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

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)