Title: Fuchs, et al. v. Wren Holdings LLC, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 281, 2015
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 11, 2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MORRIS FUCHS, et al.,                           §  
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 281, 2015 
 
Plaintiffs Below-Appellants, 
§ 
  
 
 
§ 
Court Below:  Court of Chancery 
           v.  
§ 
of the State of Delaware, 
 
§ 
in and for Kent County 
WREN HOLDINGS, LLC, JAVVA 
§ 
C.A. No. 3940-VCN 
PARTNERS, LLC, CAMERON 
§ 
FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, L.P., 
§ 
 
CATALYST INVESTORS, L.P., 
§ 
CHRISTOPHER SHIPMAN, ANDREW § 
T. DWYER, DORT A. CAMERON, III, § 
HOWARD KATZ, and TROY 
§ 
SNYDER,  
§ 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Defendants Below-Appellees. 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   December 9, 2015 
Decided:   December 11, 2015 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and 
SEITZ, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc.  
O R D E R 
 
This 11th day of December 2015, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, 
the record below, and oral argument, it appears to the Court that: 
In this case, the Court of Chancery had to apply a challenging body of law in 
a hotly contested matter.1  No party has asked us to overturn any prior decision; 
they solely challenge the Court of Chancery’s determinations of law under existing 
                                          
 
1 For example, the Court of Chancery addressed three times whether the plaintiffs’ central claim 
was direct or derivative under Gentile v. Rossette,  906 A.2d 91 (Del. 2006). 
 
2 
 
precedent, its determinations of fact, and its exercise of remedial discretion.  After 
careful review, we conclude that the Court of Chancery made no error of law, 
made no determination of fact not supported by the record, and committed no 
abuse of discretion.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the September 4, 2014 
judgment of the Court of Chancery is AFFIRMED.2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice  
                                          
 
2 In re Nine Sys. Corp. S’holders Litig., 2014 WL 4383127 (Del. Ch. Sept. 4, 2014).