Summary
criticizing Shawe's violation of the Chancellor's order and holding that Shawe's "motion request is frivolous on its face and will not be entertained."
Summary of this case from Shawe v. EltingOpinion
Civil Action No. 9700-CB Civil Action No. 10449-CB
03-08-2017
RE: In re: TransPerfect Global, Inc. Elizabeth Elting v. Philip R. Shawe, et al.
Kevin R. Shannon, Esquire Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP 1313 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19899 Lisa A. Schmidt, Esquire Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Jeremy D. Eicher, Esquire Cooch & Taylor, PA 1000 West Street, 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Peter B. Ladig, Esquire Morris James LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 David L. Finger, Esquire Finger & Slanina LLC 1201 N. Orange Street, 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Jennifer C. Voss, Esquire Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP One Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19899
Kevin R. Shannon, Esquire
Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
1313 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19899 Lisa A. Schmidt, Esquire
Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
920 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801 Jeremy D. Eicher, Esquire
Cooch & Taylor, PA
1000 West Street, 10 Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801 Peter B. Ladig, Esquire
Morris James LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE 19801 David L. Finger, Esquire
Finger & Slanina LLC
1201 N. Orange Street, 7 Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801 Jennifer C. Voss, Esquire
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP
One Rodney Square
Wilmington, DE 19899 Dear Counsel:
On March 1, 2017, Philip R. Shawe and Shirley Shawe filed a motion to amend the Sale Order entered on July 18, 2016 ("Motion"). The Motion is denied.
Briefly by way of background, entry of the Sale Order was the product of more than two years of litigation involving a trial on the merits and an extensive process of briefing and argument over many months during which all parties had ample opportunity to be heard. The Delaware Supreme Court has now affirmed the Sale Order. On February 6, 2017, while the Shawes' appeal of the Sale Order was pending, the Court entered an Order in response to a prior request by Mr. Shawe to modify the Sale Order, stating as follows:
In the future, depending on the outcome of the appeal, any application to modify one of the Court's orders in this action should be filed by formal motion with citation to the relevant rule(s) and authorities explaining the grounds for the Court to consider such modification. See, e.g., Ch. Ct. R. 59(e)-(f), 60.The Motion makes no effort to comply with this requirement and thus is legally defective.
In the Motion, the Shawes request "alternatively" that the Court determine that the Custodian abused his discretion by refusing to recommend to the Court over Ms. Elting's objection certain changes to the Sale Order that would impose restrictions and conditions on the sale process to the Shawes' liking. This request is frivolous on its face and will not be entertained.
Paragraph 18 of the Sale Order requires that the consummation of any transaction "shall be expressly conditioned upon and subject to the approval of the Court." It also sets forth a process for the parties to submit at that time any objections to the sale process or the terms of a proposed transaction, which the Court will then consider and after which the parties may pursue appellate review. Accordingly, the Shawes and Ms. Elting will have the opportunity in the future to present any good faith objections they wish to make to the sale process and any proposed transaction that results therefrom.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sincerely,
/s/ Andre G. Bouchard
Chancellor AGB/gm