Title: TransPerfect Global, Inc. v. Pincus
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 445, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 8, 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL, INC.,  
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
ROBERT PINCUS, 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 445, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below–Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. Nos. 9700 & 10449 
§   
§   
§ 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: December 1, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
December 8, 2023 
 
Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal and its exhibits, it 
appears to the Court that:1 
 
(1) 
The appellant, TransPerfect Global, Inc., filed this appeal from the 
Court of Chancery’s November 1, 2023 letter decision overruling TransPerfect’s 
objections to the fee petitions filed by the appellee, Robert Pincus (the “Former 
Custodian”), for legal expenses that he incurred between April 2023 and June 2023 
 
1 The Court assumes the reader’s familiarity with the extensive litigation history of the underlying 
cases. See TransPerfect Glob., Inc. v. Pincus, 278 A.3d 630 (Del. 2022); TransPerfect Glob., Inc. 
v. Pincus, 2019 WL 7369433 (Del. Dec. 31, 2019); Shawe v. Elting, 157 A.3d 152 (Del. 2017). 
2 
 
(the “Letter Decision”).2  On November 13, 2023, TransPerfect asked the Court of 
Chancery to certify an interlocutory appeal of the Letter Decision under Supreme 
Court Rule 42.  The Former Custodian opposed the application.   
(2) 
On November 30, 2023, the Court of Chancery denied TransPerfect’s 
application.3  As an initial matter, the court accepted TransPerfect’s position that the 
Letter Decision resolved a substantial issue of material importance—a threshold 
consideration under Rule 42.4  But the Court of Chancery found that none of the Rule 
42(b)(iii) factors cited by TransPerfect—Factors A (the decision involves a novel 
question of law), B (the decision conflicts with other trial court decisions), C (the 
decision concerns the constitutionality, construction, or application of a statute that 
should be settled by this Court before the entry of a final order), and H (interlocutory 
review would serve the considerations of justice)—supported the certification of an 
interlocutory appeal.   
(3) 
As to Factor A, the Court of Chancery disagreed with TransPerfect’s 
characterization of the Letter Decision as “den[ying TransPerfect] due process and 
the right to appeal, which, under the circumstances, represents a question of law not 
previously resolved.”5  To the contrary, the court found that its ruling did not resolve 
 
2 In re TransPerfect Glob., Inc., 2023 WL 7182135 (Del. Ch. Nov. 1, 2023). 
3 In re TransPerfect Glob., Inc., 2023 WL 8281559 (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2023). 
4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(i). 
5 In re TransPerfect Glob., Inc., 2023 WL 8281559, at *2 (quoting TransPerfect’s application). 
3 
 
a novel legal question and that TransPerfect maintains the appellate rights to which 
it was previously entitled.  The court likewise found that Factor B did not favor 
certification because the Letter Decision did not conflict with existing case law—
TransPerfect merely disagrees with the court’s finding that the Former Custodian 
was not seeking advancement for his counsel’s preparation of billing statements and 
the like.  And the Court of Chancery rejected TransPerfect’s conclusory argument 
that Factor C weighed in favor of certification.  Finally, the court found that Factor 
H did not favor certification: TransPerfect retains its appellate rights, and the court 
was entitled to apply its earlier rulings to TransPerfect’s challenges to the Former 
Custodian’s most recent fee petitions. 
(4) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to this Court’s 
sound discretion.6  We agree with the Court of Chancery that interlocutory review is 
not warranted in this case.  Exercising our discretion and giving due weight to the 
Court of Chancery’s analysis, we conclude that the application for interlocutory 
review does not meet the strict standards for certification under Rule 42(b).  
Exceptional circumstances that would merit interlocutory review of the Letter 
Decision do not exist,7 and the potential benefits of interlocutory review do not 
 
6 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 
7 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii). 
4 
 
outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs caused by an interlocutory 
appeal.8 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is 
REFUSED.  The filing fee paid by TransPerfect will be applied to any future appeal 
it files from an interlocutory appeal certified by the Court of Chancery or a final 
order entered in the case. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow    
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
8 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii).