COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

MORGAN T. ZURN

VICE CHANCELLOR

LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER

500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400

WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734

January 18, 2023

Christopher D. Loizides, Esquire

Loizides, P.A.

1225 King Street, Suite 800

Wilmington, DE 19801

RE: Fintech Consulting LLC v. TSR, Inc., et al.,

 Civil Action No. 2023-0030-MTZ

Dear Counsel:

I write with regard to plaintiff Fintech Consulting LLC’s Verified Complaint

(the “Verified Complaint”) filed on January 12, 2023.1 Plaintiff also filed a motion 

to expedite,

2 which are all too common in this Court, and a motion to dismiss its 

own complaint, which is quite unusual.3 The defendants in this action have not yet 

appeared.

Plaintiff seeks relief from a share purchase agreement (“SPA”) by which 

Plaintiff purchased stock in defendant TSR, Inc. The SPA included a forum 

selection clause, which reads:

1 Docket Item (“D.I.”) 1 [hereinafter Compl.].

2 D.I. 11.

3 D.I. 14.
Fintech Consulting LLC v. TSR, Inc., et al.,

Civil Action No. 2023-0030-MTZ

January 18, 2023

Page 2 of 5

Each of the Parties . . . irrevocably and unconditionally consents and 

submits itself and its properties and assets in any action, suit or 

proceeding arising out of or with respect to this Agreement and the 

transactions contemplated hereby to the exclusive general jurisdiction 

of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and any state 

appellate court therefrom within the State of Delaware (or, if the 

Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware declines to accept 

jurisdiction over a particular matter, any federal court within the State

of Delaware) (the “Chosen Courts”) . . . .

4

Plaintiff initially filed some version of its claims in New Jersey federal 

court. On December 7, 2022, that district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint 

pursuant to the above forum selection clause. Weeks passed.

Then Plaintiff filed the Verified Complaint in this Court, asserting claims 

for common law fraud and violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934

(the “Exchange Act”). Not one hour later, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction, emphatic that this Court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction over its Exchange Act claim.

5

 Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court 

dismissing its Exchange Act claim so that it can refile in a federal forum, free and 

4

Id. at Ex. A § 5.11 (emphasis omitted).

5 D.I. 14; see Compl. ¶ 3 (“Plaintiff’s principal cause of action arises under section 10(b)

of the Exchange Act of 1934 . . . and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 

. . . over which United States District Courts have jurisdiction to the exclusion of state 

courts pursuant to Section 27 of the Exchange Act . . . .”); D.I. 11 ¶ 6 (“[T]he issue is not 

one about which reasonable minds could differ[,] [f]ederal law is crystal clear that the 

Federal Courts hold exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising under the 34 Act.”); D.I. 14 

at 6 (“[T]his Court must immediately dismiss that claim for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction.”).
Fintech Consulting LLC v. TSR, Inc., et al.,

Civil Action No. 2023-0030-MTZ

January 18, 2023

Page 3 of 5

clear of any affirmative defense based on the SPA’s forum selection clause. 

Plaintiff demands that I schedule a hearing and resolve its motion to dismiss before 

February 1, 2023, so that it can refile before the statute of limitations runs on its 

claim.

I will not advise Plaintiff on the proper way to find a forum. This was not 

it.6 Under Court of Chancery Rule 11, when a Delaware lawyer files a claim 

before this Court, that lawyer is certifying that to the best of her knowledge, 

information and belief, that claim is warranted.7 But Plaintiff’s counsel here 

knows and believes Plaintiff’s claims are not warranted. In Plaintiff’s view, it is 

“crystal clear” that this Court lacks jurisdiction over its claims—as Plaintiff put it, 

“the issue is not one about which reasonable minds could differ.”

8

 

Noncompliance with Rule 11 risks a referral to the Office of Disciplinary 

Counsel, or, if the proceedings are prejudiced, sanctions by this Court.

9 But as I 

6 Unfortunately, this is not the first time in recent history that a plaintiff has taken this

self-sabotage approach to litigation. See MXY Hldgs. LLC v. All Js Greenspace LLC, 

C.A. No. 2022-0220-MTZ (Del. Ch.), D.I. 25 (letter to counsel regarding a plaintiff’s 

request that I grant a motion to dismiss).

7 Ct. Ch. R. 11(b).

8 D.I. 11 ¶ 6.

9 See Crumplar v. Superior Ct. ex rel. New Castle Cnty., 56 A.3d 1000, 1010 (Del. 2012);

see also In re Abbott, 925 A.2d 482, 486–87 (Del. 2007) (reasoning conduct violated 

Delaware Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.4 where it “caused a waste of judicial 
Fintech Consulting LLC v. TSR, Inc., et al.,

Civil Action No. 2023-0030-MTZ

January 18, 2023

Page 4 of 5

read the Delaware Supreme Court’s instructions in Crumplar v. Superior Court ex 

rel. New Castle County, trial courts are not to enforce the Delaware Rules of 

Professional Conduct, or the trial court’s Rule 11, unless and until the attorney has 

engaged in conduct that “prejudices the fairness of the proceedings, such that it

adversely affects the fair and efficient administration of justice.”

10 Given that the 

defendants have not yet appeared, I cannot conclude that the “fairness” of this 

action has been prejudiced. And so, for now, I simply note that the Exchange Act 

claim never should have been filed here in the first place.

resources that otherwise would be devoted to the merits of other cases before the Superior 

Court”).

10 56 A.3d 1000 (Del. 2012); see also Appeal of Infotechnology, Inc., 582 A.2d 215, 216–

17 (Del. 1990); Ct. Ch. R. 11(c). Certainly, Crumplar prohibits a trial court from 

sanctioning counsel for a Rule 11 violation absent such prejudice and without due 

process. The text of Rule 11(c)(1) also compels “notice and a reasonable opportunity to 

respond” before the Court can “determine[] that [Rule 11(b)] has been violated.” Ct. Ch. 

R. 11(c). And a conservative reading of Crumplar equates finding a violation with 

sanctioning. Id. at 1005 (considering the standard the trial court judge should have used 

to evaluate counsel’s conduct “when deciding whether Rule 11 sanctions are 

appropriate”); id. at 1008 (equating “violat[ing] Rule 11’s objective standard” with 

“fac[ing] Rule 11 sanctions”); id. at 1009–10 (“exten[ding]” Infotechnology’s restriction 

on trial courts “appl[ying]” the Rules of Professional Conduct to Rule 11); id. at 1011 

(requiring heightened procedural protection when a trial judge “raise[s] Rule 11” sua 

sponte—not just Rule 11(c)(1)(B)); id. at 1012 (requiring an evidentiary hearing and 

argument “for trial judges to assess [attorneys’] credibility and impose Rule 11 

sanctions” (emphasis added)). 
Fintech Consulting LLC v. TSR, Inc., et al.,

Civil Action No. 2023-0030-MTZ

January 18, 2023

Page 5 of 5

“It is within the discretion of this Court to grant or deny an application to 

expedite proceedings.”

11 This Court has finite resources that are stretched thin to 

handle warranted suits. I cannot allow those resources to be wasted by devoting 

them to hyper-expedited consideration of a claim Plaintiff knew was frivolous 

when filed. Additionally, Plaintiff has not even attempted to argue that either 

claim is colorable, which is a required showing to receive expedited treatment: 

rather, he seeks expedition on the basis that his claim is frivolous.

12

 The Court will 

address Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss in the ordinary course. Plaintiff’s motion to 

expedite is DENIED. 

Sincerely,

 /s/ Morgan T. Zurn

 Vice Chancellor

MTZ/ms

cc: All Counsel of Record, via File & ServeXpress

11 Corp. Prop. Assocs. 8, L.P. v. AmerSig Graphics, Inc., 1993 WL 499005, at *1 (Del. 

Ch. Nov. 17, 1993); Ortsman v. Green, 2007 WL 702475, at *2 (Del. Ch. Feb. 28, 2007)

(“The court recognizes that there is no automatic right to expedition.”).

12 D.I. 11 at 2–3; Giammargo v. Snapple Beverage Corp., 1994 WL 672698, at *2 (Del. 

Ch. Nov. 15, 1994).