Movora LLC v. Gendreau

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MOVORA LLC (f/k/a OSSIUM ) NEWCO LLC); OSSIUM BIDCO, LLC; ) and VETERINARY ORTHOPEDIC ) IMPLANTS, LLC (f/k/a VETERINARY ) ORTHOPEDICS IMPLANTS, INC.), ) ) Plaintiffs/Counterclaim ) Defendants, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N23C-05-034 MAA CCLD ) CLAUDE GENDREAU; THE CLAUDE ) GENDREAU INVESTMENT TRUST ) U/A/D MARCH 16, 2013; PATRICK ) GENDREAU; BRIAN BEALE; and ) TIMOTHY VAN HORSSEN, ) ) ) Defendants/Counterclaim ) Plaintiffs. )

Date Submitted: October 27, 2025 Date Decided: October 30, 2025

ORDER

1. Currently pending before the Court is Defendant Claude Gendreau’s

Motion for 90-day Stay of Execution of Judgment.1

2. On October 1, 2025, the Court entered final judgment (the “Judgment”)

against Dr. Claude Gendreau (“Dr. Gendreau”) and Claude Gendreau Investment

1 D.I. 310 [“Mot.”] Trust (the “Trust”).2 In the Judgement, the Court held Dr. Gendreau was liable for

approximately $41 million while the Trust was liable for approximately $8.2

million.3 Post judgment interest accrued at $12,757.91 per day as of the October 15

judgment execution date.4

3. According to Dr. Gendreau, Dr. Gendreau and the Trust plan to file a

Notice of Appeal from the Judgment with the Supreme Court of Delaware.5 To date,

Dr. Gendreau has paid $24.5 of the $41 million judgment.6 Dr. Gendreau still owes

$16.5 million plus 9.5% post-judgment interest.7 Dr. Gendreau now seeks a three-

month stay of execution for him to secure cash or a loan to pay his remaining

liability.8

4. In support of his Motion, Dr. Gendreau contends his remaining assets

are invested in ongoing business entities, real estate holdings, and other equities with

“limited liquidation ability without material consequence.”9 Dr. Gendreau avers he

is working with Merrill Lynch to secure a loan that can cover his remaining

liability.10 Dr. Gendreau also states he has alternative options to secure funds by his

2 Id. ¶ 1. 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Id. ¶ 4. 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 Id. ¶ 6. 9 Id. (citing C. Gendreau Decl. ¶ 8). 10 Mot. ¶ 7 (citing C. Gendreau Decl. ¶ 10). 2 proposed extension date.11 Finally, Dr. Gendreau is “confident of [his] ability to pay

the remaining judgement against [him] by January 15, 2026” and will not seek a

bond pending appeal.12

ANALYSIS

5. The Delaware Constitution requires that, “[w]henever a

person…appeals or applies to the Supreme Court…[,] [there] shall be no stay of

proceedings in the court below unless the appellant…shall give sufficient security to

be approved by the court below….”13 Requests for stays pending appeal are

governed by Delaware Supreme Court Rule 32. Pursuant to Rule 32, a “stay . . .

pending appeal may be granted or denied in the discretion of the trial court[.]” 14

“The trial court . . . as a condition of granting or continuing a stay . . . pending appeal,

may impose such terms and conditions, in addition to the requirement of indemnity,

as may appear appropriate in the circumstances.15

6. Delaware law is clear – providing sufficient security is a prerequisite to

having a stay of execution granted.16 “This Court does not have discretion to waive

11 Mot. ¶ 9. 12 Id. ¶¶ 8, 17; C. Gendreau Decl. ¶ 13. 13 Del. Const. art. IV § 24. 14 Del. S. Ct. R. 32(a). 15 Id. 16 The Delaware Constitution, Delaware Supreme Court Rule 32, and caselaw from the Supreme Court of Delaware all outline that proving sufficient security is a prerequisite for a stay of execution being granted. Del. Const. art. IV § 24; Del. S. Ct. R. 32(c); Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Carter, 630 A.2d. 647, 648-649 (Del. 1993). 3 the requirement of a supersedeas bond.”17 Sufficient security need not be a

supersedeas bond,18 but regardless of the form, security must be provided.

7. Dr. Gendreau offers no sufficient security.19 Instead, Dr. Gendreau

offers only his confidence a stay of execution will allow him to secure liquidity

covering his remaining liability.20 Dr. Gendreau cannot meet this threshold

requirement. Therefore, pursuant to the Delaware Constitution, there “shall be no

stay of proceedings” pending appeal in this action.21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 Gates v. Texaco, Inc., 2008 WL 1952162, at *1 (Del. Super. May 2, 2008). 18 Del. S. Ct. R. 32(c). 19 See generally Mot. (showing Gendreau at no point offers any form of security while moving for a stay of execution). 20 Mot. ¶¶ 7, 8. 21 Because Dr. Gendreau cannot meet the threshold requirement of posting security, the Supreme Court’s four-part stay test in Kirpat, Inc. v. Del. Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm’n, 741 A.2d 356, 357 (Del. 1998) is inapplicable. 4