COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE

SAM GLASSCOCK III

VICE CHANCELLOR

STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE

34 THE CIRCLE

GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

September 4, 2020

Kevin M. Gallagher

John M. O’Toole

Christian C.F. Roberts

RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.

One Rodney Square

920 North King Street

Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Richard A. Barkasy

SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & 

LEWIS LLP

824 North Market Street, Suite 800 

Wilmington, DE 19801

Richard A. Rowzie

#1080129

Deerfield Correctional Center

21360 Deerfield Drive

Capron, VA 23829

Isaac Bensimon

520 SW 1st Ave

Hallandale Beach, FL 33009

John Mattera, obo Ann Mattera

Reg # 97650-004

FPC Atlanta

PO Box 150160

Atlanta, GA 30315

Carlyle Johnson

AU-4855

P.O. Box 5248 / B1-1-4-Low

Corcoran, CA 93212 

Charles Jeffery Rhodes

Sean Herrmann, Esquire 

HERRMANN & MURPHY, PLLC
2

1712 Euclid Avenue

Charlotte, NC 28203 

RE: In re Swisher Hygiene, Inc.; 2018-0080-SG; Motion to Reconsider

Dear Litigants:

Swisher Hygiene, Inc. (“Swisher”) is a Delaware corporation in the process 

of dissolution. It moved this Court for an Order permitting an interim distribution, 

which caused me to consider remaining creditor claims against Swisher under 

Section 280 of the DGCL.1

 That review was to determine an appropriate reserve of 

funds to address liabilities, and to determine whether an interim distribution was 

appropriate. In my resulting Letter Opinion of June 12, 2020 (the “June Opinion”), 

among the creditor claims addressed, I declined to order a reserve in way of a 

creditor claim filed by Isaac Bensimon.2 Briefly, Bensimon alleged that, 35 years 

ago, and unbeknownst to him, Yogen Fruz Worldwide, Inc. (“Fruz”) mysteriously 

issued stock in his name; just as mysteriously, six days later, the shares were 

canceled, utilizing a forged signature purporting to be Bensimon’s. Sometime 

thereafter, Swisher acquired Fruz, presumably in a manner that provided Fruz 

stockholders with Swisher stock.3

 Bensimon’s claim is that the 1985 issuance of 

 

1 8 Del. C. § 280.

2 June Opinion 5–6.

3 I make this assumption because it is necessary to support the relief Bensimon seeks, not 

because I am aware of anything in the record regarding the terms of the acquisition.
3

Fruz stock to him was valid, the cancellation was void, and that he should be 

considered an equity holder in Swisher—he described this as a “fraud” claim against 

Swisher. I found that his allegations did not state a creditor claim against Swisher,

and declined to order a reserve in relation to Bensimon’s allegations, “without 

prejudice to the legal issues therein or his ability to pursue his fraud claim against 

any fraudster.”4

 

More than five days thereafter, Bensimon, who appears here pro se, filed a 

pleading styled “Motion to Reconsider” the June Opinion (the “Motion”). In fact 

the Motion is a motion for reargument, and I treat it as such. The Motion has been 

briefed and submitted for decision.

Under Court of Chancery Rule 59(f), a party may move for reargument within 

five days after the Court issues an opinion.5

 Reargument is warranted only where 

“the Court has overlooked a decision or principle of law that would have controlling 

effect or . . . [has] misapprehended the facts or the law so the outcome of the decision 

would be different.”6

 “A motion for reargument is not a mechanism to present new 

arguments or to relitigate claims already considered by the Court.”7

 4 June Opinion 5–6.

5 Ch. Ct. R. 59(f) (“A motion for reargument setting forth briefly and distinctly the grounds therefor 

may be served and filed within 5 days after the filing of the Court’s opinion or the receipt of the 

Court’s decision.”).

6 Pontone v Milso Indus. Corp., 2014 WL 4352341, at *1 (Del. Ch. Sept. 3, 2014).

7 Cabela’s LLC v. Wellman, 2018 WL 6680972, at *1 (Del. Ch. Dec. 19, 2018).
4

Bensimon’s Motion is untimely under Court of Chancery Rule 59(f).8

 To the 

extent that fact is not fatal to its consideration, the Motion does not satisfy Rule 59(f). 

The Motion does not cite any law. It does not point to any fact I overlooked or 

misapprehended.

9

 The Motion simply restates Bensimon’s claim, notes the Court’s 

holding, and requests a different outcome. A motion for reargument is not the proper 

mechanism for such a request. I note here, as I did in the June Opinion, that nothing 

here is in prejudice of Bensimon’s rights, if any, to bring litigation to determine 

ownership of stock, or for fraud against any fraudster. Bensimon’s motion for 

reargument is DENIED.

To the extent the foregoing requires an order to take effect, it is SO 

ORDERED.

Sincerely,

/s/ Sam Glasscock III

Sam Glasscock III

 8 The June Opinion was docketed on June 12, 2020; Bensimon’s motion was mailed on June 26, 

2020 and filed on June 29. Rule 59(f) provides that motions for reargument “may be” filed 

within five days of the filing or receipt of a judicial decision.

9 In his single-page Reply to Pet’r’s Opp’n to Isaac Bensimon's Mot. for Recons., Bensimon 

states that I overlooked the facts set out above, and in the June Opinion. See June Opinion 5.