Supreme Court affirms arbitration of bad-faith breach claims

IN THE SUPREME C OURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWA RE FORTI S ADVIS ORS, LLC, § s olely in it s capac ity as § Selle r Re prese ntat ive, § § No. 162, 202 5 Plain tiff Below, § Appe llan t, § § Court Below: C ourt of Chancer y v. § of t he Sta te of Del awar e § STILLF RONT MIDCO AB, § C.A. No. 20 2 1- 0870 § Defe nda nt Bel ow, § Appe llee. § Submit ted: Octo ber 2 2, 2025 Decide d: Feb ru ary 13, 2026 Before SEI TZ, Chief Justic e; VALIHURA and TRA YN OR, Justic es. Upon a ppe al from the Court of Ch ance ry. AFFIRMED. Phil ip Trai ner, Jr., Esqui re, Samuel M. Gross, Esqu ire, AS HB Y & GED DES, Wilm ingto n, D elawa re; Lloy d Wina wer, Esqu ire, Danie l J. B erge son, Esqu ire, J ohn D. Per nick, Es quire, Sus an Bo wer, E squ ire, BERGE SON LLP, San J ose, C alif orni a, for Plaint iff Be low, Appell ant Fo rtis Adviso rs, LL C. John L. Ree d, Esq uir e, Kel ly L. F reun d, Esq uire, DLA PIPER LLP, Wilming ton, Delaware; Mall ory B iblo, Esq uire, DL A PIP ER L LP, D alla s, Te xas, for D efendant Belo w, App ellee Stillfr ont Midco AB.

2 TRAYN OR, Justic e: We are ca lled u pon to re view t he Cour t of Cha ncery’ s inte rpre tati on of an alter native - dis pute - r esolution (“ADR”) provision in a mer ger agreem ent under whic h the p artie s agr eed to resolve dispu tes ov er the calculation of a post - closing earn out pa ymen t. The buyer i nvoke d the p rovi sion a nd mov ed to com pel a rbitr atio n after t he selle r repr ese nta tive sue d it for br eac h of contr act an d bre ach of the impli ed coven ant of good fa ith an d fa ir dealin g. Among o ther th ings, the s eller repre sent ativ e alle ged that th e buyer had m ater ially br eac hed t he me rger a greem en t by act ing i n bad f aith to red uce the ea rno ut am ount a nd by fail ing to prov ide inform at ion an d access to per son nel. In res ponse to the buyer’s m oti on to compe l arbit rati on, the selle r repre sent ativ e argu ed that th e ADR pr ovis ion, which re fer s a dispu te ov er an earnou t calc ulat ion to an acc oun ting - firm arbi trat or, w as a na rro w car ve - out t o th e par tie s’ agree me nt to h ave a De lawar e co urt a djud icate “an y acti on or pr ocee din g ari sing o ut of or r elate d to” the m erge r agr eeme nt. The Co urt of Chan cer y disa gree d wit h the s elle r repr esen tati ve. To the co urt’ s way of th ink ing, t he selle r re prese ntat ive’ s bad - fa ith cl aim was at it s cor e a disp ute conce rni ng the buy er ’s calc ulat ion of th e earn out an d thus fe ll wit hin the ambit of the ADR pr ovis ion. And the alle ged viol ati on of the sell er repr esen tati ve’ s inform at ion ri ghts, accor din g to the co urt, was an is sue of pr oc edura l arb itrab ilit y,

3 whic h, under sett led l aw i s for the arb itrat or — n ot the co urt — t o decid e. Conse que ntly, the c ourt c ompe lle d arb itrat ion. In due c ours e, t he ar bitr ator i ssue d a deter min atio n tha t the se ller r epr esen tati ve wa s not enti tled to an y rec overy. The Court of C hance ry c onfirm ed t his d eter mina tio n and entere d j udgme nt i n fa vor of the buye r. In thi s app eal, the se ller repre sen tati ve ch allen ges t he C ourt o f Cha ncer y’s decis ion t o compe l arbi trat ion of it s clai ms. Amon g other argu ment s, the se ller repre sent ativ e now con tend s that th e ADR pr ovisi on at iss ue cal led for an e xper t deter min atio n and not an a rbi trati on. S uch a c lass ifica tio n wo uld, t he sel ler repre sent ativ e con tend s, su ppor t its posi tio n tha t the ar bi tra t or’s re mit was exce edin gly nar ro w an d did n ot i nclu de co nsid erati on of it s claim s. It also challe nge s the c ourt’ s conf irma tio n of the a rbi trat or’s determ ina tion i n kee ping w ith its alle gati on dur ing the confir mat ion pro ceed ings tha t the arbitr ator was ac ting, unbe know nst t o the sell er re prese nta tive, und er an undis clos ed conf lic t of i ntere st. In this o pinio n we conc lude that the se lle r repre sent ativ e’s bad - faith breach claim s fall w ithin the com pass of t he A DR pr ovis ion. In reaching this conclus ion, we ho ld the sel ler r eprese nta tive to it s fram ing of the iss ues i n the Court of C hance r y and, in par ticu lar, its ackno wled geme nt tha t the part ies ha d agr eed t o su bmit the earn out de termi nati on to ar bitr at ion. An d beca use we view t he bad - faith breach claim s as co ntes tin g the acc urac y of the buye r’s e arno ut det er mination — th e subj ect

4 matte r of the issue the partie s agre ed to a rbitr ate — w e con clu de that th e Cour t of Chanc ery did n ot er r by co mpe lling arb itrat ion. We also hol d tha t the sell er repre sent ativ e’s i nfor mat ion - r igh ts cl aim was f or the ar bitra tor t o dec ide. An d final ly, we discer n no e rror in t he co urt’s refusa l to vac ate t he ar bitra tor’ s awar d beca use of u ndisc lose d rela tio nsh ips bet wee n his f irm a nd the buyer’ s cou nsel. We there fore affirm th e Cour t of Chanc ery’ s judgm ent. I A Kixe ye is an onl ine vi deo ga me com pany t hat cre ate s, deve lops, and pub lishe s strate gy ga mes f or pe rsona l com pute rs an d mob ile de vice s. 1 In accorda nce wi th an Agree men t and Pla n of Merg er date d Ju ne 3, 2 019 (the “ m erger a gre emen t”), Still fron t acqu ired K ixeye o n June 24, 2019. 2 Fo rtis is the Selle r Repres entative under th e m erger a gr eeme nt. 3 B Under t he m erger a gr eeme nt, S tillf ron t agre ed to pay a b ase purc hase pr ice of $90, 000,000. 4 The merger a g reement also pro vide s for an earnout bonus i f Kixeye ’s “Adju sted E BITDA” for the y ear ending Decem ber 31, 201 9 exc eed ed 1 App. to Opening Br. at A24–25, A202. 2 Id. at A24 –25, A37– 38, A86. 3 Id. at A114–17. 4 Id. at A103, A202.

5 $15, 000,000. 5 The maxim um possi ble e arnout a mount was $30, 000, 00 0. 6 T he partie s c onse nted to “the exc lus ive j uris dict ion of a ny c ourt of the Stat e of De lawa re, sitti ng in Ne w Ca stle Count y, or t he Uni ted Sta tes Distr ict Co urt f or the D istr ict of Delaw are .. . in a ny act ion or pr ocee ding ari sing o ut o f or r elat ing to ” the mer ge r agree me nt. 7 But the y also i nclu ded a n ADR provi sion tha t prov ided a n expe dite d mech anis m for the resol uti on of a dis pute o ver the calc ulat ion of the ear nout a mou nt. Becau se the sc ope of the prov ision — § 2.14 of the me rger agree ment — is the dispo sit ive is sue o n app eal, we set it for th i n some deta il he re. Secti on 2.14 of the m erger a greem en t (the “ Earn out Calc ula tion Prov ision”) establ ishes a three - ste p proce dur e to ca lcul ate t he e arnou t. 8 i First, § 2.14(a), tit led “Ea rno ut Det erm inati on,” pro vide s for the s urv iving c orpor ati on’s i ndepe nden t audi tors to del iver a repor t wit h the s urviving c orpor ati on’s f ina nci al sta teme nt for the y ear en din g on De cembe r 31, 2019: Prom ptly, but i n any event no lat er t han 4 5 day s after the d ate th at the Survi vin g Cor pora tion’ s in depen dent aud itors (wh ich a udi tors shal l b e the sam e as used by the Compa ny pri or to the Cl osing) de live r a rep ort with r esp ect t o the Sur vivin g Cor pora tion’ s fina ncia l state men ts for th e year e ndi ng Dec emb er 3 1, 20 19, [S til lfro nt] s hall prepa re an d del iver to [For tis] a s tatem ent (the “ Ear nout D eter minat ion S tate men t”) settin g forth [Sti llfro nt]’s c al culat ion o f the Ea rnout Amou nt. [S tillf ron t] shal l 5 Id. at A91, A103, A118. 6 Id. at A91. 7 Id. at A163. 8 Id. at A117–18.

6 make avai lable to [F ort is] s uch f inan cia l sta temen ts pr epa red by t he inde pend ent a udit or as we ll as the w ork pape rs, sc hed ules, m emo ran da, and o ther d ocum ents that [Sti llfr ont] pre pared o r re view ed in deter min ing the amou nts s et fort h on the Ear nout De term inat io n State ment a nd c oncur rent ly s hall prov ide [F ort is] acc ess to the Compa ny’ s boo ks a nd re cor ds t o the e xte nt rea sona bly nec essa ry for [Fort is] to compl ete its revi ew of [Still front]’s calcula tions con tained in the Ear nout De term inati on Sta teme nt. 9 Next, § 2.14(b), titl ed “ Disa greem ent, ” out line s the proce dure s avai lable t o Forti s if it wis hes t o disp ute t he Ea rno ut Det erm inat ion St ate ment pr ovi ded b y Stil lfront: The Earnout Dete rminatio n Stat ement s hall become final and b inding upon t he pa rtie s on t he 30th day f ollo win g rece ipt t hereof by [Forti s] unle ss [For tis] give s writ ten no tice of i ts di sagre eme nt (the “Ear nou t Disa gree ment N otic e”) to [Stil lfr ont] prior to such date. Any Earno ut Disa gree ment N otic e shal l (x) s pecif y in re aso nabl e detai l, an d on a line item by li ne ite m basi s (if app lica ble), the dis pute d item s and t he natur e and/ or am ount of a ny disa gree men t so a sse rted (t he “ Disp uted Ear nout Items”), (y) a n a lter na tive a mou nt (if a ppl ica ble) f or ea ch su ch D isp uted Earno ut Ite m an d (z) shal l incl ude a pr opo sed ca lcu lati on by [For tis] of the Ear nout Am ount. A ny ite m in the Earnou t Determ ination Stateme nt that i s not a n Disp uted E arno ut Ite m spec ifi call y refer red t o th e Arbi trator pur sua nt to S ection 2.14(c) sha ll be de eme d fin al and b indin g on the par tie s (as set for th in the Ear nout De term ina tion S tate ment o r as other wise agree d to in wr iting by [Sti llfron t] and [F orti s]). If th ere is no disa gree men t with re spec t to the Earno ut Am ount as set for th in the Ear nou t Dete rmi nati on Sta tem ent, the n [Sti llfro nt]’ s calc ula tio n of the Ear nout Am ount sha ll be the Conclu si ve Earno ut Amo unt. 10 Final ly, § 2.14(c), title d “Ref err al t o Ar bitra tor,” sets fort h the proc ess of resolv ing di sputes over the e arnout c alcul ation: 9 Id. at A117. 10 Id.

7 If [F ortis ] a nd [S tillf ron t] ar e u nable to re ac h agre eme nt w ithin 30 day s after t he dat e [St illfr ont] rece ive d the Ear nou t Disa gree ment Not ice, either part y shall ha ve the right to re fer suc h matte r to the Ar bitra tor start ing o n such 4 5th da y. The Ar bitra tor shall de term ine the act ual Earnout Amount (the “Co nclusive Earnout A mount”) within 30 cale ndar d ays of suc h re ferra l, an d suc h de term inat ion s hall b e fin al a nd bindi ng o n [Stil lfr ont], [Fort is] a nd the Sel lers f or al l purp ose s of thi s Agreem ent. All f e es an d expens es of the Ar bitr ator i n connec tion wi th this Sec tio n 2.1 4(c) sha ll be pa id by [For tis], on behalf of the S eller s, (if the Conc lus ive Ea rnou t Amo unt is le ss tha n or equal to the Earn out Amou nt deter mi ned in ac cord ance with the Earno ut Dete rmi nati on State ment) or Sti llfr ont. 11 The merger a gree men t def ines “Ar bitr at or” as “ a nati onal ly or re giona lly r ecog nize d acco untin g firm mut uall y agre ed i n good f ait h by [St illfr ont] a nd [Forti s] tha t doe s not ha ve a m ateri al re lati ons hip wi th [S tillf ron t], [F orti s,] or [Ki xeye ]. 12 ii Secti on 2.14(e) sets f ort h ce rtain ope rational covenants relevant to the earnout deter mination. S pe cifically, Still front c ovenante d that “t he S urvi ving C orp orati on shal l not ta ke an y act ion i n bad fa ith to re duce an y Ear nout Amo unt” a nd th at “th e Survi vin g Cor pora tion s hall not term inate an y Key Emp loye e [wi thou t ca use]. ” 13 The par tie s agree d in § 2. 14(g) tha t, if Stil lfr ont bre ache d e ithe r of th e se o peration al c oven ants, “ the Co nclu sive Ea rn out Am ount shal l be ass umed t o be the ma xim um 11 Id. at A117–18. 12 Id. at A87. 13 Id. at A118.

8 Earno ut Am oun t and suc h am ount sha ll be come due an d paya ble Jun e 30, 202 0.” 14 § 2.1 4(g) provi de s, howe ver, that “if [Sti llfro nt] can prove in th e Earnout Deter min atio n proc ess de scr ibed i n Secti on 2.14(a) – (c) a l esser Conc lusive Earnout Amou nt wo uld have bee n earne d, b ut f or the brea ch of Sec tion 2. 14(e), t hen [Stil lfr ont] s hall only have to pay such a mo unt.” 15 iii Secti on 2.12(g) of the merger a gre emen t (the “Inf orma tion P rov ision”) sta te s that For tis, as the S ell er Repr ese ntat ive, shall have “reas onable acc ess to i nform atio n abou t the Su rviv ing Corpor at ion and the r eason able assis tanc e of [] offic ers a nd emplo yee s . . . f or t he pur pose of per for ming their dut ies an d exe rcis ing thei r [contr act ual] r ight s.” 16 C On Oct ober 8, 2021, Forti s filed suit a gai nst S tillf ront in the Court of Ch anc ery, 17 allegi ng two bre ach of c ontr act c laims a nd, i n the a lterna tive, a cla im for breach of the i mpl ied cov ena nt of goo d fai th and fa ir dea ling. In one co unt, Fortis allege d that Stillf ron t viol ated t he o peration al c ovenan ts by sla shi ng Kixe ye’ s marke tin g exp endit ure s in ba d fai th. 18 In ano ther, For tis a lle ged t hat S tillfron t’s 14 Id. 15 Id. 16 Id. at A116. 17 Id. at A22. 18 Id. at A63 –69, A74–75.

9 Earno ut De term inat ion St atem ent, w hich rep orted K ixe ye’s A dju sted EBI TD A at appro xima tel y $6,70 0,000, brea ched th e merger a gree men t’s re quir eme nt that A djust ed EBITDA b e dete rmi ned “i n accor da nce wit h Sche dule 1.1(a).” 19 In partic ula r, F ortis alle ged t hat S tillf ro nt “uni late rall y an d retr oacti vel y rea dju st[ed ] Kixe ye’s o pera ting e xpe nse s for the Pre - Merger 2019 Period to am ounts m aterially in exc ess o f the ave rage m ont hly a mou nts pr ese nted on Sch edu le 1. 1(a) of t he Merger Ag reem ent (enabl ing it to mate ri ally dec rea se Kixe ye ’s 201 9 Adjus ted EBITDA).” 20 Forti s pl eade d, in the a lter nati ve, tha t sho uld the c ourt deter mine tha t Still fron t’s a djus tme nt wa s not pr ohi bite d unde r the e xpre ss te rms of the mer ger agree me nt, the n a ter m prec lud ing St illfr ont fr om doing s o sh ould be imp lied. 21 T his forme d the ba sis of F orti s’s imp lied - c ove na nt cl aim. And f ina lly, Fort is al lege d tha t Stil lfront b reach ed the I nformatio n Provi sion, severely inhi biting Fortis’ abili ty to prepa re an Ear nout D isagre eme nt Not ice. 22 Two mon ths lat er, Sti llfr ont m oved t o com pel a rbit rat ion a nd dis miss F ortis ’s compl aint under Court o f Cha ncer y Rul e 12(b) (1). 23 In resp onse t o Stil lfro nt’ s moti on, Fo rtis ar gue d that, unde r the m er ger a greem ent, the C ourt of C ha ncery — and not an accounti ng fir m — ha d exc lus ive jur isd icti on o ver i ts cl aim s tha t Sti llfro nt 19 Id. at A35, A68–69, A73. 20 Id. at A76. 21 Id. 22 Id. at A69 –73, A75. 23 Id. at A20, A189–225.

10 had bre ached th e a gr eeme nt’s oper at iona l coven ants an d I nform atio n P rovision, as well a s the im plie d c ovena nt of good f aith and fa ir deal ing. Forti s con tende d tha t “[t] he part ies ne ver agree d tha t cla ims f or ba d fait h or bre ach of the M erge r Agree men t’s inf orm atio n acce ss pro visio ns — n eit her of w hich re quire an y calcu latio n— would be adjudic ated by an account ant[.]” 24 The Cour t of C hanc er y saw i t diffe ren tly. Thes e cla ims, in the c ourt’ s vie w, wer e su bsume d wi thin t he partie s ’ agr eeme nt to refer dis put es over t he calc ula tion o f the Ea rno ut Am ount t o an “Ar bitra tor. ” For the cour t, “the subje ct ma tter of t he dis put e is the ca lcula tio n of the e arno ut” 25 and, b ecause the a llege d br each es c oncer ned th e calc ula tion of th e earn out, th e breac h cla ims wer e for the “Arbi tra tor” to de cid e. The court thus grante d Sti llfr ont’ s moti on to comp el a nd dism isse d Forti s’s c ompla int w ith preju dice. D In the wa ke o f the Cour t of C hanc ery’ s orde r, cou nsel f or th e partie s sp oke with t wo ac cou nting firm s that sati sfied the merg er a greeme nt’s def init ion of “Arbi tra tor” bef ore j oint ly agre ei ng to enga ge BD O USA, LLP. 26 In Novem be r 2022, the par ties j ointl y enga ged BD O to act a s the a rbi trat or for res olut ion of the dispu te a nd agre ed to s ubmi t thei r dis put e to Jef frey K atz of BD O’s Ne w Yor k 24 Id. at A239. 25 Opening Br. Ex. A at 10. 26 App. to Opening Br. at A536 –37, A574–75, A1212.

11 office. 27 The agree ment was m emor ial ized i n BDO’ s enga ge ment le tter tha t conta ined, among othe r thin gs, the fo llowing provisio ns: Propo sed Se rv ices t o the Part ies The Pa rties have a gree d that J effre y Katz of BDO, shal l serve as the prof es siona l res ponsi ble f or the Ar bitra tio n . . . . Mr. Katz wil l ma ke a dete rmi nati on in an imp art ial ma nne r ba sed o n suc h inqu iry, inve stiga tion a nd ot her proce dure s as he may d eem ne cess ary, but Mr. Katz shal l no t be r equir ed t o fol low the pract ice s and proc edur es th at would b e req uired f or an audi t in a ccor dance with gener ally accepte d audi ting s tanda rd s . . . . M r. Kat z sha ll ad judic ate the C laim s, inc ludi ng witho ut lim itat ion, the dete rminati on of t he Con clusiv e Earnout Amou nt unde r Sec tion 2. 14 of th e [Me rger] Agre eme nt an d such adju dicat ion “s hall b e fina l and b indi ng on [S tillf ron t], [For tis] and t he Selle rs for all purpo ses of [t he Mer ger] Agr eeme nt. Confl ict s of Intere st BDO is n ot awar e of an y conf lic ts of in terest w ith re spe ct to an y of the name s pro vided by the Part ies. BDO is not respo nsibl e for conti nuously monitori ng other pot ential c onfli cts that could arise duri ng the cou rse of the enga gemen t, alt hou gh we will inf or m the Part ies to t his En gage ment Le tter prom ptly s houl d any c ome to o ur attent ion . . . . Addition ally, o ur en gagement by th e Parti es will in no way pre cl ude us fr om be ing e nga ged by any othe r par ty in t he f uture [.] 28 Appr oxim atel y one y ear la ter an d a fter a leng thy di scove ry p rocess, Kat z he ld a full - day he ari ng in whic h the par ties pre sente d the ir position s. 29 No wit nesses test ified a t the “hea ring. ” On March 12, 2024, Katz issu ed the Arbitra tio n Awar d (the “Award”), concludin g tha t no cha nge was re quir e d to St illfr ont’ s calc ulat ion o f 27 Id. at A1212, A1250. 28 Id. at 642–48. 29 Id. at A412, A719, A1214, A1317.

12 the Ad justed E BITD A or the e arnout a mou nt an d dete rmi nin g tha t Fort is was not enti tled t o any recove ry. 30 BDO did not per form its own A dju sted EBI TD A or e arno ut ca lcul ation. Katz also fou nd tha t “th ere [was] insuff ic ient e vid ence of ba d faith by [S til lfron t].” 31 E Follo wing the Awar d, the p artie s fi led com peti ng mot ion s, Sti llfro nt t o confir m an d For tis to vacat e the A war d. For tis arg ued t hat th e Awar d shou ld be vaca ted o n grou nds of “ evide nt par tia lity” becau se BD O faile d to di sclo se alle ge d confl icts wit h Stil lfro nt’s c oun sel — DLA Piper (“DLA ”). 32 Fortis a dvanc ed thre e grou nds for i ts ar gume nt: (1) DLA’ s conte mp late d engag em ent wi th BD O in a separ ate ca se, (2) unc erta int y regar ding D LA’s r epre sent atio n of ot her B DO ent itie s based on a pu blic a ffida vit i n an un rela ted bankr uptc y proce ed ing, a nd (3) BDO’s desi gnat ion a s the ac coun tin g firm to a djudic ate pos t - closing working capital and purch ase - price - adjustment dispu tes in three ag reements. 33 In suppo rt of i ts motion, Forti s subm itte d the Exper t Aff idav it of Dougla s R. Carmic hae l, who se ver al deca des ear lie r hel d “th e hig hest tech nica l pos iti on” at the A meric an I nstit ute of Certi fied P ublic Account ant s (“AICPA”), which “ sets et hica l standa rds an d U.S. 30 Id. at A408–22. 31 Id. at A421. 32 Id. 33 Id.

13 audit ing sta ndards.” 34 In his aff ida vit, D r. Car micha el co nclu ded t hat BD O ha d faile d to m ake r equir ed d iscl osur es an d vi olate d app lica ble AI CPA s tan dards. 35 On Mar ch 28, 2 025, the C our t of C hanc ery grant ed S tillf ro nt’s m oti on to confir m th e Awar d and de nie d Fort is’s moti on for summa ry jud gme nt. 36 F orti s appealed. F Forti s now argues that the Court of Cha ncery er red by const ruing the Earnout Calc ulat ion Pro vis ion a s provi ding f or arb itra tion, rathe r th an a narr ow expe rt deter mination. 37 Alter nati vely, Fort is con tend s tha t, eve n if the Ea rnout C alcu lati o n Provi sio n is a n arbi tra tion cl ause, the dis pute d cla ims d o no t fall wit hin it s nar row scope. 38 Additi ona lly, F orti s claim s tha t the Cour t of Ch ancer y im prop erl y confir me d the Awar d an d tha t For tis’ s al legat ions of e vide nt pa rtial ity re quir e d th e court to ei ther vacat e the Awar d or ap prove post - arbi tra tion discov ery. 39 Still fron t mai ntai ns tha t the Co urt of C ha ncer y corre ctl y inter pre ted the Earnout C alc ulati on Provi sio n as an arbi tra tion c lau se. 40 Sti llfront contends th at the 34 Id. at A580– 81. To be sure, Mr. Carm ichael’s cr edenti al s in the field of a ccounting extend well beyond the position he held at the AICPA. We limit our refere nce to his association with the AICPA because his opinion was tied closely to professional standards set by the AICPA. 35 Id. at A599–604. 36 Opening Br. Ex. C. 37 Opening Br. at 6, 26. 38 Id. at 25, 31. 39 Id. at 43 –47. 40 Answering Br. at 31.

14 dispu ted c laims wer e issue s of proc ed ural ar bitr abi lity tha t we re wit hin t he arbitr at or’s pu rview. 41 Fin ally, St illfr ont c onten ds tha t F ortis faile d to m eet the h ig h burde n req uired to dem ons tra te that the A ward was the pr oduc t of evident partia lit y. 42 II A Becau se t he C ourt of C hance ry’ s ord er c ompe lli ng arb itra tion and dism issi ng Forti s’s c ompla int h inge d upon i ts in terpre tat ion of § 2.14 of t he merger a greement, our re vie w of tha t or der is de novo. 43 The Court of C hancer y de nie d vaca tur of the arbitr at ion a ward u nder t he na rrow e vide nt par tia lity stan dard. 44 On appe al, howe ver, we re view th at deter mi nati on de novo. 45 41 Id. at 6, 24–30. 42 Id. at 39 –40. 43 Terrell v. Kiromic Biopharma, Inc., 297 A.3d 610, 616–17 (Del. 2023). 44 Opening Br. Ex. C; SPX C orp. v. Garda USA, Inc., 94 A.3d 745, 750 (Del. 2014) (“[R]eview of an arbitration award is one of the narrowest standards of judicial review in all of American jurisprudence.” (quoting TD Ameritrade, Inc. v. M cLaughlin, Piven, Vogel Sec., Inc., 953 A.2d 726, 732 (Del. Ch. 2008))). 45 See Del. Transit Corp. v. Amalgamated Transit Union L oc. 842, 34 A.3d 1064, 1070–73 (Del. 2011) (making an independent determination that alleged bias did not meet the evident partiality standard); see also Sutter v. Oxford Health Plan s LLC, 675 F.3d 215, 21 9 (3d Cir. 2012) (“On appeal from a . . . ruling on a motion to confirm or vacate an a rbitration award, we review its legal conclusions de novo.” (citing First Options o f Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 947 – 48 (1995))); CCSB Fin. Corp. v. Totta, 302 A.3d 387, 402 (Del. 2023) (“Our review is de novo for t he court ’s legal de terminations.”).

15 B In its lead a rg ument on ap peal, Fort is co nten ds t hat t he Cou rt of C han cer y erred by treating § 2.14 ’s ADR mechani sm as an arbitratio n clau se. Accor ding to Forti s, th e cour t sh ould ha ve i nste ad v iewed § 2.14 a s ca lling f or a “ narr ow accoun ting - based e xpe rt deter mi nati on” 46 and thus not su bject to t he pri ncip les tha t gover n ar bitra tio n. In pre ssi ng this a rgu ment, Fort is re lie s heav ily o n thre e decisio ns — one fr om our Co urt, anot her f rom the Co urt of Ch ancer y, a nd a t hird from the Third Circuit C ourt of Appeal s — eac h of whic h ad dresse s how c ourt s shoul d cla ssif y co ntract ual A DR pr ovis ion s simi lar to § 2.1 4 and how that class ific ati on affe cts the d ecis ion - ma kin g proce ss. It is n otew orth y tha t the se dec isi ons — Terrell v. K iromic Biopharm a, I nc., 47 Arch Key Inte rmediate H ldgs. Inc. v. Mona, 48 and Sapp v. In dus. Act ion Se rvs., LLC 49 — we re al l ann oun ced in the ye ar fo ll owing the c our t’s gra ntin g of S tillf ro nt’s 46 Opening Br. at 26. 47 297 A.3d 610 (Del. 2023). In Ter rell, w e examined the difference between arbitration and expert determinations and upheld the Court of Chancery’s ruling that a contractual provision ref erring disputes regarding the interpretation of a stock - option agreement was not an arbitration provision but called for an expert determination. Id. 48 302 A.3d 975 (Del. Ch. 2023). In M ona, the Court of Chancery considered “a post - closing price adjustment mechanism in an ac quisition agreement that refer s a dispute to an independent accountan t.” Id. at 981. After a comprehensive discussion o f where the mechanism w as situated on “the ADR spectrum,” id. at 989, t he court determined that the mechanis m, which resembles § 2.14 in many respects, was not an arbitration. 49 75 F.4 th 205 (3d Cir. 20 23). In Sapp, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals addressed an earnout provision that is remarkably similar to § 2.14 and concluded that the parties had agreed to an expert determination of narrow accounting - related questions and mediation and litigation of all other disputes. Id.

16 moti on to c omp el ar bitra tion. Wit hout the be nef it of t he ana lyse s fou nd i n the se opini ons, Forti s fram ed — a nd the court re sol ved — the que sti ons regar ding t he sc ope of § 2.1 4 under the as sump tio n that i t was an ar bitr atio n pro visio n and no t one ca llin g for a n ex per t dete rmina tion. In deed, Fort is w as em pha tic t hat the partie s agre ed to subm it the ear nout d isp ute to a rbi trat ion. At ora l argu ment on S tillf ron t’s moti on to compe l ar bitra tio n in the C our t of Cha ncer y, Fo rtis’ s co unse l re peate dly re fer red t o § 2.14 a s an ar bitra tion pr ovision and eve n asked h imse lf rhe toric all y whe ther “ the partie s agr ee[d] to ar bitra te some thi ng?” 50 His answer: “No d ispute he re o n th at issue.” 51 Give n thi s fra ming a nd de spit e the appare nt re levan ce of t he lin es dra w n betwe en ar bitra tio n and expe rt d eterm ina tion i n Terrell, A rch K ey I nsuran ce, and Sapp, we hol d Fort is to its ide ntif ica tio n of § 2.1 4 as a n arb itrat ion prov ision. 52 C That we ar e im pell ed by Fo rtis’ s fr amin g be low to tr eat § 2.1 4 as a n ar bitra tio n prov ision does n ot en d our i nqu iry. Fo rtis ’s seco ndar y arg ume nt on a ppeal is tha t, 50 App. to Opening Br. at A347. 51 Id. 52 We note here that the dist inction between arbitration and expert determin ations was discussed in Court of Chancery decisions predating Fortis’s oppositi on to Stillfront’s motion to compel arbitration in this case. I n fact, the Court of Chancery opinion t hat we revi ewed in T errell was issued before Fortis’s opposition was filed and di scussed Vic e Chan cellor Laster’s 201 8 decision in Penton Bus. Media Hldgs., LLC v. Informa PLC, 252 A.3d 445 (Del. Ch. 2018). Terrell v. Kiromic Biopharma, Inc., 2022 WL 175858, at *4 (Del. Ch. Jan. 20, 202 2). Penton Bus. Media Hldgs. poses— and answers — the question: Does Delaware Recognize A Distinction Between An Arbitration and An Expert Determination? Penton Bus. Media Hldgs., 252 A.3d at 454.

17 even i f § 2. 14 i s co nstr ued a s an arbi trati on pr ovi sion, it did no t au thor ize t he arbitr at or to a djudic at e the c laim s alle ged i n For tis’ s com plai nt. Under one a rt icula tion of t he fra me work for determ ini ng ar bitr abi lity, our inquir y shou ld foc us on two is sues: “F irs t, the cour t must de te rmine whethe r the arbitr at ion cla use is broad o r narr ow in s cope. Secon d, the court mu st app ly th e rele vant s cope of the pr ovis ion t o the a sser ted le gal c laim to de term ine whe the r the claim fal ls w ithin the scop e of the c ontr act ual p rovi sion s tha t re quire arbi tra tion. ” 53 When the co urt eva lua tes a n arr ow arb itra tion c lau se, “i t will ask if the ca use of actio n pur sued i n cou rt dire ctl y relate s to t he r ight in t he c ontrac t. ” 54 If, on the ot her hand, “t he arbi tra tion cla use i s bro ad i n sc ope, t he c ourt will def er to a rb itrat ion on any iss ues that t ouch on co ntra ct righ ts or contr act pe rform anc e. ” 55 A noth er f ormul atio n, th is one i n the con text of the arb itra tion of an ear nou t calcu lation, and so the on e featu r ed pr omi nent ly in the C our t of Cha ncer y’s ana lys is in this c ase, down play s the si gnif icanc e of la beli ng A DR pro visi ons a s broa d or narr ow. I n Vi aco m Int’ l Inc. v. Wins hal l, 56 this Court o bserve d that “[w] h ether an arbitr at ion pr ovis ion i s bran ded ‘ narro w ’ or ‘ broad, ’ t he on ly que stio n tha t the c ourt shoul d dec ide is whe ther t he su bjec t ma tter in disp ute fa lls w ithi n it. ” 57 53 Parfi H ldg. AB v. Mirror Image Internet, Inc., 817 A.2d 149, 155 (Del. 2002). 54 Id. 55 Id. 56 72 A.3d 78 (Del. 2013). 57 Id. at 83 –84.

18 Like th is case, the dispu te in Viacom centered on earn out paym ents un der a merge r agr eeme nt. Whe n a st ockh olde r repr ese ntat ive di spu ted an earn out statem ent calc ulate d by Via co m, the p artie s subm itte d the ir “E arn - Out Di sagreem ents” to BDO, USA LLP, who wa s referr ed t o as the “Re sol ution Ac cou nta nts.” The engag eme nt let ter wit h the Re sol ution Ac c ount ant s “specifi ed the manner in which Viaco m wa s to pro duc e addi tiona l doc ume nts; the dat es on w hich i niti al and re ply subm issio ns wer e due; the m anner i n wh ich BDO c oul d subm it and re cei ve a nswer s to subs tant ive q uest ion s pri or to t he hear ing; a nd the man ner in w hich t he he arin g would be cond ucted. ” 58 Duri ng the prehea rin g subm issio n pha se, a dis pute a ro se as to t he pro prie ty of Viaco m’s ded ucti ons f or the cos t of t he tar ge t’s u nsold inve ntor y — an iss ue tha t had not bee n fla gge d in the “Ea rno ut Di sagree men ts” su bmit ted to BDO. The par tie s coul d not a gree whethe r BD O sh ould c onsi der t he un sold - inventory di spute in reach ing its deter min atio n. And whe n BD O issue d its dec isi on, it agr eed wi th the stoc kholde r re prese ntati ve tha t the in vento ry wri te - down shou ld n ot be consi dered beca use i t was not in clude d in Viaco m’s e arn out sta teme nt. Unha ppy wi th BD O’s de ci sion a nd ear nout deter mina tio n, Via com sought a decla rati on in the C ourt of C hancer y va cat ing B DO’s dete rmin ati on on t he gr ound that i t con stitu ted m anif est er ror. Rele van t to our anal ysis here, the par tie s agre ed 58 Id. at 79.

19 that Viac om’ s cha lleng e was gov erne d by t he Fe dera l Ar bitr ati on Ac t. V iaco m grou nded its chal len ge in § 10(a)(3) of the Act, 59 arguing that BDO’s decision “sho uld be v acate d . . . beca use BD O’s r efus al to hea r per tine nt ma teria l ev idenc e rende red t he arb itrat ion f undam enta lly u nfa ir.” 60 Accordi ng to Viaco m, B DO’s refu sal to c ons ider t he in vent ory wr ite - d own “ was n ot a dec isi on as t o the scope of the ar bitra tio n[,] [b ut] was s impl y an unf air e xclu sion of ve ry s ignif ican t evid enc e that would have had a $20 0 mil lion im pac t on t he calc ula ti on.” 61 This C ourt r uled that V iac om’s c laim t hat th e arb itrat or wa s guil ty o f misco nduc t by ignor ing rel evan t evi dence la cked m eri t. M ore sp ecif icall y, t he Co urt conclud ed tha t BDO di d no t ignor e any re le vant e vide nce. Rathe r, i t dec ide d tha t evide nce c oncer nin g an inv ent ory wr ite - d own c oul d not be consi dere d, absen t con sent of the part ies, becau se th at is sue wa s no t ide ntif ied i n the orig inal d ocum en ts gover ning the scop e of the a rbit ration. The re was n o mi scon duct, eve n if B DO’ s de cisi on on that iss ue wa s incorr ect. 62 The Court rejected Viacom’ s cont ention th at BDO’s decision to exclude the inve ntor y writ e - dow n was o ne of s ubst anti ve arb itra bili ty, wh ich w ould be a 59 Section 10(a)(3) of the Fe deral Arbitration Act provides in relevant part that “the . . . court... may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration . . . where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy. . . .” 60 Viacom, 72 A.3d at 80. 61 Id. at 81. 62 Id.

20 “gate wa y question ” 63 to be dec ided by t he cour t. Inste ad, the Court ide ntif ied BDO’s de ci sion as “ an issu e of proce dur al arbi tra bilit y, pr ope rly dec ide d by t he arbitr at or.” 64 In rea chi ng thi s conc lus ion, we qu oted a ppro vi ngly t he C ourt o f Chanc ery’ s succ inc t ex plana tio n of th e dif feren ce be twee n su bstan tive arbi trabi lit y and pr oce dura l arbitrab ility: In det erm inin g whet her a cla im i s subj ect t o ar bitra tio n, the c our t m ust disti ngu ish be twee n iss ues of “s ubs tant ive ar bitr abili ty” and “proc edu ral ar bitr abi lity.” Is sues of s ubsta nti ve ar bitra bil ity ar e gatew ay qu esti ons re lati ng t o the sc ope of an ar bitr ation provis ion and its a pplic abi lity t o a gi ven d isp ute, a nd ar e pre sump tive ly de cide d by the co urt. Pr oced ura l arbitr abil ity i ssue s co ncern w hethe r the partie s have c omp lied with the te rms of a n ar bitra tio n pro visi on, an d are presu mpti vely hand led b y ar bi tra tors. Thes e iss ues i nclu de wh ether prere qui site s such as ti me limi ts, n otice, lac hes, est oppe l, a nd othe r cond ition s pre cede nt t o an o bliga tion to ar bitr ate h ave be en m et, a s wel l as alle ga tions of wai ver, del ay, or a li ke def ense to ar bitra bil ity. 65 Apply ing th is frame wor k, we conc lude d tha t “[i]f the subj ect matter to be arbitr ate d is the ca lcula tio n of an earn - out, . . . . all is sues a s to wha t fi nanc ial o r other i nfor mat ion s hould be cons ider ed in p erfor ming the ca lcul ati on are de cid ed b y the arb itra tor.” 66 In det erm ini ng wha t in forma tio n to c onsi der, “the arbi tra tor may . . . rely on the terms of the unde rlying agreem ent, and th e arbit rator’ s int erpreta tio n of the a greem ent is likel y to affec t the sc ope of the arbi tra tion. ” 67 We 63 Id. at 82 (quoting Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. Winshall, 2012 WL 3249620, at *12 (Del. Ch. Aug. 9, 2012)). 64 Id. at 83. 65 Id. at 82 (quoting Viacom Int’l, Inc., 2012 WL 3249620, at *12). 66 Id. at 83. 67 Id.

21 agree wi th the C our t of Cha ncer y — especial ly in light of Fortis ’s acknowle dgement in that court tha t the calcul ati on of the Earno ut Amo unt wa s to be ar bitr ated — that Viacom is a s uita ble analo g to the i ssue s pre sente d in this c ase. We t hus a pply Viacom to asse ss the arb itra bili ty of F ort is’s c laim s. As me ntio ned a bove, For tis’s bre ach of con trac t cla ims are gr oun ded i n thr ee prov ision s in t he me rger a gree ment. Firs t, For tis al lege d tha t Sti llfro nt fa ile d to calc ulate Kixe ye’s 2 019 A djust ed EB IT DA in acc orda nce w ith Sc hedul e 1.1 (a), mater iall y incre asi ng Kixe ye’ s expen ses so tha t no ear nou t paym ent woul d be owe d. Seco nd, For tis alle ge d tha t Stillfr ont act ed in bad fait h by manipu lating Kixeye’s gros s booki ngs and r edu cing its m arke ting e xpen ditur es. The se ploys, a ccording to Forti s, had t he effe ct of red ucin g the 201 9 Adj uste d EBI TDA and wer e mot iv at ed by St illfr ont’ s des ire to el imina te an y pos sibil ity of ow ing a n ear nout p ayme nt. B y Forti s’s li ght s, the c onduc t unde rl ying b oth of t hese breac h claim s vio late d § 2.14 (e)’ s operat ion al co vena nt to re fra in fr om “ tak[i ng] an y ac tion i n bad f aith to reduc e any Earnout A mount . . . .” 68 And di re con sequences would attend opera tion al c ovena nt br eac hes b y Sti llfro nt — a pr esum pti ve obl igat ion to pa y the maxim um Ear nou t Amo unt. Th ird, F ort is all eged t hat Sti llfr ont br eac hed t he mer ger ag reem ent — and, spe cific all y, §§ 2.12(g) and 2.1 4(a) — by fai ling to pr ovi de Forti s with i nfor mati on a nd acces s to pe rs onne l in re spon se to F or tis’ s legi tima te re ques ts. 68 App. to Opening Br. at A118.

22 We see the f irst a nd s econd of the se c laim s — the bad - faith breac h claims, w hic h we addre ss f irst — as sta ndin g on d iffer ent f oot ing tha n the thir d. i The subject matter of th e iss ue refe rred t o the Arbitra tor und er § 2.14 is th e calc ulat ion of the Ear nou t Amo unt. Gi ven the c larit y of § 2. 14’ s lang uage — “[t]he Arbi trator sha ll de ter mine t he a ctua l Ear nou t Am ount .. . , and such determ i natio n shal l be fi nal a nd bi ndi ng . .. ”— For tis co ncede d as much in th e Court of C hance ry. And unde r Viacom, as we not ed bef ore, “ if the s ubjec t ma tter t o be ar bitr ate d is t he calc ulat ion of an ear n - ou t, . .. all issue s a s to wh at fi nanc ial or ot her in for mati on shoul d be c onsi dere d in perfor mi ng the calc ulat ion ar e dec ide d by the arbi trator.” 69 Stil lfront’ s post - mer ge r cond uct un derly in g Forti s’s ba d - faith bre ach cl aims had a dir ect be ari ng on ho w the Ea rn out Am ount sh oul d be dete rmi ned. I ndeed, by way of it s bad - f ai th breac h cl aims, Forti s in ess enc e prof fers i ts exp lana tion a s to why S till f ront ’s Ear nout De term ina tion S ta temen t was f lawe d. We agree wi th the Court of C hance ry that treating the ba d - fa ith breac h cla ims as o utside the Arbi trator ’s purv iew ina ppr opr iate ly “s lice [s] t he q uest ion of ‘why’ the ca lc ulat ion of the earn out is wro ng out o f t he ar bitra ti on cla use. ” 70 69 Viacom, 72 A.3d at 83. 70 App. to Opening Br. at A385.

23 Agai nst th is s traig htf orwar d a naly sis, Fortis argu e s that the la ngua ge of the Earnout Calcul ation Prov ision de coupl es the ba d - fait h bre ach c laim from the calc ulat ion of the ac tual Ear nout A mou nt. 71 It does so, un der F orti s’s rea ding, because “ ‘ actual E arnout Am ount ’ is a term tied to Ki xey e’s act ual Adj uste d EBIT DA, n ot to any breac h of the Op era tiona l Cove nant s” und er § 2.14(e), whic h would tr igg er th e rebut tabl e ear nout pre su mpti on. 72 F or Fo rtis, the a rbitra tor was empowe red to cal culate th e actual ear nout a mo unt bu t wa s pre clude d fr om deter min ing th at, beca use of S til lfron t’s ba d - fa ith bre ache s, For tis wa s enti tled to th e pres umpti ve earnout amou nt, that i s, the $30 m illio n ma xim um ea rno ut pa yment. We ar e not s waye d by the fine di stincti on Forti s draw s between a calcul ation of the e ar nout amou nt li nked t o Ki xeye’ s Ad jus ted E BITD A and a de termi nati on that, becau se Sti llfro nt mani pul ated th e EB ITDA figure in ba d fa ith, it m ust pa y the presu mpti ve ea rno ut amou nt u nder § 2.14(g). In both c ase s, the Arbi tra tor is deter min ing th e ear nou t amo unt t o whic h F orti s is actually enti tled. The C our t of Chanc ery c orrec tly step ped a side so that th e arb itrat or c ould per f orm tha t ta sk. 71 Reply Br. at 11. 72 Id. (emphasis in original).

24 ii We conc lude likew is e that the Cour t of Cha ncer y prop erly d ismi ssed a nd refer red to ar bitr ati on Fort is’s br each claim un der the merge r agree men t’s inform at ion - ac cess prov isi ons. In its b enc h ruli ng, th e co urt saw th is cla im as prese ntin g “a n issue as to w hat inf orm ati on mu st be co nsi dere d in ma kin g the arbitr at or’s dec isi on” 73 and, a s such, an is sue of proce dur al ar bitr abil ity wit hin t he arbitr at or’s p urvie w. The inf orm ati on pro visio ns th emsel ves — §§ 2.1 2(g) and 2.1 4(a) — pr ovide a link be twe en For tis’ s co ntract ual r ight t o infor mat ion an d acce ss to p erso nnel, on the one han d, and the ea rnou t determ ina tion, on the ot her. As pr evio usly menti oned, under § 2. 12(g), F ort is secure d the righ t to pro vide the Selle r Re prese ntat ive wi th “reas ona ble acce ss to i nfor mati on abo ut the S urv iving C orpo rati on and t he reas onab le as sista nce of the of ficer s an d emp loyee s of P are nt a nd the Sur viv ing Corpor at ion for pur poses of per form ing th eir duties and ex ercising their r ights un der the [Merger] Agreeme nt and the Escrow Agreement.” 74 One of those rig hts wa s t o objec t to St illfr ont’ s Ea rnout Dete rmin atio n Sta teme nt and trig ger ar bitr at ion. Indee d, For tis’ s co mplai nt re cogni zes the re lati onsh ip bet ween § 2.12(g)’s inform at ion - ac cess p rovi sio ns and the Earno ut Det erm inat ion u nder § 2. 14, 73 Opening Br. Ex. A at 11–12. 74 App. to Opening Br. at A116.

25 chast isi ng Stil lfro nt for pre limi nar ily ta king the posit ion t hat the re wa s no suc h rela tions hip. 75 For tis als o gro unds it s info rmat ion - a cce ss clai m in th ree § 2. 1 4 earnou t pr ovisions them selves. 76 Forti s now ar gue s tha t its a bilit y to enf or ce its i nfor mati on an d pers onne l - access rights “was cr itical because that acces s was necessary before submit ting i ts Earno ut De term inat ion Notice, not a fter war d — when it wo uld be t oo la te.” 77 It would be too lat e, acc ordi ng to For tis, becau se any d ispute d earn out item not iden tifie d in its Ear nou t Deter min atio n Notic e wou ld be deem ed fin al and bi ndi ng under § 2. 14(b) a nd tha t, there fore, the arb itra tor woul d be una ble to con side r “sub seque ntl y discov ered is sue s, even if based on docum ents be la tedl y prod uced. ” 78 This a rgume nt, in ou r vie w, su bsta ntia te s the Co urt of Cha ncer y’s perc epti on tha t the c laim imp lica tes w hat i nform at ion th e ar bitra tor m ust c ons ider. A nd un der Viacom, “al l is sues a s to wh at f inan cial or othe r inf orma tio n sho uld be con sider ed i n perf ormin g the [ear nou t] ca lcul ation a re d eci ded b y the ar bitra tor.” 79 75 In Paragraph 83 of its Ve rified Complaint, Fortis alleged that “Stillfront incorrectly took th e position that Section 2.12(g) of the Merger Agreement does not apply in the context of an inquiry or dispute related to the Earnout Amount and refused to provide F ortis with access to information or personnel pursuant to that Provision.” Id. at A7 1 –72. 76 App. to Opening Br. at A117. 77 Opening Br. at 40 (emphasis in original). 78 Id. This is not to say that Fortis’s information rights related exclusively to § 2.14’s earnout provisions. But Fortis has not c ontended that the i nformation and personnel access it was de nied was relevant to any dispute other than the earnout dispute. 79 Viacom, 72 A.2d at 83.

26 In the e ve nt, For tis inv oke d its in for mati on ri ghts i n th e ar bitra tion, and t he arbitr at or gra nted For tis’ s exp ansi ve re quest for pro ducti on. 80 Acc ordi ng to a n affi davi t fil ed i n the summar y - ju dgme nt pr ocee din gs in the Court of Chanc ery, Still fron t produc ed o ver 10, 000 pag es of docum en ts in resp onse to the ar bitr ator ’s order. An d to th e be st of t his C ourt’ s kno wle dge, Forti s has not c laim ed t hat i ts righ ts in arbitr ati on wer e prej udice d by an inade qua te prod ucti on. Taki ng all th is into a ccoun t, we con clu de tha t the Cour t of Cha ncer y did no t err in its dec isi on to compe l arbit rati on of For tis’s information - rights claim. D Final ly, w e turn t o Forti s’s c laim th at the Cour t of Cha nce ry erre d by concl udi ng tha t B DO’s fail ure t o di sclo se it s rela tion shi p’s with D LA did no t warrant vacat ur of BDO’s de term inat ion. We have recogn i zed that “an arb itrat or’s fai lure t o di sclo se a s ubst antia l rela tions hip with a par ty or a pa rty’ s a ttorne y ju stif ies v aca tur unde r an ‘ ev iden t partia lit y’ sta ndar d.” 81 “[T] o demo nstra te evi den t partia lit y suf ficie nt to r equir e vaca tur, ho weve r, th e rec ord mu st ref lec t that a n arb itra tor f ailed t o disc lose a substa ntial pe rsona l or fi nanc ia l relat ion ship w ith a par ty, a pa rty’ s age nt, or a party’ s a ttor ney that a reas ona ble per son woul d conc lud e wa s po werf ully s ugg esti ve 80 App. to Opening Br. at A97–99. 81 Del. Transit Corp., 34 A.3d at 1070.

27 of bia s.” 82 “The part y see kin g the d isqua lif icat ion o f an ar bitr ator bear s the b urde n of esta bli shin g the basi s for re cusa l.” 83 “[T]he mov ing pa rty must i dentif y a n undisc lose d r elat ion ship betwe en the a rbit rator and a par ty or the par ty’s a gen t tha t is ‘so i ntima te — pe rs onal ly, soc iall y, pro fess ion ally[, ] or f inan ciall y — as to cast serio us do ubt on [the arb itra tor’ s] im partia lit y.” 84 Additiona lly, the a llege d per sona l confl ict “ mu st be dire ct, defin ite, an d cap able of de mo nstra tion r at her t han r emo te, uncer tai n[,] or spe cula tive. ” 85 Forti s’s c laim of evid ent part iali ty is ba sed on BDO’ s undi sclo sed in tera ctio ns with DLA. On a ppea l, F ortis poin ts to (i) the ef for ts of Stil lfron t’s f orme r le ad coun sel s hort ly afte r BD O was en gage d in t his ma tter re gar din g a separ at e engag eme nt wi th BD O that never r eac h ed fr uition and (ii) D LA’s disc los ure in a feder al ba nkru ptc y pro cee din g it r epres ente d oth er B DO e ntit ies in unr ela ted proce edings. Citi ng Bee be Medi cal C enter, Inc. v. Ins ight He alt h Serv ice s, Cor p., Fortis argue s tha t BDO’ s failur e to di sclo se these rel ations hips with DLA Piper r equi res vaca tur or, at a min imum, disc overy. 86 A com bina tio n of fact ors undermines Forti s’s a rgume nt. In the fir st plac e, Beebe is di sting uis hable. The re, t he Cour t of 82 Id. at 1072 (emphas is ad ded). 83 Id. at 1073. 84 Id. (quoting Health Servs. Mgmt. Corp. v. Hughes, 975 F.2d 1253, 1264 (7th Cir. 1992)). 85 Id. 86 Opening Br. at 45; Reply Br. at 25.

