Title: TransPerfect Global, Inc. v. Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 132, 2022
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 17, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL, INC.,   § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  § 
No. 132, 2022 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
  § 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
  §   
Court Below—Court of Chancery 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  § 
of the State of Delaware 
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
  § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  § 
C.A. No:  2021-0065 
ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ 
  § 
LLP and GARRETT B. MORITZ, 
  § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  § 
 
 
Defendants Below, 
 
  § 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
  
  § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 26, 2022 
 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
November 17, 2022 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
This 17th day of November, 2022 after consideration of the parties’ briefs and 
the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
 
 
1. 
Although the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery would not, under 
ordinary circumstances, extend to the professional-negligence action Appellant 
TransPerfect Global, Inc. filed against Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP and Garrett B. 
Moritz, (collectively, “RAM”) the circumstances presented here are extraordinary.  
By the terms of two separate orders, the Court of Chancery retained exclusive 
jurisdiction over “actions or proceedings . . . challenging any action, 
recommendation or decision” of a court-appointed custodian1 and over the parties, 
 
1 In re TransPerfect Global, Inc., 2016 WL 3949840, at *6 (Del. Ch. July 18, 2016). 
2 
 
including TransPerfect, “for all matters relating to” the civil actions surrounding the 
court-ordered sale of TransPerfect.2 
 
 
2. 
We agree with the Chancellor’s conclusion that “[n]o court could 
possibly evaluate the propriety of [RAM’s] alleged actions or inactions [as alleged 
in TransPerfect’s professional negligence complaint] without reference to the 
propriety of the Custodian’s actions, recommendations, or decisions.”3  
TransPerfect’s claims against RAM, moreover, include a challenge to the 
Custodian’s authority to retain and direct the activities of counsel on TransPerfect’s 
behalf; as such, they fall squarely within the exclusive-jurisdiction provisions of the 
Court of Chancery’s prior orders. 
 
 
3. 
We also agree with the Chancellor that “it is not reasonably conceivable 
that [RAM has] breached a professional obligation, and [that] TransPerfect has 
therefore failed to state a claim for legal malpractice upon which relief can be 
granted.”4 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of 
Chancery be AFFIRMED on the basis of its March 17, 2022 Memorandum Opinion.  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
2 In re TransPerfect Global, Inc., 2018 WL 992994, at *7 (Del. Ch. Feb. 15, 2018). 
3 TransPerfect Global, Inc. v. Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, 2022 WL 803484, at *8 (Del. Ch. 
Mar. 17, 2022). 
4 Id. at *12.