Christian Schank v. Ariz Isotopes Sci. Rsch. Corp.

── Christian Schank v. Ariz Isotopes Sci. Rsch. Corp. ── Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General 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 April 24, 2026 Robert L. Burns Richard I.G. Jones, Jr. Nicole M. Henry Periann Doko Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. Harry W. Shenton IV One Rodney Square Berger McDermott LLP 920 North King Street 1105 North Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 11th Floor Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Re: Christian Schank, et al. v. Ariz. Isotopes Sci. Rsch. Corp., C.A. No. 2025-0208-SEM Dear Counsel: This letter decision resolves the parties’ exceptions to Senior Magistrate Molina’s (ret.) final post-trial report (the “Final Report”).1 Plaintiffs Deanna Matthews, Cameron Schank, and Christian Schank (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)2 are stockholders of Defendant Arizona Isotopes Science Research Corporation (the “Company” or “Defendant”). Plaintiffs filed this action to enforce their demand to inspect Company records under Section 220 of the DGCL. In the Final Report, the Senior Magistrate ordered the Company to produce more documents and shifted costs to Defendant on the ground that Plaintiffs were the prevailing parties. But the Senior Magistrate declined each side’s request to shift 1 See Schank v. Ariz. Isotopes Sci. Rsch. Corp., 2025 WL 3046874 (Del. Ch. Oct. 30, 2025) (the “Final Report”). 2 For the sake of clarity, this opinion refers to certain individuals by their first name alone. No familiarity or disrespect is intended. C.A. No. 2025-0208-SEM April 24, 2026 Page 2 of 9 fees based on bad-faith litigation conduct. Plaintiffs filed exceptions to the Final Report’s failure to shift fees. Defendant filed exceptions to the Final Report’s designation of Plaintiffs as the prevailing parties. The court reviews this matter de novo.3 In doing so, the court adopts former Senior Magistrate Molina’s4 clear and thorough statement of the factual background.5 An abbreviated re-telling of events follows. The Company is in the crosshairs of two factions that have been feuding for years. One faction aligns with the Company’s President and CEO Gregory “Wade” Brooksby.6 It includes Wade’s father Brandt Brooksby, who serves as Chairman of its board of directors,7 and Wade’s mother-in-law Saundra Parker, who is one of the 3 Ct. Ch. R. 144(b)(2); DiGiacobbe v. Sestak, 743 A.2d 180, 184 (Del. 1999); Operating Eng’rs Constr. & Miscellaneous Pension Fund v. Pioneer Nat. Res. Co., 2025 WL 2106580, at *1 (Del. Ch. July 28, 2025). 4 Senior Magistrate Molina retired from the bench on March 10, 2026. She joined the court in January 2019 as a Magistrate in Chancery and was later named Senior Magistrate in January 2025. The court is grateful for her tireless efforts, extensive expertise, and unwavering dedication to the Court of Chancery and the people we serve. 5 This decision cites to: C.A. No. 2025-0208-SEM docket entries (by docket “Dkt.” number); trial exhibits (by “JX-” number); the trial transcript, Dkts. 61, 65 (“Trial Tr.”); and stipulated facts set forth in the Parties’ Stipulation and Pre-Trial Order, Dkt. 47 (“PTO”). 6 Trial Tr. at 127:10–12 (G. Brooksby). 7 Trial Tr. at 235:6–14 (B. Brooksby). C.A. No. 2025-0208-SEM April 24,