Fuchs, et al. v. Wren Holdings LLC, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MORRIS FUCHS, et al., § § Plaintiffs Below-Appellants, § § v. § § WREN HOLDINGS, LLC, JAVVA § PARTNERS, LLC, CAMERON § FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, L.P., § CATALYST INVESTORS, L.P., § CHRISTOPHER SHIPMAN, ANDREW § T. DWYER, DORT A. CAMERON, III, § HOWARD KATZ, and TROY § SNYDER, § § Defendants Below-Appellees. § No. 281, 2015 Court Below: Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County C.A. No. 3940-VCN Submitted: December 9, 2015 Decided: December 11, 2015 Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc. ORDER This 11th day of December 2015, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, the record below, and oral argument, it appears to the Court that: In this case, the Court of Chancery had to apply a challenging body of law in a hotly contested matter.1 No party has asked us to overturn any prior decision; they solely challenge the Court of Chancery’s determinations of law under existing 1 For example, the Court of Chancery addressed three times whether the plaintiffs’ central claim was direct or derivative under Gentile v. Rossette, 906 A.2d 91 (Del. 2006). precedent, its determinations of fact, and its exercise of remedial discretion. After careful review, we conclude that the Court of Chancery made no error of law, made no determination of fact not supported by the record, and committed no abuse of discretion. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the September 4, 2014 judgment of the Court of Chancery is AFFIRMED.2 BY THE COURT: /s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. Chief Justice 2 In re Nine Sys. Corp. S’holders Litig., 2014 WL 4383127 (Del. Ch. Sept. 4, 2014). 2
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.
