Court Opinion

ID: 9406398
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-30 20:04:57.662553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:30.769590
License: Public Domain

COURT OF CHANCERY
                                     OF THE
                               STATE OF DELAWARE
     LORI W. WILL                                              LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER
    VICE CHANCELLOR                                               500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400
                                                                 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734

                                      June 30, 2023

     David H. Holloway, Esquire               Jody C. Barillare, Esquire
     Shlansky Law Group LLP                   Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
     1504 North Broom Street                  1202 North Market Street
     Wilmington, Delaware 19806               Wilmington, Delaware 19801

          RE:    Edward Deane, et al. v. Robert Maginn, Jr.,
                 C.A. No. 2017-0346-LWW

Dear Counsel:

          I write to resolve the defendant’s Motion for Reargument Regarding the

Court’s Order Appointing Special Counsel (the “Motion”).1 The Motion concerns

my appointment of Special Counsel to represent the interests of absent members of

New Media Investors II-B, LLC (“New Media II-B”) who may be entitled to a pro

rata recovery of damages. For the reasons explained below, the Motion is denied.

1
  Mot. for Reargument Regarding the Court’s Order Appointing Special Counsel
(Dkt. 348) (“Mot.”).
C.A. No. 2017-0346-LWW
June 30, 2023
Page 2 of 9

I.       BACKGROUND

         The procedural history of this case spans many years and is documented in

my prior decisions. 2 It culminated in a three-day trial in March 2022.                   On

November 1, I issued a post-trial memorandum opinion finding that the defendant

had breached his duty of loyalty by usurping a corporate opportunity from New

Media II-B.3 I calculated New Media II-B’s damages to be $25,451,992. Given the

“unique circumstances of this case and the nature of New Media II-B,” I determined

in the exercise of my discretion that a pro rata recovery by New Media II-B’s

investors would be equitable. 4 Among other considerations, I reasoned that a

recovery by New Media II-B would wrongly benefit the defendant.5

         Although a pro rata distribution seems simple in concept, it soon proved

complex in execution. At some point, New Media II-B had about 88 members

2
 See Deane v. Maginn, 2022 WL 624415 (Del. Ch. Mar. 2, 2022); Deane v. Maginn
(Maginn II), 2022 WL 16557974 (Del. Ch. Nov. 1, 2022).
3
    See Maginn II, 2022 WL 16557974, at *31.
4
 Id. at *31; see In re Happy Child World, Inc., 2020 WL 5793156, at *2 (Del. Ch. Sept.
29, 2020) (“As a court of equity, this Court . . . would be within its authority to fashion [a
direct recovery for a derivative claim] if it did so with care.”).
5
  Maginn II, 2022 WL 16557974, at *29-30; see also In re El Paso Pipeline P’rs, L.P.
Deriv. Litig., 132 A.3d 67, 75 (Del. Ch. 2015) (observing that an investor-level recovery
on a derivative claim may be appropriate where “an entity-level recovery would benefit
‘guilty’ stockholders” or where “the entity is no longer an independent going concern, such
that channeling the recovery through the corporation is no longer feasible or a pro rata
recovery is more efficient”), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. El Paso Pipeline GP Co.,
LLC v. Brinckerhoff, 152 A.3d 1248 (Del. 2016).
C.A. No. 2017-0346-LWW
June 30, 2023
Page 3 of 9

around the world. It is unclear how many members remain today (and where they

are located).6 As a further complication, in 2013, the defendant sent letters to New

Media II-B members that enclosed a “Payment Acknowledgement and Release”

agreement and a redemption payment described as a “final check[].” 7               The

agreement stated that acceptance of the redemption payment would represent a

repurchase of a member’s equity and terminate any membership interest in New

Media II-B. The agreement also included a broad release of claims. Some members

signed agreements and cashed their checks.8 Others, including the plaintiffs, did

not.9 Whether the former group is entitled to a distribution of damages remains

unresolved.

          Given these issues, I asked the parties for proposals on next steps in

distributing a recovery to members. This process, too, has presented challenges.

The plaintiffs suggested that I appoint a receiver to “identify and locate” potential

members of New Media II-B and “to resolve possible uncertain or disputed claims

of membership.”10 The defendant raised many objections but few solutions. For

6
 Maginn II, 2022 WL 16557974, at *30 (noting that the evidence “indicates that there may
be somewhere between two and 85 remaining members of New Media II-B”).
7
    Id. at *6.
8
    Id.
9
    Id.
10
     Dkt. 331 at 2.
C.A. No. 2017-0346-LWW
June 30, 2023
Page 4 of 9

example, he argued that the plaintiffs are poor representatives given their interest in

a larger recovery while insisting that I cannot properly “adjudicate property interests

of absent parties.”11

           During a February 15, 2023 hearing, I asked the defendant’s counsel why the

other members needed to be “present” to receive a distribution of damages recovered

by an entity.12 The defendant’s counsel responded:

           [W]hat you are envisioning is determining who are members based
           upon a release that would be, I presume, litigated by the people who
           would, I presume, if there’s money at stake, claim that they have an
           interest in it and that the release is invalid. If they’re not present, then
           I don’t know how you do that.13
I then asked whether counsel “believe[d] that the validity of the release is a threshold

issue that would need to be taken up as a matter of law before we determine who the

members of the entity are?”14 Counsel responded: “If we’re going to go down that

route, then I don’t see how you can do it without . . . number one, determining the

validity of the release. That would be required.”15

11
     Dkt. 334 at 2.
12
     Dkt. 343 at 14.
13
     Id. at 14-15.
14
     Id. at 15.
15
     Id.
C.A. No. 2017-0346-LWW
June 30, 2023
Page 5 of 9

          I took the defendant’s concerns—which I believe are valid—seriously and

considered whether and how to resolve the issue of the release. On April 27, I

informed the parties that I had decided to appoint Special Counsel to represent the

interests of the absent New Media II-B members (or former members). 16 The

Special Counsel would address whether the absent members who signed releases

and accepted redemption payments might still be entitled to a pro rata distribution

of damages.

          The defendant dissented again.17 His seven subsequent objections included a

request that the Special Counsel conduct a broad conflicts check and that I advise on

how the Special Counsel would be compensated.              He also argued that the

appointment of a Special Counsel “underscores the reasons the case should have

been dismissed pursuant to Rule 19 before trial.”18

          On May 15, I entered an Order Appointing Special Counsel (the “Order”) and

sent a letter to counsel addressing the defendant’s concerns.19 My letter and Order

described the role of Special Counsel, explained the manner of her compensation,

16
     Dkt. 344.
17
     Dkt. 345.
18
     Id. at 4.
19
     Dkts. 346-47.
C.A. No. 2017-0346-LWW
June 30, 2023
Page 6 of 9

and confirmed that she had cleared conflicts. As to the defendant’s Rule 19

arguments, I reiterated that the defendant had unsuccessfully raised them in the past:

         As the party relying on Rule 19, the defendant had the burden to show
         there exist persons that are necessary or indispensable to the action. At
         the summary judgment stage, I held that the defendant fell “well short”
         of meeting this burden because he cited only to documents from 2013
         and an “undated and uncontextualized” spreadsheet. At trial, no
         additional evidence was presented. After trial, the defendant opted not
         to brief his Rule 19 arguments, thereby waiving them.20

I also clarified that the defendant was not entitled to “relaunch his Rule 19 arguments

at this stage in the case” or to “reopen the trial record with ‘evidence that bears on

his own liability.’”21

         Now, the defendant has filed this Motion. He argues that “there is no need to

appoint a Special Counsel” because “the Court denied the only claim in this case

that raised the issue as to whether any Non-Party Members’ interests in [New Media

II-B] have been extinguished by the [Payment Acknowledgement and] Release.”22

Because that claim was denied, he contends that the court now lacks subject matter

