Court Opinion

ID: 9894479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-01 20:03:57.850584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:43.818076
License: Public Domain

COURT OF CHANCERY
                                         OF THE
                                   STATE OF DELAWARE
KATHALEEN ST. JUDE MCCORMICK                                     LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER
        CHANCELLOR                                                 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400
                                                                  WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734

                                        November 1, 2023

     Jeremy D. Eicher                                 Douglas D. Herrmann
     Eicher Law LLC                                   Troutman Pepper Hamilton
     1007 N. Orange Street, 4th Floor                 Sanders LLP
     Wilmington, DE 19801                             1313 Market Street, Suite 5100
                                                      Wilmington, DE 19899
     Frank E. Noyes, II
     Offit Kurman, P.A.                               Jennifer C. Voss
     222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1105                  Cliff C. Gardner
     Wilmington, DE 19801                             Elisa M. C. Klein
                                                      Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
                                                      Flom LLP
                                                      920 N. King Street, 7th Floor
                                                      Wilmington, DE 19801

                   Re:   In re TransPerfect Global, Inc.,
                         C.A. Nos. 9700-CM, 10449-CM

      Dear Counsel:

            This letter resolves Respondent TransPerfect Global, Inc.’s objections to

      Former Custodian Robert Pincus’s fee petitions for legal expenses incurred from April

      2023 through June 2023.1 For the reasons stated below, TransPerfect’s objections are

      overruled.

            The court assumes the reader’s familiarity with the extensive procedural

      history of the above-referenced lawsuits and points readers to the court’s August 7,

      1 See C.A. No. 9700-CM, Docket (“Dkt.”) 1762 (April 2023 Objections); Dkt. 1763 (May

      2023 Objections); Dkt. 1764 (June 2023 Objections). Civil Action Numbers 9700-CM
      and 10449-CM have been litigated in a coordinated fashion since their inception.
      Docket entries refer to C.A. No. 9700-CM.
C.A. Nos. 9700-CM, 10449-CM
November 1, 2023
Page 2 of 7

2023 letter decision that resolved TransPerfect’s objections to the Former Custodian’s

January 2021 through March 2023 fee petitions.2

       TransPerfect’s newest objections regurgitate many of the same arguments this

court previously rejected.3 Through its current opposition, TransPerfect raises six

objections. Both the April 30, 2021 and August 7, 2023 decisions addressed most, if

not all of the issues raised here, and the logic of those opinions apply with equal force.4

TransPerfect’s objections are overruled for the following reasons.

       First, TransPerfect argues that fees related to the Securities Action are

categorically improper.5 TransPerfect acknowledges that this argument is simply a

rehashing of those arguments previously made and rejected in the August 7, 2023

letter decision.6 They are rejected again for the reasons set out in the August 7, 2023

letter decision.

       Second, TransPerfect argues that the Former Custodian should not be

permitted to personally “profit” from his prior position any longer.7          Indirectly,

2 In re TransPerfect Glob., Inc., 2023 WL 5017248, at *1 (Del. Ch. Aug. 7, 2023),

reargument, clarification, entry of final judgment, and stay pending appeal denied,
2023 WL 6387785 (Del. Ch. Sept. 22, 2023).
3 In re TransPerfect Glob., Inc., 2021 WL 1711797, at *1 (Del. Ch. Apr. 30, 2021),

recons. denied, 2021 WL 2030094 (Del. Ch. May 21, 2021), aff’d sub nom. TransPerfect
Glob., Inc. v. Pincus, 278 A.3d 630 (Del. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 574 (2023).
4 See In re TransPerfect, 2023 WL 5017248, at *2–3.

5 April 2023 Objections at 6–9; June 2023 Objections at 4–7.

6 April 2023 Objections at 6; In re TransPerfect, 2023 WL 5017248, at *3–6.

7 April 2023 Objections at 9.
C.A. Nos. 9700-CM, 10449-CM
November 1, 2023
Page 3 of 7

TransPerfect objects to the Former Custodian’s invoice reflecting a minimal amount

of time spent on this litigation. The vast majority of the Former Custodian’s current

bills seek reimbursement for attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in this litigation

or in connection with the Securities Action filed against him by a TransPerfect

affiliate. All together, these requests are not unreasonable. They all fall squarely

under this court’s February 15, 2018 Order, as the court previously held.8

      Third, TransPerfect argues that Troutman Pepper billed excessive fees to

oppose William & Connolly’s demand for fees related to the Securities Action.9 Along

with its billing statements, Troutman Pepper submitted an affidavit from Douglas D.

Herrmann certifying that the amounts invoiced were actually incurred and

reasonable.10 There is no reason to question that certification. Further, the court

previously rejected TransPerfect’s objections to timekeepers working (and billing) ten

or more hours in one day11 and partners performing work it says could have been

8 In re TransPerfect, 2023 WL 5017248, at *3 (citing Dkt. 1243 ¶ 7).

9 April 2023 Objection at 9–12.

10 Dkt. 1759, Ex. C ¶¶ 3–4.

11 In re TransPerfect Global, Inc., 2021 WL 1711797, at *33.     TransPerfect relies on
Parfi Holding AB v. Mirror Image Internet, Inc., 954 A.2d 911 (Del. Ch. 2008). April
2023 Objections at 11. But there, the court reduced the fee award because of a
“personal situation faced by a senior lawyer on the case” that had the effect of creating
extra expenses which the court found “should not be borne by the plaintiff.” 954 A.2d
at 944. That issue was not present here.
C.A. Nos. 9700-CM, 10449-CM
November 1, 2023
Page 4 of 7

performed by associates or paralegals.12 The court rejects those arguments for the

reasons previously stated.

      TransPerfect also objects to redactions made to Troutman Pepper’s timesheets,

arguing that “it is unclear what work was performed . . . because Troutman baselessly

redacted its billing records.”13 But the November 1, 2019 confidentiality order allows

the custodian to redact certain information “the Custodian deems in good faith to be

privileged or of a sensitive nature[.]”14 The court has reviewed the billing statements

and they appear to contain limited redactions that do not affect the clarity of the

billing statements.

      Fourth, TransPerfect objects to the Former Custodian’s request for fees-on-

fees.15 It is true, as the court previously observed during the March 2, 2021 oral

argument, that it “would be atypical to charge . . . a client” for “the generation of an

invoice[.]”16 But fees-on-fees, which are fees incurred in the process of enforcing one’s

right to advancement, are acceptable. Here, the Former Custodian is not seeking

advancement for Troutman Pepper’s “preparing billing statements, running the bills,

12 In re TransPerfect Global, Inc., 2021 WL 1711797, at *35 (holding the court would

not “second-guess the judgment of more senior attorneys in how to delegate legal
tasks, such as researching and drafting, to associate attorneys” (citing Weil v.
VEREIT Operating P’ship, L.P., 2018 WL 834428, at *13 (Del. Ch. Feb. 13, 2018)).
13 April 2023 Objection at 12; May 2023 Objections at 7–9.

14 Dkt. 1399 ¶ 3(a).In the court’s August 7, 2023 letter decision, the court found the
redactions of names permissible. In re TransPerfect, 2023 WL 5017248, at *6.
15 April 2023 Objections at 13–14.

16 Dkt. 1595 at 139; April 2023 Objections at 13.
C.A. Nos. 9700-CM, 10449-CM
November 1, 2023
Page 5 of 7

[or] preparing charts.”17 Rather, he is seeking fees-on-fees incurred to respond to

TransPerfect’s objections.18

      Fifth, TransPerfect objects to Williams & Connolly’s fees as unreasonable.19

Along with its billing statements, Williams & Connolly submitted an affidavit from

Charles Davant IV certifying that the amounts invoiced were actually incurred and

reasonable.20 There is no reason to question that certification. TransPerfect cites

four cases in support of its arguments, but each are readily distinguishable.21 To the

17 Dkt. 1595 at 138–39.

18 Id. at 139 (finding “monthly custodian reports” and “narrative piece” properly
billable); see, e.g., Dkt. 1759, Ex. C at 12 (billing for “Draft[ing] Answering Brief in
Opposition to TPG’s Objections to Fee Petition”). TransPerfect regurgitates its
argument that the fees billed are unique to TransPerfect and that other clients are
not billed for similar work. June 2023 Objections at 2 (“Such fees are excessive, are
not reasonable, and would not be charged to a paying client.”); April 2023 Objections
at 13 (“None of Troutman’s other clients would be charged or pay any amount, let
alone more than $11,700 for Troutman to prepare its invoices for payment for fees
they have already been charged.”). This argument fails as it has already been raised
and rejected by this court. See In re TransPerfect, 2023 WL 5017248, at *5. It also
fails in light of Williams & Connolly and Troutman Pepper’s affidavits to the contrary.
Dkt. 1759, Ex. B ¶ 3 (Williams & Connolly); Dkt. 1759, Ex. C ¶ 4 (Troutman Pepper).
19 June 2023 Objections at 10–12.

