Accelerant Twister, LLC v. Marjo, LLC

── Accelerant Twister, LLC v. Marjo, LLC ── Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware Date: April 10, 2026 Category: General COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LORI. W. WILL LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER VICE CHANCELLOR 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734 April 10, 2026 Richard L. Renck, Esq. Victoria K. Petrone, Esq. Mackenzie M. Wrobel, Esq. Mark A. Denney, Jr., Esq. Tracey E. Timlin, Esq. Brockstedt Mandalas Federico LLC D. Stuart Bartow, Esq. 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 401 Duane Morris LLP Wilmington, Delaware 19808 1201 North Market Street, Suite 501 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 RE: Accelerant Twister, LLC et al. v. Marjo, LLC et al., C.A. No. 2023-0887-LWW Dear Counsel, This letter resolves the Accelerant Parties’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs following my January 23, 2026 bench ruling granting their motion to disqualify and for sanctions.1 That motion concerned the Sullivan Parties’ designation of Benjamin Urcia, Esq. as an expert witness despite his prior representation of the Accelerant Parties, and the Sullivan Parties’ unauthorized disclosure of confidential material to 1 The Accelerant Parties are plaintiffs/counter-defendants Accelerant Twister, LLC and Accelerant Holding, LLC, and counter-defendant Accelerant Partners, LLC. C.A. No. 2023-0887-LWW April 10, 2026 Page 2 of 6 him.2 The disclosures were made while Mr. Urcia was representing the Sullivan Parties in anticipation of a future patent infringement suit against the Accelerant Parties. After briefing and a hearing, I found that the Sullivan Parties committed a “meaningful failure to obey the clear terms” of the governing Confidentiality Order.3 They did so, I explained, by providing over 300 pages of confidential material to Mr. Urcia nearly six months before he executed the required undertaking.4 To remedy the Accelerant Parties’ injury, I awarded their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in “bringing and briefing” the motion for sanctions.5 The Accelerant Parties subsequently filed a Rule 88 affidavit seeking $39,831, representing $39,406 in attorneys’ fees and $425 in costs. 6 The Sullivan Parties responded with three primary objections.7 For the reasons explained below, I grant 2 Tr. of Rulings of Ct. on Mot. to Compel and Mot. to Disqualify (Dkt. 265) (“Bench Ruling”) 5-6; see also Mot. to Disqualify Putative Expert and for Sanctions (Dkt. 179). The Sullivan Parties are defendants/counter-plaintiffs John Sullivan and Marjo, LLC. 3 Bench Ruling 21; see also Stipulation and Order for Prod. and Exchange of Confidential and Highly Confidential Information (Dkt. 114). 4 Bench Ruling 20-21. 5 Id. at 22-23. 6 Aff. of D. Stuart Bartow in Supp. of Sanctions Award Granting Pet’rs/Counter-Resp’ts’ Att’ys’ Fees and Expenses for Violation of Confidentiality Order (Dkt. 250) (“Bartow Aff.”); see also id. at Exs. A-E. 7 Resp’ts/Counter-Pet’rs’ Resp. in Opp’n to S. Bartow’s Aff. in Supp. of Award of Att’ys’ Fees (Dkt. 266) (“Sullivan’s Response”). C.A. No. 2023-0887-LWW April 10, 2026 Page 3 of 6 the Accelerant Parties’ fee request in full but stay the enforcement of the award until the entry of a final judgment. A. Scope of the Fee Award The Sullivan Parties first assert that the fees associated with drafting the opening motion should be excluded because Mr. Urcia’s disqualification was premised on a conflict of interest first raised in the Accelerant Parties’ reply brief.8 As a result, the Sullivan Parties argue they were deprived of the opportunity to meet and confer to avoid the motion altogether. This argument misconstrues my ruling. Although I found the