Opinion
C. A. 2019-0948-SG
08-01-2023
IN RE VIACOM INC. STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION
ORDER REGARDING OBJECTOR'S INCENTIVE AWARD
SAM GLASSCOCK III VICE CHANCELLOR
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2023, the Court held a settlement hearing in this matter;
WHEREAS, at that hearing, Louis Wilen (the "Objector"), a plaintiff and class representative, objected to the settlement's lack of incentive awards and requested that he receive such an award in the amount of $2,500;
WHEREAS, at the close of the hearing, the Court approved the settlement, but reserved judgment on the Objector's request for an incentive award;
WHEREAS, incentive awards can create wholesome incentives and equitable effects, but;
See In Re Dell Tech. Inc. Class V S'holder Litig., 2023 WL 4864861, § II.C (Del. Ch. July 31, 2023) (citing Charles R. Korsmo & Minor Myers, Lead Plaintiff Incentives in Aggregate Litigation, 72 Vand. L. Rev. 1923 (2019)).
WHEREAS, having considered the Objector's written request, as well as his statements at the settlement hearing, the Court finds that, because the Objector did not serve as a lead plaintiff and did not demonstrate that he contributed to the litigation and settlement beyond what is expected of a typical class plaintiff, an incentive award is not appropriate here;
I note that the Objector's written request was not properly filed in this action. Nonetheless, I considered his thoughtful presentation, therein and in person, and appreciate his willingness to attend the hearing and make his position on an incentive award known to the Court.
See Schumacher v. Loscalzo, et al., 2023 WL 4842103, at *7 (Del. Ch. July 28, 2023) (quoting Raider v. Sunderland, 2006 WL 75310, at *2).
THEREFORE, the Objector's request for an incentive award is hereby DENIED.