotiator in the position 

of one asserting the existence of a contract would have concluded, in that setting, 

that the agreement reached constituted agreement on all of the terms that the parties 

themselves regarded as essential and thus that agreement concluded the negotiations 

. . . .”135 A contract is not required to be in writing in order to be enforceable: “Where 

the objective, contemporaneous evidence indicates that the parties have reached an 

agreement, they are bound by it, regardless of its form or the manner in which it was 

manifested.”136

Here, the objective contemporaneous evidence demonstrates that Handler and 

Centerview did not reach an agreement on the essential terms to create a partnership 

in Topco at the November 8th Meeting. It is clear that the Founders of Topco wished 

to bring in Handler and St. Jean as partners. Prior to the November 8th Meeting, 

133 Sarissa Cap. Domestic Fund LP v. Innoviva, Inc., 2017 WL 6209597, at *21 (Del. Ch. Dec. 8, 

2017) (quoting Osborn ex rel. Osborn, 991 A.2d at 1158).

134 Id. (quoting Debbs v. Berman, 1986 WL 1243, at *7 (Del. Ch. Jan. 29, 1986)).

135 Id. (quoting Leeds v. First Allied Conn. Corp., 521 A.2d 1095, 1097 (Del. Ch. 1986)).

136 Id. (quoting Debbs, 1986 WL 1243, at *7).
24

Handler was considered an employee pursuant to the 2008 Letter. The Founders

proposed terms for establishing a partnership with Handler before the November 8th

Meeting, which were not acceptable to Handler.137 Handler and St. Jean proposed 

an “addendum” to the 2008 Letter agreement instead.138 At the November 8th

Meeting, the parties came to an agreement about the terms of Handler’s and St. 

Jean’s continued employment at Centerview.139

Handler asserts that this meeting created a partnership in Topco.140 The 

evidence offered into the record, however, belies this. To the extent the term sheet 

was an offer by the Founders to create a partnership with Handler, Handler did not 

accept. After the meeting, Handler sent the Founders an email stating, “We need to 

absorb what you’ve put in front of us . . . We’ll look to schedule some time to get 

together once we’ve had a chance to go through everything . . . .” This, I find, is 

strong evidence that an agreement was not reached at the November 8th Meeting.141

At trial, Handler characterized what took place at the November 8th Meeting as an 

“agree[ment] to agree” regarding partnership.142

Other email exchanges in the weeks after the November 8th Meeting, among 

the Founders, Handler, and St. Jean strongly indicate that neither Handler nor St. 

137 Tr. 29:14–15, 30:15–31:1 (Handler).

138 Tr. 246:24–247:4, 253:10–19 (Handler).

139 Tr. 361:5–19 (Pruzan). 140 PL PT OB 24–27.

141 JX54 at 2.

142 Tr. 168:16–23, 246:21–4, 253:7–13 (Handler).
25

Jean considered that they had entered an oral partnership agreement. For example,

on November 15, 2012, Handler sent the proposed term sheet to his attorney, stating,

“to move forward on this we will need some senior level support from you.”143 In 

addition, on December 16, 2012, St. Jean wrote to Pruzan and with Handler copied 

stated: “[w]hile we are both genuinely excited about getting to a final arrangement 

along the lines we have been discussing . . . we are not done working through the 

details of that agreement.”144 Importantly, when Handler first expressed his 

displeasure with his pay in 2022, he sent an email to Pruzan and Effron stating his 

compensation was well below what he was owed pursuant to “any standard . . . and

. . . the 2008 [employee] [L]etter agreement.”145 He did not reference the purported 

oral partnership agreement in Topco.

146

Notably, several material terms were still up for discussion throughout the 

parties’ years-long exchange of draft LPAs following the November 8th Meeting.

147

The parties also did not perform in accordance with the terms identified in the 

purported oral partnership agreement.148 For example, Handler’s compensation 

143 JX55. 

144 JX 138.

145 JX377.

146 Id. at 2. 

147 See JX62; JX79; JX125.

148 Compare JX318 (stating that Handler had not participated in the Priority Capital Amounts for 

three years); JX250 (evidencing compensation were subject to the Founders’ discretion and 

compensation proposals); JX129 (Handler’s equity interests were recorded in CPAH), with JX52; 

Tr. 51:10, 174:1–175:6 (Handler); Tr. 38:4–45:15, 54:15–55:1 (Handler); JX474 ¶18; JX413 at 

No.16 (showing purported terms from the purported oral partnership agreement).
26

remained at the discretion of the Founders, and not the terms set forth in the 

purported oral partnership agreement.149 In fact, when his compensation did not 

coincide with the purported oral partnership agreement, Handler did not assert or 

express his rights under the purported oral partnership agreement.150 For instance, 

once Handler made an 83(b) election he began to receive Schedule K-1s, which 

reflected interests in CPAH, not Topco; he did not dispute the classification.

