Background
This appeal arose from a Court of Chancery action (C.A. No. 2022-0175) in which Leo Investments Hong Kong Limited was the plaintiff and Tomales Bay Capital Anduril III, L.P., Tomales Bay Capital Anduril III GP, LLC, and their managing member Iqbaljit Kahlon were defendants. During the litigation, the defendants sought to maintain confidential treatment over certain court records and filings. ProPublica, Inc., the investigative news organization, appeared as an objector below, opposing the defendants’ efforts to shield the materials from public access.
The Court of Chancery denied the defendants’ motions for continued confidential treatment in an order dated January 28, 2026, and subsequently denied reargument on March 18, 2026. The defendants appealed both rulings to the Delaware Supreme Court, arguing that the Chancery court erred in ordering the records disclosed.
The Court’s Holding
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery in a brief order, finding it evident that the lower court’s judgment was correct on the basis of and for the reasons stated in the January 28, 2026 Order Addressing Motions for Continued Confidential Treatment and the March 18, 2026 Order Denying Motion for Reargument. The Supreme Court did not issue a full written opinion, indicating the appeal presented no substantial question warranting extended analysis.
The Court ordered the mandate to issue forthwith under Supreme Court Rule 18, expediting finality of the ruling. The effect is that the Court of Chancery’s directive — requiring public access to the previously sealed materials — stands.
Key Takeaways
- The Delaware Supreme Court summarily affirmed the Court of Chancery’s refusal to maintain confidential treatment of court records in private litigation, underscoring the strong presumption of public access to judicial proceedings in Delaware.
- ProPublica’s standing as an objector was implicitly upheld, confirming that press organizations can intervene in Delaware Chancery proceedings to oppose sealing orders.
- Defendants seeking to shield business or financial information filed in Chancery litigation face a high bar; conclusory or insufficient justifications will not overcome the presumption of openness.
Why It Matters
This summary affirmance reinforces Delaware’s commitment to public access to court records even in complex, high-stakes business litigation involving private investment funds. For practitioners in the Court of Chancery, the ruling is a reminder that motions for confidential treatment must be supported by particularized showings of harm — and that the press retains a meaningful role in challenging sealing requests.
The involvement of ProPublica signals continued scrutiny of efforts by sophisticated financial actors to conduct litigation under seal. Attorneys advising funds and investment vehicles on Delaware disputes should carefully evaluate at the outset whether confidentiality designations can withstand objection, given the courts’ demonstrated willingness to deny and reverse such protections.