20 Dkt. 1759, Ex. B ¶¶ 2–3.

21 June 2023 Objections at 10–12 (citing Richmont Cap. P’rs I, L.P. v. J.R. Invs. Corp.,

2004 WL 1152295 (Del. Ch. May 20, 2004); Parfi Hldg. AB, 954 A.2d 911; In re
Express Financial Services, Inc., 2009 WL 8556805 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Feb. 13, 2009);
In re McGuier, 346 B.R. 151 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2006)). In Richmont, the court reduced
the fees awarded after finding “a substantial portion of the fees and expenses incurred
by the defendants in connection with the Delaware actions was the result of a tactical
decision made not necessitated by the plaintiffs’ actions.” 2004 WL 1152295, at *3.
Here, the fees and expenses incurred are directly in response to TransPerfect’s own
actions. In Parfi Holding AB, the court reduced a fee award because of a “personal
situation faced by a senior lawyer on the case” that had the effect of creating extra
expenses which the court found “should not be borne by the plaintiffs.” 954 A.2d at
C.A. Nos. 9700-CM, 10449-CM
November 1, 2023
Page 6 of 7

extent that TransPerfect objects to “dead” travel time, this court has already held

that “[i]t is common practice to bill for ‘dead’ travel time where, for whatever reason,

the attorney was unable to perform other work during that time.”22

      Sixth, TransPerfect argues that the court should adopt the recommendations

set out in the reports of David Paige and Jerome C. Studer.23             Because the

reasonableness of a fee petition is a matter of judicial discretion, the court need not

rely on experts in making that determination.24 The court nevertheless reviewed the

Paige Report in the interest of completeness. The Paige Report argues that the fee

petitions should have “an overall reduction of 20%” because counsel engaged in “block

billing and vaguely described fee entries.”25     As explained above, the court has

944. Here, Williams & Connolly attorneys and staff spent a reasonable amount of
time on work they performed. In In re Express Financial Services, Inc., the court
found the time billed was excessive because “[t]here was no opposition to either the
Motion to Intervene or the Motion to Deposit Funds.” 2009 WL 8556805, at *5. Here,
the action is being actively litigated and opposed. In In re McGuier, the time incurred
was in connection with a relatively minor evidentiary hearing. 346 B.R. at 155. Here,
the motion at issue—a motion to dismiss—was dispositive and heavily litigated.
TransPerfect also cites to PVI, Inc. v. Ratiopharm GmbH for the proposition that
Delaware courts do not allow fees for “everything paid to attorneys.” June 2023
Objections at 11 (citing 253 F.3d 320, 329–30 (8th Cir. 2001)). Although that
proposition is true, the fees here are reasonable.
22 In re TransPerfect, 2021 WL 1711797, at *33 (alteration in original) (quoting Lillis

v. AT&T Corp., 2009 WL 663946, at *6 (Del. Ch. Feb. 25, 2009)).
23 April 2023 Objections at 14; May 2023 Objections at 9–10; June 2023 Objections at

12–13.
24 See Mahani v. Edix Media Gp., Inc., 935 A.2d 242, 245 (Del. 2007) (reviewing fee

award under an abuse of discretion standard and examining whether the trial court
“failed to assess the reasonableness of the fees and expenses or that his determination
that the fees and expenses were reasonable was capricious or arbitrary”).
25 Dkt. 1762, Ex. C (Paige Report) at 2.
C.A. Nos. 9700-CM, 10449-CM
November 1, 2023
Page 7 of 7

reviewed the fee affidavits and billing statements at issue along with TransPerfect’s

expert report. The affidavits appear reliable, and after considering the DLRPC Rule

1.5(a) factors, the fees appear reasonable. The court would have reviewed the Studer

Report, which TransPerfect states was attached as Exhibit D, but that report was not

in fact attached to TransPerfect’s filing.26

      For the foregoing reasons, TransPerfect’s objections are overruled, and the

court will enter the proposed order dated July 24, 2023.

      IT IS SO ORDERED.
                                         Sincerely,

                                         /s/ Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick

                                         Chancellor

cc:   All counsel of record (by File & ServeXpress)

26 In its reply brief, TransPerfect cites to Studer’s April 21, 2023 expert report instead

of the August 2023 report referenced in its opening brief. Dkt. 1773 at 2–3; April
2023 Objections at 14 (discussing August 2023 Studer expert report). To the extent
TransPerfect asks the court to review the April 21, 2023 Studer Report, which
concerned the fee petition objections previously decided, the court has already done
so. See In re TransPerfect, 2023 WL 5017248, at *1 (resolving the January 2021
through March 2023 fee petition objections).