151

In addition, during Handler’s time at Centerview, before making his 83(b) 

election, Handler’s compensation was reflected through W-2s, demonstrating that 

Handler was in fact an employee, and not a traditional partner.

152 Notably, Handler 

never signed the LPA agreement, which, that document provides, is a requirement 

to form the partnership.

153 In a similar vein, Handler represented to third parties that 

an agreement regarding the partnership had not been reached, evidencing that the 

parties were still in discussions regarding a partnership agreement and nothing 

149 JX250. 150 For example, in a response to a compensation proposal, Handler expressed an interest in 

participating in the “Investment Capital Account,” a term that Handler claims the parties agreed to 

in the purported oral partnership agreement, Handler acknowledged that he had not participated in 

it for three years and did not express that such violated an oral partnership agreement. JX318.

151 Handler argues that a lack of receiving Schedule K-1s is not indicative of a lack of an oral 

partnership agreement. PL PT AB 48–51 (citing Robinson v. Darbeau, 2021 WL 776226, at *9 

(Del. Ch. Mar. 1, 2021); Cianci v. JEM Enter., Inc., 2000 WL 1234647, at *2 (Del. Ch. Aug. 22, 

2000)). I find that the record demonstrates that an oral partnership agreement was not reached 

between the parties; the lack of a Schedule K-1 is not determinative and is only a part of the 

evidence that I find predominates. 152 See JX163; Tr. 154:13–155:11 (Handler).

153 JX135 at 14 (“‘Limited Partner’ means each Person that is a signatory hereto and is

listed on the signature pages hereto . . .”); JX103 (responding to St. Jean in an email “I have to 

actually sign this thing?”).
27

pertaining to the agreement had been fully executed.154 Handler asserts that these 

communications merely evidence that either there was no written agreement to 

provide or that Topco had not been formed at that time.155 Handler’s arguments are 

not persuasive. I find that under a reasonable interpretation the third-party 

communications evidence that the partnership agreement was still under discussion, 

and not consummated. These include Handler’s email to a third-party organization, 

of which Handler chairs the board of directors, expressing that he still had not 

entered partnership agreements with Centerview,156 and Handler’s email to his 

accountant, stating that the partnership agreement had not been reached.

157

Handler offers numerous arguments to support the creation and execution of 

the purported oral partnership agreement, none of which, in my view, are persuasive 

or sufficient to satisfy his burden.158 First, Handler points to Topco’s ledgers to 

154 Tr. 94:4–10 (Handler); JX93 (expressing to a company, where he chaired the board of directors, 

that he still had not signed partnership agreements with Centerview); JX97 (emailing his 

accountant and expressing that the partnership agreement had not been executed). 155 Id.

156 Tr. 94:4–10 (Handler); JX93. 

157 JX97. 

158 Handler makes further arguments based on the Topco LPA, which is a written agreement that 

he did not enter. According to Handler, Centerview’s general counsel prepared schedules in 2014 

that detailed that Handler, St. Jean, and two other Topco employees’ 2013 Topco Class B Units 

were “issued in exchange for interests in CPAH.” PL PT OB 37. This exchange, in Handler’s 

opinion, supports his argument that he is a partner of Topco, because the LPA provided for this 

exact exchange and “Capital Contribution” but only “in connection with such person’s admission 

to the Partnership:” 

“[w]ith respect to any Partner that contributed, exchanged or converted an interest 

in CPAH for an interest in the Partnership in connection with such Person’s 
28

demonstrate that the oral partnership agreement existed.159 Handler argues that 

Topco’s 2012 Ledgers recorded Handler and St. Jean as holding 20% in Topco’s 

operational proceeds, which in his view, was consistent with the terms that the 

parties agreed to at the November 8th Meeting.160 Similarly, Handler contends that 

the Topco 2012 Ledgers also recorded Handler and St. Jean holding “Priority Capital 

Amounts” in “Senior Preferred Accounts” and “Junior Preferred Accounts,”

accounts that were otherwise only held by Effron and Pruzan, the founding 

partners.

