Opinion ID: 2156271
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Cross-Appeal on Disgorgement

Text: On cross-appeal, plaintiffs contend that the Court of Chancery had no discretion to do anything but order disgorgement under Delaware law. This argument is unconvincing because it is not supported by Delaware law or the record. In this case, the trial court determined that [b]ecause my valuation of ITI already takes into account the benefits of the debt restructuring and, as to these plaintiffs, deprives Haan of the value of the Merger, any order requiring disgorgement would constitute a double recovery for plaintiffs. [20] Plaintiffs incorrectly rely on this Court's decision in Thorpe for the proposition that the court's finding of a breach of the duty of loyalty required disgorgement in the instant case. Instead, Thorpe stands simply for the proposition that a fiduciary [should] not profit personally from his conduct, and that the beneficiary not be harmed by such conduct. [21] The Court of Chancery, within its broad discretion, properly decided not to order disgorgement. Moreover, the record in this case does not support disgorgement.