COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
M ORGAN T

. Z URN V ICE C HANCELLOR L EONARD L. W ILLIAMS J USTICE C ENTER 500 N. K ING S TREET , S UITE 11400 W ILMINGTON , D ELAWARE 19801

- 3734 May 19, 2023

John A. Sensing , Esquire Potter An de rson & C orro on LL P 131 3 North Marke t Street , 6 th Floor Wilmington, DE 198 99 A. Thompson Bayliss , Esquir e Abrams & Bayliss LLP 20 Montchanin Road, S uite 200 Wilmington, DE 19807

RE : Erin Page v
. Village P r actice Management Group , LLC , Civil Action N o. 2022

- 0581

- MTZ

De ar Counsel :

On April 2 7 , 2023

, after having asked the parties to submit s upplemental briefi ng address ing the nonwaivable is sue of subject matter jurisdiction

, 1 I stayed th is action pending the Delaware S upreme Court ’s decision on Terrell v. Kiromic Biopharma, Inc. ( Terrell II ) , C.A. 299, 2022 (Del.)

. 2 On May 4 , the Delaware Supreme Court issued its deci sion

. 3 I have again reviewed the parties ’ supplemental submi ssions and conclude that thi s matt er shou l d remain s t a y ed pending review and in terpr et ation of th e Vil lage Prac tice Management C o mpany, LLC Manage ment Incentive P la n ( the “ Plan ” ) under Section 4(d) , b y the

“ Committee, ” a s defined in the Plan

. 4

The parties did not have the benefit of briefing Terrell II due t o the linear nature of time , but I believe its applicat ion is straightforward

. 5 The Supreme Court

1 Docket Item ( “ D.I. ” ) 27

.
2 D.I. 42

.
3 Terrell v. Kiromic Biopharma, Inc. ( Terrell II )

, 2023 WL 3237142

, – A. 3d

– (Del. May 4, 2 02 3).

4 D.I. 6, Ex. 1 [hereinafter “ Plan ” ] § § 2( i), 4(d) ; Pa o lino v. Mace Sec. Int ’ l, Inc. , 985 A.2d 392, 397 (Del. Ch. 2009) ( “This Court possesses the inherent power to manage its own docket, including the power to stay li t igation on the basis of comity, e fficiency, or simple common sense.” )

.
5 C.A. 299, 2022 (Del.)

.Erin Page v. Villa ge Practice Management Grou p , LLC

, Civil Action No

. 20 22

- 0 581

- MT Z May 19, 2023 Page 2 of 4

held th e Court of Chancery in Terrell v. Kiromic Biopharma, Inc. ( Terrel l I ) 6

“ properly stayed the action to permit the board ’s committe e to in terpret the

a g reement and notice in the first in st ance

. ” 7 The Delaware Supreme Court interpreted the relevant provision 8 in Te rrell I as nei th er an arbitration p rovision

, nor “ squarely an expert determination ” provision

. 9 The Supreme Court found “ the Committee must b e given the first opportunity to inte rpret [the provision ] ’ s scope. ” 10

Here, the parties do not dispute that Section 4(d) is not an arbi trati on provision. 11 Acco rdingly, Section 4(d) ’ s plain text di ctates who deci des its
scope. 12 Delaware courts interpret co ntract terms according to their plain , ordinary

m eaning

, 13 and “attempt to give meaning and effect to each word in a contract, assuming that th e parties would not include superfluous verbiage in their agreement.” 14 Secti on 4(d) provides:

6 2022 WL 3083229 (Del. Ch. Aug. 2, 2022 )

. I will refer to Terrell v. Kiromic Biopharma, Inc.

, 2022 WL 175858 (Del. Ch. J an. 20, 2022 ) and its implementing order, Terrell v. Kiromic Biopharma, Inc.
, 2022 WL 3083229 (Del. Ch. Aug. 2, 2022 ) , together

as “ Terr ell I

. ”

7 Terrell I I
, 2023 WL 3237142, at *1 ; id. at *6

.
8 Id. a t *4 ( “ Our analysis necessarily begins with the text of Section 15.1, which, in its entirety, reads : [ ‘ ] Interpretation. Any d ispute regarding the interpretation of this Agreement shall be submitted by Option ee [Terrell] or the Company to the Comm ittee fo r review. The resolution of suc h a dispute by the Committee shall be final and binding on the Company and Optionee. [ ’ ] ” (empha sis omitted))

.
9 Id. at * 6 (internal qu otation marks and footn otes omitted)

.
10 Id.

11 E.g

. , D.I. 33 at 7; D.I. 37 at 4.

12 Terrell I , 2022 WL 175858 , at * 5

– 6

.
13 Alta Berkeley VI C.V. v. Omneon, Inc. , 41 A.3d 381, 385 (Del. 2012).

14 Zimmerman v. Crothall , 62 A.3d 676, 691 (Del. Ch. 2 013) (citing NAMA Hldgs., LLC

v. World Mkt. Ctr . Venture, LLC , 948 A.2d 411, 41 9 (Del. Ch. 2007)).Erin Page v. Villa ge Practice Management Grou p , LLC

, Civil Action No

. 20 22

- 0 581

- MT Z May 19, 2023 Page 3 of 4

Interpretation. Ex cept as otherwise expressly provided in the Plan, the Committee shall have all powers with respect to the administ ration of the Plan, includin g, without limitation, full power and authority to interpret the provisions of the Plan and any Award Agreement, a nd to resolve al l questions arising u nder the Pla n. All decisions of the Committee shall be conclusive and bindin g on all persons. 15

S ection 2 ( i) defines “ Committee ” as “ the committee appointed by the Board in accordance with Section 4(a), or, where no s uc h committee is appointed, the Board. ” 16 Section 4 (d) delegates “full power and authority” to the defined “C ommitte e ” “to interpret the provisi ons of the Plan and any Award Agreement, and to resolve all questions arising under the Plan.” 17

Having come to t he same conclusion in Terrell II , the D elaware Supr eme Court instructed that this Court must retain subject matter jurisdic tion and stay the
matter unt il the C ommitte e “ interpret [s] the provisions of the Plan and any Award Agreement, and to resolve al l que st ions arising under the Plan ” r aised by the plaintiff ’ s complaint

. 18 This Court must then afford an opportunity for review of the Committee ’ s legal determinations

. 19

I will therefore STAY this a ction until the C ommit tee interprets the Plan : ( a ) to determi ne the Committee ’ s s cope of authority; and ( b ) if the Committe e decide s i t has the authority

, to det ermine ( i ) w hether the “ Detrimental Activity Provision ” 20 governs the plaintiff ’ s employment after her employment with the defendant is term inated ( “ post

- emp lo ym ent activities ” ) 21 ; ( ii ) whether the plaintiff ’ s pros pective employer

, Ligh t beam Health S ol utions

, i s a “ Competit or ” 22 ;

15 Plan § 4(d) (emp has i s omitted)

.
16 Id. § 2(i) (emphasis omitted)

.
17 Id. § 4(d).

18 Id.

19 Terrell II , 2023 WL 3237142, at * 9.

20 Plan § § 2(n) , 8(b)

.
21 D.I. 1 [hereina f

ter “ C ompl. ” ] ¶ 57(a).

22 Plan § 2(l)

.Erin Page v. Villa ge Practice Management Grou p , LLC

, Civil Action No

. 20 22

- 0 581

- MT Z May 19, 2023 Page 4 of 4

(iii) whet her the plai ntiff remains the holder of her “ C l ass B U nits ” 23 ; and (iv) whe ther the def

endant has any basis under the Plan to c ancel any of the plaintiff ’ s Class B U n its. 24

T he parties should inform the Co urt when the Co mmittee makes its decision by a join t letter

. A t that time, t he parties should confer on a scheduling order for this Court ’ s subsequent review in accordance wi th Terrell II

. It is the Court ’ s preference tha t t he partie s attach to the join t letter a stipulated proposed schedul ing

or der

. If the parties cannot agree on a schedule, they should each attach a proposed scheduling order and I will select one. IT IS S O ORDERED.

Since r ely,

/s/ Morgan T. Z

urn

Vice Ch ancel l or

MTZ/ ms

cc : All Coun sel o f Record, v ia Fi l e & S e rve Xpress

23 Id. § 2(g).

24 Compl. ¶ 57.