28 Chanc ery f ound gr oun ds for va cat ur becau se the arbitrat or wa s simu ltane ous ly repre sent ed in a pe ndi ng ma tter b efor e the S uper ior C ourt by the sa me a ttor ney repre sent ing t he def enda nt in th e arb itrati on. 87 In fact, the a rbitr ator wa s s o financ ia lly in veste d in an d atte nti ve to the ot her li tiga tio n that he so ught r emova l of defe ndan t’s co unse l in t hat c ase. 88 No such re lati onshi p was pre sent her e. For co nte xt, the C our t of Cha ncer y note d that “ both B DO, DL A Piper, an d Forti s are reg ular pa rt icipa nts in these ty pes of ca ses and th at B DO and D LA Piper are large - sca le e ntit ies w ith a w ell - known gl obal re ach. ” 89 The cour t desc ri bed t he partie s as “ repea t pla yer s that live an d brea the w ithin t his tr ansa ct ional e cos ystem. ” 90 But more to the poi nt, Fortis pr odu ced in suf ficie nt e vide nce to al lege a rela tions hip that i s direc t, de fini te, and in timat e en ough a s to cast seri ous dou bt on Arbi trator Katz’ s impar tia lity. First, For tis’ s relia nc e upo n ema ils b etwe en D LA an d BD O, i n whic h DL A seeks to enga ge BDO i n a who lly u nrela ted m atter, is mi spla ced. 91 Specifica lly, these twe lve emails, sent shortl y afte r BD O’s en gage ment in th is matt er, c onstitu t e an arm ’s- length tr an sact ion be twee n two ma rket pr ofe ssion als. 92 It is true tha t Katz 87 Beebe Med. Ctr., Inc. v. InSight Health Servs. Corp., 751 A.2d 426, 427, 429, 438 (D el. Ch. 1999). 88 Id. at 432. 89 Opening Br. Ex. C at 21. 90 Id. 91 See Opening Br. at 44–45. 92 App. to Opening Br. at A734–42.

29 was co pie d on these e mai ls. 93 But, t hey are no t, to our minds, powe rfully suggestive of bia s. In fac t, the y appear to und erm ine For tis’ s a rgu ment, hi ghlighti ng BDO’s awar enes s of bias c onc erns a nd atte mp ts to ma inta in neu tra lity. 94 Even so, this prop osed e ngag eme nt ne ver m ater ializ ed. F urther still, Fortis and S tillf ron t are sophi stica te d actor s; w e pre sume they i nt elli gent ly an d know ingl y enga ge d BDO, whose engage me nt lett er specif ica lly re serve d its r ight to e nga ge either party in future matter s. 95 Forti s next p oin ts to DL A’s d iscl osure i n a f edera l bank rupt cy pr ocee din g that “BDO LLP, ” of whic h BD O USA is a n af filia te, was a “[c ]urr ent c lie nt a nd aff ilia te of cur rent a nd for mer clien ts on ma tte rs unr elate d to [the b ankru ptc y].” 96 Th is rela tions hip, in o ur vie w, is to o atte nua ted t o equat e it with the obv ious a nd substa ntia l im part iali ty se en in Be ebe. At mo st, this di sclo sure su gges ts that, d uring the rele vant per iod, DLA re pre sente d an a ffilia te of BDO, not B DO itse lf. M ore 93 See id. 94 See id. at A737 (“ I or Jeff (likely me as I do not have any previous relationship with t he parties or counsel) would work closely with Michelle as quality partner, consistent with our practice for concurring review on projec ts.”); see also id. at A740. Fortis dra ws attentio n to the f act that, according to another BDO professional, Mr. Kat z appears to have had a “previous relationship with the parties or counsel” — referring to DLA. Opening Br. at 44 – 45 (quoting App. to Opening Br. at A736 –37). We see little signif icance in this a llegation, how ever. These em ails are dat ed after BDO engaged with For tis and Stillfront in this matter. Without more, we see this comme nt as nothing more than reference to the present dispute. 95 App. to Opening Br. at A 429 (“[O]ur engagement by the Parties will in no way preclude us f rom being engaged by any other party in the f uture.”); see also id. (“BDO is not responsible for continuously monitoring other potential conflicts t hat could arise during the course o f the engagemen t.”). 96 Opening Br. at 44 (quoting App. to Opening Br. at A679).

30 impor tant ly, Forti s fails t o sh ow how, or eve n if, this al lege d represen tati on ex tend ed to Katz, or if Ka tz w as eve n awa re of it. Forti s addit ion ally argue s that t he Court of Chanc ery im pro perl y faile d to give weig ht to a n u nre butte d affi davi t fr om t hei r exper t, disc ussi ng th e “ ethic al stan dar ds and U.S. aud iting s tandards ” set by the AIC PA. 97 Specif ica lly, F ort is co nten ds tha t the Cour t of Ch anc ery im prop erl y reje cted i ts co nten tion th at “a vi olat ion of profe ssio nal a ccou nting s tan dar ds was e quiva len t to a vi olat ion of an arbitr al b ody’ s disc losur e rule s.” 98 As to th is poin t, it is wor th not ing t hat BDO’s eng age ment le tte r specif ica lly pro vide s that “Katz shal l not be re quire d to fo llow the pr actic es a nd proce dur es tha t wo uld be re qui red f or an a udit in ac cord ance with ge ner ally a cce pte d audi ting s tand ard s and n o aud it re por t, op inion or cer tif icat ion sha ll be iss ued. ” 99 Forti s and t he C ourt of Cha ncer y prop erl y ack nowle dge d bel ow tha t the Supre me Court of the Unite d S tates has co nsi dere d viola tio n s of the Americ an Arbi trati on Assoc iation rule s “hig hly s ignifi ca nt” to a vacat ur ana lysis. 100 Sig nifica ntly, howe ver, Fortis provide s no aut hori ty sup port ing i ts pr oposi tio n that profe ssio na l 97 Id. at 46. 98 Id. Below, Fortis argue d specifically that “ [m]ultiple viola tions of p rofessiona l standards governing an accounting firm’s objectivity and i mpartiality should be given even greater weight [than a violation of the AAA administra tive arb itrator disclosur e rules], particular ly given the clo se alignment between those standards and the F AA’s evident partiality standard.” App. to Opening Br. at A1282. 99 App. to Opening Br. at A425. 100 Id. at A1282 (citing Commonwealth Coati ngs Corp. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 393 U.S. 145, 14 9 (1968)); see also Op ening Br. Ex. C. at 20–21.

31 acco untin g sta ndard s sh ould r ece ive the same, let a lone m ore e xpa nsiv e, treatme nt. The Co urt of Chancer y “decline[d] to create suc h a rule.” 101 We to o decline to do so. III For the rea sons set for th a bove, we aff ir m the C ourt of Cha nce ry’s J uly 8, 2022 Or der Gra nting Defe ndan t’s Mo tio n to C ompel Arbi tra tion a nd to D ismi ss Plain tiff ’s Ver ifie d Com plai nt and its Ma rch 2 8, 202 5 Ord er Gr anti ng Defe nda nt’ s Moti on to Conf irm A rbitr a tio n Awar d. 101 Opening Br. Ex. C. at 21.