Title: In re PLX Technology Inc. Stockholders Litigation
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 571, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 16, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
In re PLX TECHNOLOGY INC. 
§ 
STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION 
§ 
No. 571, 2018 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Court Below: Court of Chancery 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
C.A. No. 9880-VCL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 15, 2019 
Decided: 
May 16, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, VAUGHN, SEITZ, and 
TRAYNOR, Justices; constituting the Court en Banc. 
 
O R D E R 
 
(1) 
In this case, the Court of Chancery determined in a thorough post-trial 
opinion that an activist hedge fund, defendant Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P. 
(“Potomac”), aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duties by the directors of PLX 
Technology Inc. (“PLX” or the “Company”) in connection with a sale of the 
Company, but that the plaintiffs failed to prove damages.1  In deciding the damages 
issue, the Court of Chancery observed that “[t]he plaintiffs theorized that the 
Company should have remained a standalone entity and maintained that its value in 
that configuration was $9.86 per share,” but they “failed to prove that valuation, 
                                          
 
1 In re PLX Technology Inc. S’holders Litig., 2018 WL 5018353 (Del. Ch. Oct. 16, 2018). 
2 
which was 50% higher than the Merger consideration.”2  As a result, the court 
entered judgment for Potomac. 
(2) 
On appeal, the plaintiff-appellants contend that the Court of Chancery 
erred in deciding the damages issue by importing principles from our appraisal 
jurisprudence to give deference to the deal price.  On cross-appeal, Potomac argues 
that the Court of Chancery erred in finding (i) a breach of fiduciary duties, (ii) that 
Potomac aided and abetted that breach, and (iii) that the stockholder vote was not 
fully informed. 
(3) 
As to the damages issue, we affirm the Court of Chancery’s decision 
that the plaintiff-appellants did not prove that they suffered damages. 
(4) 
Because our affirmance of the Court of Chancery’s determination that 
the plaintiff-appellants did not prove that they suffered damages suffices to affirm 
the judgment in favor of Potomac, we need not and therefore do not reach Potomac’s 
arguments on cross-appeal.  To be clear, that means that we need not and do not 
address whether the Court of Chancery was correct in any of its other determinations, 
including that Potomac was responsible for any breach of fiduciary duty by any PLX 
director or that any underlying fiduciary duty breach occurred, and we affirm solely 
on the basis that the Court of Chancery was within its discretion in determining that 
the plaintiff-appellants did not prove that they suffered damages. 
                                          
 
2 Id. at *2. 
3 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of 
Chancery is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice