Genelux Corporation v. Roeder
Opinion
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
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.