Delaware Chancery Court Denies $5M Attorney Fees Request in Oracle Case

68
SHARE

This ruling aligns with other recent decisions from Delaware and federal courts, demonstrating skepticism towards awarding mootness fees for supplemental disclosures unless they provide material information or significant benefits.

The National Trend Against Mootness Fees

Similar trends can be seen in other court decisions across the U.S. For instance, federal courts in the Ninth, Third, and Second Circuits have rejected several mootness fee requests in recent years.

The Chancery Court’s decision in the Oracle case illustrates a growing reluctance to award mootness fees, which in turn may make it more challenging for plaintiffs’ attorneys to seek substantial awards in derivative suits. Companies may thus be able to introduce remedial actions with less fear of facing large mootness fees.

While courts are raising the bar on mootness fee requests, the practice is unlikely to end entirely. Since February, several merger suits requesting mootness fees have been filed in various district courts across the country.