Grimes v. Donald

Delaware Court of Chancery · 2000 · Corporations

791 A.2d 818 (2000)

Updated August 1, 2026

Corporationsdemanddirect vs. derivativeattorney's feesmootnessstandingderivative claimsdemand refused

Facts

Grimes had challenged compensation agreements between DSC and its CEO, Donald, and had also made board demands seeking to invalidate or abrogate those agreements. Most of his substantive claims had been dismissed, his proxy claim was never pursued further, and his later Section 220 action became moot when DSC merged with Alcatel and Grimes ceased being a stockholder. Grimes then sought attorney's fees, arguing that his lawsuits and demands helped cause Donald's retirement in connection with the merger, thereby benefiting DSC by ending Donald's employment and compensation package. DSC responded with an affidavit stating that the merger resulted from strategic business reasons and that Donald's retirement had been independently planned and was unrelated to Grimes's actions.

Issue

Was Grimes entitled to attorney's fees on the theory that his lawsuits and demands were meritorious, produced a corporate benefit by leading to Donald's retirement, and were causally connected to that result? More specifically, did the record show the type of mootness, merit, benefit, and causation required for a fee award under Delaware law?

Rule

A plaintiff may recover attorney's fees when defendants moot a derivative or class claim before final adjudication only if the plaintiff shows that the litigation was meritorious when filed, that the action mooting the case produced the same or a similar benefit sought by the litigation, and that there was a causal relationship between the litigation and the action producing the benefit. A fee may also be awarded when a meritorious stockholder demand produces a real corporate benefit without litigation. Loss of standing from a merger is distinct from mootness and ordinarily does not support a fee award under the mootness doctrine.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nadia Patel, a stockholder of Harbor Signal Systems, Inc., filed a derivative suit in Delaware seeking rescission of a CEO's consulting agreement, recovery of payments already made under it, and an injunction against future severance payments. Six months later, Harbor's board terminated the agreement and publicly announced that no further payments would be made, after which the suit was dismissed as moot.

If Nadia petitions for attorney's fees, which additional showing is most necessary under the governing fee doctrine?

Explanation. A fee for mooted derivative litigation requires all three elements identified by the court: the litigation must have been meritorious when filed, the mooting action must have produced the same or a similar benefit sought by the suit, and there must be a causal relationship between the suit and the action producing the benefit. Good faith or the corporation's ability to pay is not the test.