20
     Dkt. 346 at 5 (citations omitted).
21
  Id. at 6. As to the defendant’s Rule 23.1 argument, it is stale. In any event, the
appointment of Special Counsel directly addresses any purported conflict of interest
between the plaintiffs and other current or former members of New Media II-B.
22
     Mot. ¶ 2.
C.A. No. 2017-0346-LWW
June 30, 2023
Page 7 of 9

jurisdiction.23 He suggests that rather than appoint Special Counsel to represent the

absent members, I should appoint a claims administrator.24

II.      ANALYSIS

         Court of Chancery Rule 59(f) governs motions for reargument.25 A motion

for reargument will be denied “unless the Court has overlooked a decision or

principle of law that would have a controlling effect or the Court has

misapprehended the law or the facts so that the outcome of the decision would be

affected.”26 Reargument motions “may not rehash old arguments or invent new

ones.”27

         The defendant has not identified any principle of law or any fact that I

overlooked or misapprehended in appointing Special Counsel. Rather, he either

raises arguments that have no place at the remedial stage or critiques the manner of

recovery after trial. I am no longer resolving claims or determining what remedy is

23
     Dkt. 350 at 5.
24
     Mot. ¶ 3.
25
     Ct. Ch. R. 59(f).
26
     Stein v. Orloff, 1985 WL 21136, at *2 (Del. Ch. Sept. 26, 1985).
27
  Quantlab Grp. GP, LLC v. Eames, 2018 WL 5778445, at *1 (Del. Ch. Nov. 2, 2018);
see also Wong v. USES Hldg. Corp., 2016 WL 1436594, at *1 (Del. Ch. Apr. 5, 2016)
(“Where the motion merely rehashes arguments already made by the parties and considered
by the Court when reaching the decision from which reargument is sought, the motion must
be denied.” (citing Lewis v. Aronson, 1985 WL 21141, at *2 (Del. Ch. June 7, 1985))).
C.A. No. 2017-0346-LWW
June 30, 2023
Page 8 of 9

appropriate. The defendant’s arguments on the merits, including whether necessary

parties were absent, were resolved in my summary judgment and post-trial decisions.

I do not lack subject matter jurisdiction to implement the remedy that I have deemed

appropriate.28 And I concluded that appointing a claims administrator was not a

viable option given (1) the lingering questions about which current or former

members are entitled to damages and (2) the lack of evidence on where those

members are located.29 I am solely determining which members are legally entitled

to share in a recovery.

         The defendant further argues that my Order appointing the Special Counsel

did not address the payment of fees if the judgment were reversed on appeal.

Pursuant to the Order, the Special Counsel will be compensated from the total

damages awarded in this action.30 It is not apparent to me why the Order should

have addressed hypotheticals—much less how this creates grounds for reargument.31

28
   This jurisdictional argument repackages arguments previously raised about whether my
finding that the plaintiffs did not prevail on their declaratory judgment claim affects the
implementation of a remedy for the corporate opportunity claim.
29
  Again, these issues were raised by the defendant as potential roadblocks to a pro rata
distribution of damages. See, e.g., Dkt. 334 at 5-7.
30
     Dkt. 347 ¶ 8.
31
  See Heineman v. Datapoint Corp., 1991 WL 165303, at *1 (Del. Ch. Aug. 20, 1991)
(denying a motion for reargument where the issues were unripe).
C.A. No. 2017-0346-LWW
June 30, 2023
Page 9 of 9

If the defendant prevails on appeal, any issues regarding the Special Counsel’s

compensation will be resolved in due course.

III.   CONCLUSION

       For these reasons, the Motion is denied. The parties are to proceed with

briefing the validity of the Payment Acknowledgement and Release as a matter of

law, as I previously ordered. I remain committed to bringing this long-pending

matter to an efficient and equitable close.

                                        Sincerely yours,

                                        /s/ Lori W. Will
                                        Lori W. Will
                                        Vice Chancellor