IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL, INC., §
§ No. 445, 2023
Respondent Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below–Court of Chancery
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ C.A. Nos. 9700 & 10449
ROBERT PINCUS, §
§
Petitioner Below, §
Appellee. §
§
Submitted: December 1, 2023
Decided: December 8, 2023
Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.
ORDER
After consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal and its exhibits, it
appears to the Court that:1
(1) The appellant, TransPerfect Global, Inc., filed this appeal from the
Court of Chancery’s November 1, 2023 letter decision overruling TransPerfect’s
objections to the fee petitions filed by the appellee, Robert Pincus (the “Former
Custodian”), for legal expenses that he incurred between April 2023 and June 2023
1
The Court assumes the reader’s familiarity with the extensive litigation history of the underlying
cases. See TransPerfect Glob., Inc. v. Pincus, 278 A.3d 630 (Del. 2022); TransPerfect Glob., Inc.
v. Pincus, 2019 WL 7369433 (Del. Dec. 31, 2019); Shawe v. Elting, 157 A.3d 152 (Del. 2017).
(the “Letter Decision”).2 On November 13, 2023, TransPerfect asked the Court of
Chancery to certify an interlocutory appeal of the Letter Decision under Supreme
Court Rule 42. The Former Custodian opposed the application.
(2) On November 30, 2023, the Court of Chancery denied TransPerfect’s
application.3 As an initial matter, the court accepted TransPerfect’s position that the
Letter Decision resolved a substantial issue of material importance—a threshold
consideration under Rule 42.4 But the Court of Chancery found that none of the Rule
42(b)(iii) factors cited by TransPerfect—Factors A (the decision involves a novel
question of law), B (the decision conflicts with other trial court decisions), C (the
decision concerns the constitutionality, construction, or application of a statute that
should be settled by this Court before the entry of a final order), and H (interlocutory
review would serve the considerations of justice)—supported the certification of an
interlocutory appeal.
(3) As to Factor A, the Court of Chancery disagreed with TransPerfect’s
characterization of the Letter Decision as “den[ying TransPerfect] due process and
the right to appeal, which, under the circumstances, represents a question of law not
previously resolved.”5 To the contrary, the court found that its ruling did not resolve
2
In re TransPerfect Glob., Inc., 2023 WL 7182135 (Del. Ch. Nov. 1, 2023).
3
In re TransPerfect Glob., Inc., 2023 WL 8281559 (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2023).
4
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(i).
5
In re TransPerfect Glob., Inc., 2023 WL 8281559, at *2 (quoting TransPerfect’s application).
2
a novel legal question and that TransPerfect maintains the appellate rights to which
it was previously entitled. The court likewise found that Factor B did not favor
certification because the Letter Decision did not conflict with existing case law—
TransPerfect merely disagrees with the court’s finding that the Former Custodian
was not seeking advancement for his counsel’s preparation of billing statements and
the like. And the Court of Chancery rejected TransPerfect’s conclusory argument
that Factor C weighed in favor of certification. Finally, the court found that Factor
H did not favor certification: TransPerfect retains its appellate rights, and the court
was entitled to apply its earlier rulings to TransPerfect’s challenges to the Former
Custodian’s most recent fee petitions.
(4) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to this Court’s
sound discretion.6 We agree with the Court of Chancery that interlocutory review is
not warranted in this case. Exercising our discretion and giving due weight to the
Court of Chancery’s analysis, we conclude that the application for interlocutory
review does not meet the strict standards for certification under Rule 42(b).
Exceptional circumstances that would merit interlocutory review of the Letter
Decision do not exist,7 and the potential benefits of interlocutory review do not
6
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v).
7
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii).
3
outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs caused by an interlocutory
appeal.8
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is
REFUSED. The filing fee paid by TransPerfect will be applied to any future appeal
it files from an interlocutory appeal certified by the Court of Chancery or a final
order entered in the case.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow
Justice
8
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii).
4