161 The record evidences that “the spreadsheets are not, and were never, 

schedules to the LPA or ledgers of Topco partners.”162 Rather, the spreadsheets that 

Handler reference track economic interests across the full Centerview organization, 

admission to the Partnership, such Partner shall be deemed to have made Capital 

Contributions to the Partnership with respect to such contributed, exchanged, or 

converted interest as set forth in the books and records of the Partnership.” Id.; 

JX135 § 1.5(a).

I find that the evidence does not support his assertion, as the record indicates that the other two 

individuals mentioned are themselves not partners, but employees, of Topco, who do not enjoy 

governance or control rights at Topco. Tr. 368:11–15; 403:11–17 (Pruzan) (stating Hartman and 

Robinson are not partners and Centerview has discretion to set Hartman’s and Robinson’s 

compensation, similar to Handler’s compensation structure). 

159 PL PT OB 9 (citing “Points” tab at JX072 (2012); JX161 (2013); JX217 (2014); JX232 (2015); 

JX271 (2016); JX307 (2017); JX329 (2018); JX343 (2019); JX393 (2020); JX421 (2022)). 

160 Id. at 34. 

161 Id. 35. 

162 Vicari Aff. ¶ 3.
29

and thus are unable to support Handler’s argument that he is in fact a Topco 

partner.

163 They are evidence in support of a partnership, but not strong evidence.

Handler further contends that Topco ledger’s “CPH LP Schedules” tab also 

recorded Handler holding Topco “Priority Capital Amounts” in Topco “Priority 

Capital Accounts” as well as Topco Class B Units.164 I find that the “CPH LP 

Schedules” tab is a part of informal internal drafts, which do not reflect that Handler 

is a Topco partner. I find that the record evidences that Centerview’s CFO/COO, 

Jeanne Vicari, prepared the “CPH LP Schedules” tab at Pruzan’s request to facilitate 

the parties’ partnership negotiations, to demonstrate what schedules to the LPA 

might have looked like if the parties had come to a partnership agreement.

165 But, 

because Handler and St. Jean never executed a written partnership agreement, that 

2012 “CPH LP Schedules” tab was never finalized.

166 Pertaining to the 2013 “CPH 

LP Schedules” tab, I find that the record indicates that Handler and St. Jean had no 

interests as of 2013, since the spreadsheet contains dashes (“--”) next to Handler and 

St. Jean’s names under the “Class B Units” and “Interests in Operating Proceeds.”167

163 See Vicari Aff. ¶¶ 4, 9; Centerview Tr. 252:9–10 (Pruzan testifying that Vicari keeps these 

spreadsheets “as an aggregate consolidated look at the firm”); id. at 263:17–19 (Pruzan testifying: 

“It says ‘Centerview Partners Holdings LP’ at the top. This is a page that represents the 

consolidated Centerview Capital entity.”).

164 PL PT OB 39. 

165 Vicari Aff. ¶ 5; JX72. 

166 Id.

167 JX161.
30

Handler also points to Topco’s 2014–22 ledger records, which reflected that 

he held Topco “Priority Capital Amounts” in 2014. Handler further argues those 

ledgers also recorded that he received new Topco “Priority Capital Amounts” for 

three additional fiscal years after the November 8th Meeting, and continued to hold 

these interests in these Topco “Priority Capital Accounts,” which accrued interest 

until he left in 2022.168 Handler argues that these “Priority Capital Amounts” are 

quintessential partnership interests “tied directly to [Topco’s] business fortunes,” at 

risk with “no guaranteed right of payment,” and for which the holder had “no 

financial rights other than a claim against the residual value” of the limited 

partnership.169 According to Handler, receipt of Topco Priority Capital Amounts 

and Priority Capital Accounts directly contradicts Defendant’s assertion that he was 

not a partner of Topco.

170

The record contravenes Plaintiff’s position concerning Priority Capital 

Amounts and TVIs. First, simply receiving economic interests does not provide that 

a partnership exists.171 As I have previously found, Handler did not share in losses 

168 JX217; JX161 at “Sheet 1” Tab. 169 Pl. David Handler’s Answering Post-Trial Br. on the Standing Issue 16, Dkt. No. 211 (citing 

Harbinger Capital P’rs Master Fund Ltd. v. Granite Broad. Corp., 906 A.2d 218, 230 (Del. Ch. 

June 29, 2006); Bamford v. Penfold, L.P., 2020 WL 967942, at *17 (Del. Ch. Feb. 28, 2020); 6 

Del. C. § 17-101(15)). 170 PL PT OB 42. 

