X hits on this document





36 / 90

Trenwick’s 1999 annual report, it also liberally refers to the “public records,”56 and the

“books” of Trenwick and Trenwick America.57

In this case, it was critical for me to review those documents simply to be able to

have any understanding of the Litigation Trust’s claims in the complaint. To state a

claim, a plaintiff ought to have to articulate a story that is comprehensible. Here, that

was not done. In order to ensure fairness to the Litigation Trust, as well as the

defendants, I reviewed the disclosures incorporated in the complaint so that I could

establish a coherent framework for the evaluation of the complaint.58 That review does

not involve the consideration of a competing version of events, but simply of context that

enabled me to understand the Litigation Trust’s assertions. To that point, it also is

evident that the Litigation Trust relied heavily on these referenced documents in crafting

the complaint, and has drawn its own, less than clear, recitation of the facts from them.

In the end, I do not draw any facts from them that contradict the facts pled in the

complaint, but the documents admittedly make the cursory nature of the complaint and its

failure to plead facts, rather than conclusory allegations, more patent.

III. Legal Analysis

With the factual background and procedural framework in mind, I now turn to an

evaluation of the viability of the complaint. That evaluation will proceed in this order.

56 57 58

, Comp. ¶ 90.


, 747 A.2d 1098, 1121 n.72 (Del. Ch. 1999) (“[I]t is well

settled that where certain facts are not specifically alleged (or in dispute) a Court may take

judicial notice of facts publicly available in filings with the SEC.”) (citations omitted).


Document info
Document views321
Page views321
Page last viewedSun Jan 22 20:38:53 UTC 2017