Opinion ID: 1536001
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: costs assessment discretion properly exercised other cross claims moot

Text: In their cross-appeal, the Petitioners challenge the Court of Chancery's decision to deny their request for an award of attorneys' and expert witness' fees. Section 262(j) provides that costs may be taxed upon the parties as the court deems equitable under the circumstances. Generally, the Petitioner in an appraisal proceeding should bear the burden of paying its own expert witnesses and attorneys, unless some equitable exception applies. [57] The Petitioners invoked the equitable exception of bad faith conduct on the part of the Respondents. Although some of the cases cited by the Petitioners demonstrate that costs were assessed against the surviving corporation even in the absence of a showing of bad faith, those cases all recognized that the decision to award costs is vested within the Court of Chancery's discretion. [58] The record in this case does not support the contention that the Court of Chancery's decision denying an award of fees to the Petitioners' constituted an abuse of discretion. [59] It is unnecessary to address the other claims raised in the cross-appeal.