171 See Grunstein, 2014 WL 4473641, at *23 (holding that a partnership did not exist where 

plaintiff did not have control and ownership in the purported partnership); see also Silva, 2011 WL 

378782, at *9 (A partnership exists if parties have a common obligation to share losses as well as 
31

with Centerview and did not have governance rights, indicating that a partnership 

did not exist. Second, as evidenced in the record, Handler’s Priority Capital 

Amounts were a part of his annual compensation discussions, which were subject to 

the Founder’s discretion, and not provided by the purported oral partnership 

agreement.172

Again, the documentary evidence pointed to by Handler is some evidence of 

an oral partnership, but not strong evidence. To the extent that this documentary 

evidence supports Handler’s contention that an oral partnership agreement was 

reached at the November 8 Meeting,

173 I find that it is insufficient to rebut the record 

that supports a finding that the parties did not come to an agreement for all of the 

reasons previously listed.174

Handler, relying on Grunstein,

175 also argues that the exchange of various 

draft LPAs is not conclusive that the parties did not come to an oral partnership 

profits.); see generally 6 Del. C. § 15-202 (c)(3)(ii) (providing that an employee sharing profits 

does not create a presumption of partnership)). 172 See JX250 at 3; JX249; JX352 at 2016 Tab Cell E:35, 2017 Tab Cell E:35 (showing that 

Handler’s compensation tracker did not reflect priority capital amounts after 2015).

173 Centerview asserts that these entries were placeholders, and, as I found above, this 

characterization is credible. Vicari Aff. ¶ 5; JX72.

174 See Pogue v. Hybrid Energy, Inc., 2016 WL 4154253, at *1 (Del. Ch. Aug. 5, 2016) (finding 

“that inclusion on the stock ledger states a prima facie, but rebuttable, case that a plaintiff is a 

statutory stockholder of record; and that, here, the undisputed record rebuts that presumption, 

precluding Pogue from the relief he seeks.”). 

175 Id. at *10 (holding on summary judgment that “the fact that the parties exchanged draft 

agreements does not indicate as a matter of law that the parties never reached a different 

agreement.”). 
32

agreement at the November 8th Meeting.176 Handler is correct, but his reliance on 

Grunstein is unpersuasive. The exchange of draft LPAs is not conclusive but 

supportive of my finding that the parties did not agree to the essential terms of an

oral partnership agreement, as evidenced by continued negotiations and unsuccessful 

attempts to alter the original proposal over a period of time.177

In addition, Handler points out that he had expressed his displeasure at his 

compensation and lack of ownership and argues that his remaining at Centerview 

after voicing his discontent demonstrates that the parties must have reached an oral 

partnership agreement at the November 8th Meeting.

178 Before the November 8th

Meeting, however, Handler and St. Jean sent the Founders an addendum to the 2008 

Letter, which addressed their compensation. Afterwards, Handler’s compensation 

was consistent with the addendum to the 2008 Letter. After the November 8th

Meeting, when Handler addressed his compensation issues with the Founders, he 

asserted compensation rights provided by the 2008 Letter, instead of the purported 

oral partnership agreement.179 As such, I find that the record demonstrates that the 

changes in Handler’s compensation, post the November 8th Meeting, merely indicate 

176 PL PT OB 5; Grunstein, 2011 WL 378782, at *9. Handler’s reliance on other cases regarding 

mutual assent are also unpersuasive since they concern actions where an oral partnership 

agreement was not in dispute or involve evidence of executed written agreements. See PL PT OB 

4–6.

177 Grunstein, 2014 WL 4473641, at *19. 

178 PL PT OB 18–20, 29–30. 

179 JX377 at 2 (asserting that his compensation was well below what he was owed pursuant to “any 

standard . . . and . . . the 2008 [employee] [L]etter agreement.”). 
33

Handler accomplished his purpose at the meeting, to increase his compensation at 

Centerview, which explains his continuing presence at the firm.

There is evidence in the record that supports the Plaintiff’s contentions. 

Overall, however, I find that the evidence falls short of demonstrating an oral

partnership agreement, and Plaintiff has not met his burden. Therefore, I conclude 

that when Handler left his employment in 2022, he was an employee with certain 

vested rights in Centerview (to be determined in the Plenary Action) but was not a 

Topco partner entitled to invoke 6 Del. C. § 17-305. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, I find that Plaintiff is not a partner of Topco and 

therefore not entitled to books and records under 6 Del. C. § 17-305. The parallel 

litigation, the Plenary Action, should proceed. To the extent motions in this booksand-records action need resolution, the parties should so inform me. The parties 

should submit a form of order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.