Arif Ahmed v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ARIF AHMED, § § Plaintiff Below, § Appellant, § No. 286, 2026 § v. § Court Below—Court of Chancery § of the State of Delaware JP MORGAN CHASE & CO. and J.P. § MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, § C.A. No. 2025-1133 § Defendants Below, § Appellees. §

Submitted: July 21, 2026 Decided: July 24, 2026

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the notice and supplemental notice of appeal from an

interlocutory order and the exhibits attached thereto, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On January 21, 2026, a Court of Chancery Magistrate issued a report

resolving the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment in an advancement action.

The Magistrate found that plaintiff below-appellant Arif Ahmed was entitled to

advancement.1 Defendants below-appellants J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and J.P.

1 Ahmed v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 2026 WL 251542 (Del. Ch. Jan. 21, 2026). Morgan Securities LLC (together “J.P. Morgan”) filed exceptions to the Magistrate’s

report.

(2) On June 10, 2026, the Chancellor denied the exceptions and adopted the

Magistrate’s factual and legal findings (“Interlocutory Decision”).2 The Chancellor

remanded the matter to the Magistrate for further proceedings, including entry of an

order establishing the protocol for submission of invoices in accordance with

Danenberg v. Fitracks.3

(3) On June 25, 2026, J.P. Morgan moved for certification of an

interlocutory appeal from the Interlocutory Decision. J.P. Morgan argued that

interlocutory review would allow this Court to weigh in on the Court of Chancery’s

deference to the Fitracks process. Ahmed opposed the motion. On July 6, 2026, the

Magistrate entered an amended form of Ahmed’s proposed Fitracks order

(“Implementing Order”).

(4) On July 7, 2026, the Chancellor denied J.P. Morgan’s application for

certification as untimely and found no good cause for extension of the deadline.4 On

July 10, 2026, J.P. Morgan filed this interlocutory appeal. That same day J.P. Morgan

moved for certification of an interlocutory appeal from the Implementing Order in the

2 Ahmed v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 2026 WL 1682488 (Del. Ch. June 10, 2026). 3 58 A.3d 991 (Del. Ch. 2012). 4 Ahmed v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 2026 WL 1961680 (Del. Ch. July 7, 2026).

2 Court of Chancery. J.P. Morgan again argued that interlocutory review would allow

this Court to weigh in on the Court of Chancery’s deference to the Fitracks process.

(5) On July 20, 2026, the Chancellor denied J.P. Morgan’s second

application, finding that the Implementing Order resolved a collateral matter

inappropriate for interlocutory review.5 The Chancellor also found that the application

repeated arguments made in the first application and expressed concern that

“[a]llowing interlocutory appeals of implementing orders would give applicants two

bites of the apple.”6 J.P. Morgan filed a supplemental notice with this order on July

21, 2026.

(6) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound

discretion of the Court.7 We agree with the Chancellor’s analysis. A timely

application for certification of the Interlocutory Decision was due by June 22, 2026.8

J.P. Morgan did not file its application until June 25, 2026 and did not establish good

cause for extension of the deadline. As to the second application, the Implementing

5 Ahmed v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 2026 WL 2085791 (Del. Ch. July 20, 2026). 6 Id. at *2. 7 Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 8 Supr. Ct. R. 42(c)(i) (providing that application for certification “shall be served and filed within 10 days of the entry of the order from which the appeal is sought or such longer time as the trial court, in its discretion, may order for good cause shown”). The ten-day period includes weekends and holidays. Supr. Ct. R.11(a) (“When the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than 7 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and other legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation.”).

3 Order did not resolve a substantial issue of material importance. We also share the

Chancellor’s concern that accepting interlocutory appeals of implementing orders is

likely to result in movants filing multiple, duplicative applications for certification.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this interlocutory appeal is

REFUSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice