IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

GENELUX CORPORATION and § RONALD SIMUS, § No. 631, 2015 § Plaintiffs Below- § Cross-Appellees, § Court Below: Court of Chancery § of the State of Delaware v. § § C.A. No. 10042-VCM ALBERT ROEDER and BYRON § GEORGIOU, § § Defendants Below- § Cross-Appellants, § § and § § DR. ALADAR SZALAY, § § Intervenor Below- § Cross-Appellant. §

Submitted: June 9, 2016 Decided: June 9, 2016

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc.

ORDER

This 9th day of June 2016, having considered this matter on the briefs, the

plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the cross-appeal to show mootness, and the

defendants’ response to that motion, we find it evident that: Only one narrow issue

remains on this cross-appeal, which is whether the Court of Chancery abused its discretion by not awarding a more generous fee-shifting award to the defendants.

The plaintiffs argue that even that issue is now moot because they have made a full

payment of the financial amounts in controversy. The only response to that

contention is that this case presents one of the rare situations when this court

should consider a moot dispute because the underlying issue is sufficiently

important, will likely recur, and could evade review if we do not act now. We

disagree. This cross-appeal now raises only a moot issue about whether the Court

of Chancery properly exercised its case-specific discretion in applying settled

principles of law. There being no financial consequences left in controversy, the

case is moot and the cross-appeal is dismissed on that basis. IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. Chief Justice

2