Plumbers & Fitters Local 295 Pension Fund v. Dropbox, Inc.

• Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware
• Decided: June 9, 2025
• Docket: C.A. No. 2025-0354-KSJM
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KATHALEEN ST. JUDE MCCORMICK LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER CHANCELLOR 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734

June 9, 2025

Michael Hanrahan Peter J. Walsh, Jr. Corinne Elise Amato Michael A. Pittenger Eric J. Juray T. Brad Davey Stacey A. Greenspan Callan R. Jackson Kirsten M. Valania Joshua S. Almond Caitlin E. Whetham POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A. 1313 N. Market Street 1310 N. King Street Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor Wilmington, Delaware 19801 P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Brad D. Sorrels Andrew D. Cordo Daniyal M. Iqbal Nora M. Crawford Joshua A. Manning Jacqueline G. Conner WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C. 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800 Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Re: Plumbers & Fitters Local 295 Pension Fund v. Dropbox, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 2025-0354-KSJM Dear Counsel:

On May 21, 2025, the court inquired into the parties’ positions on whether to

certify, under Delaware Supreme Court Rule 41, the questions of constitutional law

raised in Count I of the Verified Class Action Complaint (the “Constitutional

Questions”).1

1 C.A. 2025-0354-KSJM, Docket (“Dkt.”) 20. C.A. No. C.A. No. 2025-0354-KSJM June 9, 2025 Page 2 of 4

The parties responded to the court’s letter on May 29, 2025. The plaintiff

supports certification.2 The defendants oppose it.3 Also on May 29, 2025, the

Governor moved to intervene for the limited purpose of addressing the Constitutional

Questions, but he took no position on whether they should be certified.4

Subsequently, Vice Chancellor Will certified the following questions of law

under Rule 41 in Rutledge v. Clearway Energy Group LLC, et al. (the “Clearway

Certified Questions”):

Does Section 1 of Senate Bill 21, codified at 8 Del. C. § 144—eliminating the Court of Chancery’s ability to award “equitable relief” or “damages” where the Safe Harbor Provisions are satisfied—violate the Delaware Constitution of 1897 by purporting to divest the Court of Chancery of its equitable jurisdiction?

Does Section 3 of Senate Bill 21— applying the Safe Harbor Provisions to plenary breach of fiduciary claims arising from acts or transactions that occurred before the date that Senate Bill 21 was enacted—violate the Delaware Constitution of 1897 by purporting to eliminate causes of action that had already accrued or vested? 5

At a minimum, the above-certified questions overlap with the Constitutional

Questions. For this reason, this action is stayed pending resolution of the Clearway

Certified Questions.

2 Id., Dkt. 21.

3 Id., Dkt. 22.

4 Id., Dkts. 23, 24.

5 C.A. No. 2025-0499-LWW, Dkt. 19. C.A. No. C.A. No. 2025-0354-KSJM June 9, 2025 Page 3 of 4

A stay of the entire action is appropriate. Pending before the court are the

following substantive motions: the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment;6

the Governor’s motion to intervene;7 and the defendants’ motion to dismiss.8 Each of

these motions speak to the Constitutional Questions. The plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment addresses the Constitutional Questions directly.9 The Governor’s

motion to intervene is “for the limited purpose of addressing the question of the

constitutionality of 8 Del. C. § 144 (‘Section 144’) as amended by Senate Bill 21 in

2025.”10 The plaintiff says that the defendants’ motion to dismiss too will necessarily

implicate amended Section 144.11 Although the defendants deny this,12 the court

would need to interpret the scope and nature of amended Section 144 to resolve the

parties’ dispute over the scope of the issues governing the defendants’ motion to

dismiss. That exercise is best undertaken if and after the high court weighs in on

amended Section 144.

6 C.A. 2025-0354-KSJM, Dkt. 14.

7 Id., Dkt. 24.

8 Id., Dkt. 15. The plaintiff also filed a motion to set a schedule. Id., Dkt. 5 (Pl.’s Mot. to Set a Schedule). That motion is denied in favor of a stay. 9 See generally id., Dkt.5, Pl.’s Mot. to Set a Schedule.

10 C.A. 2025-0354-KSJM, Dkt. 24 at 1.

11 Id., Dkt. 11 (Pl.’s Reply in Support of Mot. to Set a Schedule) (arguing that Section

144 sets a governing standard intertwined with any arguments for dismissal that the defendants might raise). 12 Id., Dkt. 8 (Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. to Set a Schedule). C.A. No. C.A. No. 2025-0354-KSJM June 9, 2025 Page 4 of 4

This action is STAYED pending resolution of the Clearway Certified

Questions.

Sincerely,

/s/ Kathaleen St. J. McCormick

Chancellor

cc: All counsel of record (by File & ServeXpress)