Dunlap v. Sunbeam
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COLIRT S TATE C HANCERY OF THE OF D ELAWARE OF T H E F AMIL Y COURT BUILDING W I L L IA M B. C H A N D L ER III P.O. B O X 5 8 I CHANCELLOR G E O R G E T O W N , D E L A W A R E 19947 December 28, 2000 VIA FAX AND U.S. MAIL Donald J. Wolfe, Jr. IKevin R. Shannon Potter Anderson & Corroon P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899 Thomas J. Allingham, II Bradley J. Enna Sltadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom P.O. Box 636 Wilmington, DE 19899 Re: Dunlap, et al. v. Sunbeam Corp. Civil Action No. 18243 Dear Counsel: I have your correspondence in this case. After considering your respective positions, this is my decision on the substantive and procedural issues outstanding. First, I am not persuaded by plaintiffs that this matter is not appropriate for referral to a Ma:ster. Appointment of a Master will not delay this matter because I will not allow it to be delayed. The Court s Master is Dunlap v. Sunbeam C.A. No. 18243 September 28, 2000 Page 2 available to hear and determine this matter in January, and quite capable of malting a prompt ruling. Any exceptions will be on an expedited basis, and review by me will also be expedited. As I continue to believe the issues are mostly technical, I do not understand why this case is not an ideal candidate for referral to the Master. Accordingly, I intend to enter an order to that effect. Second, as I have already stated, the threshold burden is on the plaintiffs to demonstrate the prima facie reasonableness of the fees for which they seek advancement or reimbursement. See Citadel Holding Corp. v. Raven, Del. Supr., 603 A.2d 818, 825 (1992). To meet this burden, plaintiffs will be required to offer more than their counsel s self-serving and . . . subjective testimony that the fees and expenses are reasonable. That sort of ipse dixit cannot be sufficient, and I trust plaintiffs counsel understand that fact. I need not define how plaintiffs may demonstrate reasonableness in the first instance, however. Defendant, in turn, must be prepared to describe the precise manner in which particular expenditures are unreasonable. I also agree with plaintiffs that defend:mt should produce invoices or other suitable evidence regarding expenses in.curred by Sunbeam in connection with the financial restatement. In the interest of time, I also direct Sunbeam s Dunlap v. Sunbeam C.A. No. 18243 September 28,200O Page 3 counsel to identify the specific fi:es and expenses that Sunbeam challenges as unreasonable and to articulate the grounds for that assertion. I defer ruling on Sunbeam s potential motion to compel until counsel have provided me with more particulars as to l;he relevance and importance of the PWC documents to this proceeding. Third, I grant Sunbeam s motion to amend its answer to include an out-of-pocket defense, as I do not view such amendment to be futile or barred by law of the case. I note as well that plaintiffs have withdrawn opposition to the motion to amend, albeit without prejudice to their right to attack the amendment s underlying legal theory. Finally, counsel have suggested two different dates for the trialJanuary 8 and January 15. I would recommend January 22 d and 23 d (with the 25 h as an extra reserve day), as it will afford counsel additional time to prepare and to submit pretrial is;;ues for resolution. The Master s schedule also would permit him to consider the testimony and documents on January ot and 10 . Counsel should confer and alert me as soon as possible as to which week is preferable for the parties and the witnesses. A Rule 16 pretrial stipulation should be submitted at least two days before the trial. All Dunlap v. Sunbeam C.A. No. 18243 September 28, 2000 Page 4 exceptions to the Master s Report must be filed within three days of his final IReport. If counsel believe a telephone conference with the Court would be helpful in light of this letter, please advise me as soon as possible. IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, William B. Chandler III oc: xc: Register in Chancery Master Sam Glasscock
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
