The Court's letter ruling today sets resolution of the "ratification" question for several weeks down the road while preserving the July 8 hearing date for Plaintiff's legal fees petition.
Thanks for the note Montana. Makes sense from the Judge’s perspective to give them a bit of time and avoid the defendants bringing it up as part of the appeal (not that they won’t try).
Sorry if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but for the appeal, does the DESC have to rule on the case, or can they decline to like the USSC?
Any thoughts on the timeframe for an appeal ruling, assuming an end of August final decision? By year end?
I am not an expert on Delaware procedure, but I believe that the Delaware Supreme Court does not have a “certiorari” process like the United States Supreme Court. It decides every appeal that arrives at its doorstep from the Court of Chancery.
In terms of the timeframe for the Delaware Supreme Court, I think end of the year would be a little ambitious. I would expect it in the first half of next year at the earliest. Just a guess based on how long it generally takes.
I don't believe that there is much for the supreme court of delaware to argue about especially if the new facts about coercition and conflict of interest are entered in the jugement. There are so many self evident evidences that the defendant did not respect the criterias to shift burden of proof
I'm not sure that any evidence of coercion and the most recent instances of conflict of interest will be part of the "record" that the Delaware Supreme Court will review, unless the Chancellor decides to allow discovery on those claims by Plaintiff. The Chancellor can rule without resorting to those issues, which would necessitate more delay for discovery (depositions, document subpoenas, etc.).
I am not a USA citizen, but this process seems to be narrowing. Could it be Tesla / Elon Musk think they have the upper hand? As Mr Fossi says, the Chancellor is sticking to due process and fairness.
Assuming the ratification farce is ineffective and fees are awarded in stock, how would the plaintiffs be guaranteed their stock award will be honored during the appeal process?
The Plaintiff's proposed order would require some sort of supersedeas bond to protect the value of the shares if Defendants don't want to allow Plaintiff to sell them immediately.
With the potential amount of this award being so large, would it be a multi billion dollar cash bond? Surely there is no surety company that would write a bond so big?
It seems, Mr. Fossi, that the Chancellor is in complete agreement with your earlier articulated position that it would be malpractice for the defendants counsel not to have a brief on the ratification issue ready to submit as she is giving them 24 hours to do so. Nice crystal ball you have there.
Well, the June 28 date is the one Defendants proposed. So, really, no crystal ball. She hasn't taken them by surprise. That said, the brief was prepared long ago, and it will be fascinating to see exactly what their pitch is. We won't have to wait long, will we?
Yes, if one wanted to understand the phrase "judicial temperament", close observation of McCormick would be profitable.
Thanks for the note Montana. Makes sense from the Judge’s perspective to give them a bit of time and avoid the defendants bringing it up as part of the appeal (not that they won’t try).
Sorry if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but for the appeal, does the DESC have to rule on the case, or can they decline to like the USSC?
Any thoughts on the timeframe for an appeal ruling, assuming an end of August final decision? By year end?
Great questions.
I am not an expert on Delaware procedure, but I believe that the Delaware Supreme Court does not have a “certiorari” process like the United States Supreme Court. It decides every appeal that arrives at its doorstep from the Court of Chancery.
In terms of the timeframe for the Delaware Supreme Court, I think end of the year would be a little ambitious. I would expect it in the first half of next year at the earliest. Just a guess based on how long it generally takes.
I don't believe that there is much for the supreme court of delaware to argue about especially if the new facts about coercition and conflict of interest are entered in the jugement. There are so many self evident evidences that the defendant did not respect the criterias to shift burden of proof
I'm not sure that any evidence of coercion and the most recent instances of conflict of interest will be part of the "record" that the Delaware Supreme Court will review, unless the Chancellor decides to allow discovery on those claims by Plaintiff. The Chancellor can rule without resorting to those issues, which would necessitate more delay for discovery (depositions, document subpoenas, etc.).
I am not a USA citizen, but this process seems to be narrowing. Could it be Tesla / Elon Musk think they have the upper hand? As Mr Fossi says, the Chancellor is sticking to due process and fairness.
We are entering the small end of the funnel at the Court of Chancery.
We can all have opinions on who has the upper hand. I certainly have mine.
Indeed. The Chancellor has the real answer, in law......
Assuming the ratification farce is ineffective and fees are awarded in stock, how would the plaintiffs be guaranteed their stock award will be honored during the appeal process?
The Plaintiff's proposed order would require some sort of supersedeas bond to protect the value of the shares if Defendants don't want to allow Plaintiff to sell them immediately.
With the potential amount of this award being so large, would it be a multi billion dollar cash bond? Surely there is no surety company that would write a bond so big?
I'll re-read the Plaintiff's proposed final order. But, Tesla has that much cash.
Sure they do. LOL
'Had'...it's being frittered away!
This was a sagacious move by the Chancellor. Give the defendants what they want, and yet, don't give them what they want. Nicely played, Chancellor.
It seems, Mr. Fossi, that the Chancellor is in complete agreement with your earlier articulated position that it would be malpractice for the defendants counsel not to have a brief on the ratification issue ready to submit as she is giving them 24 hours to do so. Nice crystal ball you have there.
Well, the June 28 date is the one Defendants proposed. So, really, no crystal ball. She hasn't taken them by surprise. That said, the brief was prepared long ago, and it will be fascinating to see exactly what their pitch is. We won't have to wait long, will we?