In re TransPerfect Global, Inc.

COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ANDRE G. BOUCHARD LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER CHANCELLOR 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734

November 27, 2019 Kevin R. Shannon, Esquire Jeremy D. Eicher, Esquire Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP Eicher Law LLC 1313 North Market Street 1007 North Orange Street, 4th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Wilmington, DE 19801 Jennifer C. Voss, Esquire Frank E. Noyes, II, Esquire Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Offit Kurman, P.A. & Flom LLP 1201 N. Orange Suite, Suite 10E North King Street, 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Wilmington, DE 19801 RE: In re: TransPerfect Global, Inc. Civil Action No. 9700-CB Elizabeth Elting v. Philip R. Shawe, et al.

Civil Action No. 10449-CB Dear Counsel: Pending before the court is the second motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal that Respondents have filed within the past thirty days. This time, Respondents seek to appeal two orders the court entered on November 1, 2019 (the “Second Orders”) arising out of the same dispute that was the subject of a Memorandum Opinion (“Opinion”) and Order (the “First Order”) issued on October 17, 2019.

In re TransPerfect Global, Inc., et al.

Civil Action Nos. 9700, 10449-CB November 27, 2019 On November 18, 2019, the court denied Respondents’ motion to certify an interlocutory appeal of the Opinion and First Order (the “Interlocutory Order”). As explained in the Interlocutory Order, “the risk of piecemeal appeals is manifest” in this case.1 For this reason, the court expressed its view that an interlocutory appeal of the Opinion and the First Order and/or of the Second Orders made no sense until two other outstanding, directly-related matters had been adjudicated, namely “(i) the amount of the Contempt Fee Award and (ii) the resolution of any objections Respondents may make to the Fee Orders.”2 Thereafter, a single interlocutory appeal of all those rulings could be taken together.

The court’s calculus of the costs versus the benefits of an interlocutory appeal remains the same now as it did in the Interlocutory Order. Accordingly, for the reasons stated there, Respondents’ motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal of the Second Orders is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sincerely, /s/ Andre G. Bouchard Chancellor AGB/gm

Dkt. 1410 ¶ 9.

Id. ¶¶ 9-10.