ReCor Medical, Inc. v. Warnking
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
EFiled: Jan 30 2015 02:28PM EST Transaction ID 56693510 Case No. 7387-VCN COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JOHN W. NOBLE VICE CHANCELLOR 417 SOUTH STATE STREET DOVER, DELAWARE 19901 TELEPHONE: (302) 739-4397 FACSIMILE: (302) 739-6179 January 30, 2015 Daniel B. Rath, Esquire Landis Rath & Cobb LLP 919 Market Street, Suite 1800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Re: Thomas M. Horan, Esquire Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1501 Wilmington, DE 19801 ReCor Medical, Inc. v. Warnking C.A. No. 7387-VCN Date Submitted: November 3, 2014 Dear Counsel: The Court awarded Plaintiff ReCor Medical, Inc. (“ReCor”) its attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in this action and in defending the appeal taken by Defendants Reinhard Warnking and Sound Interventions, Inc. (the “Defendants”).1 The parties have been unable to agree upon an implementing form of order because of their dispute about whether post-judgment interest should be simple or compound. 1 See ReCor Med., Inc. v. Warnking, 2014 WL 5317768 (Del. Ch. Oct. 15, 2014). Daniel B. Rath, Esquire Thomas M. Horan, Esquire January 30, 2015 Page 2 The Court “has broad discretion, subject to principles of fairness” in awarding interest.2 That discretion includes the authority to award compound interest.3 An award of simple interest allows the obligor to gain something of a cumulative advantage by delaying payment of its obligation.4 Because of this, simple interest may generally be viewed as “ha[ving] nothing to commend it.”5 In Seaport Village Limited, for example, the Court awarded interest, compounded quarterly, on a fee award.6 Defendants assert that a compound interest rate would be unfair. They focus on their expenditures promoting the technology that ReCor now controls. Although the amount expended is not clear, some benefit did, in fact, accrue to ReCor. As a matter of equity, this undoubtedly favors the Defendants, but the Defendants’ own inequitable conduct played an integral role in the Court’s resolution of the merits of this action. 2 Valeant Pharm. Int’l v. Jerney, 921 A.2d 732, 756 (Del. Ch. 2007). Gotham P’rs L.P. v. Hallwood Realty P’rs, L.P., 817 A.2d 160, 173 (Del. 2002). 4 See, e.g., Brandin v. Gottlieb, 2000 WL 1005954, at *30 (Del. Ch. July 13, 2000). 5 Gotham P’rs L.P., 817 A.2d at 173. 6 Seaport Vill. Ltd. v. Seaport Vill. Operating Co., LLC, 2014 WL 4782817, at *2 (Del. Ch. Sept. 24, 2014). 3 Daniel B. Rath, Esquire Thomas M. Horan, Esquire January 30, 2015 Page 3 In addition, with interest rates at low levels, the legal rate of interest of the discount rate plus five percent7 may overstate the value accruing to Defendants from possessing the funds owed to ReCor. There is no clear-cut exit from the conundrum posed by the parties. Compound interest is not a default answer because the question is committed to the Court’s discretion. Yet, on balance, the reasons cited for simple interest do not outweigh the reality that compound interest is a more accurate means of measuring the time value of money owed by Defendants to ReCor. Accordingly, interest on the fee and expense award will be compounded quarterly. An implementing order will be entered. Very truly yours, /s/ John W. Noble JWN/cap cc: Register in Chancery-K 7 See 6 Del. C. § 2301.
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.
