Aleynikov v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
SERGEY ALEYNIKOV, §
§ No. 366, 2016
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below: Court of Chancery
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ C.A. No. 10636-VCL
THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, §
INC., §
§
Defendant Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: January 18, 2017
Decided: January 20, 2017
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and
SEITZ, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc.
ORDER
(1) In this appeal, Sergey Aleynikov seeks to reverse a ruling of the Court
of Chancery giving issue preclusive effect to a ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, or Third Circuit for short. Aleynikov sought advancement
and indemnification of certain legal fees and costs in an action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey. That is, Aleynikov chose that court as his
preferred forum for addressing his demand for fees. He litigated those issues
through the appellate level but received a ruling from the Third Circuit that he did
not favor. Aleynikov then filed a parallel suit in the Court of Chancery seeking
advancement for another proceeding but based on the exact legal issues that were
before the Third Circuit and were the subject of its ruling and the still pending
federal suit. While expressing concern on whether the Third Circuit’s ruling
accorded with Delaware law, the Vice Chancellor applied the appropriate
principles of law and concluded that he was not free to re-adjudicate issues already
decided in the federal action. Aleynikov’s principal argument on appeal is that the
Vice Chancellor erred in deferring to the previous ruling. But, the Vice Chancellor
was correct in binding himself to apply the issues as previously determined against
Aleynikov in the federal action. Although we express no view at all on whether
the Third Circuit ruling was correct as a matter of Delaware law or on the Vice
Chancellor’s consideration of that question, we affirm on the basis of his accurate
application of the law of issue preclusion and his properly supported findings of
fact. For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Chancery dated
July 13, 2016.1
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of
Chancery is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
1
Aleynikov v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., C.A. No. 10636 (Del. Ch. July 13, 2016).
2