In Forsythe v. ESC Fund Management Co., No. 1091 (Del. Ch. Feb. 6, 2013), the Delaware Chancery Court refused to allow objectors to the settlement of a derivative suit to take over the litigation by guaranteeing the amount of the settlement and then taking a chance at obtaining a greater recovery at trial. The court found that although the objectors’ “Competing Proposal is superior to the Settlement in the important sense that it offers the [nominal defendant] Fund the potential for a greater recovery, the objectors have not carried their burden of demonstrating that the terms on which they would proceed are reasonable from the standpoint of the Fund.” The court stressed that there were conflicting interests among the objectors, their counsel, and the Fund regarding the “reasonableness of the splits” of any additional recovery: “It is clear that if the Competing Proposal were approved, it would contemplate a percentage recovery for the Fund, net of litigation freight, ranking among the lowest net recoveries ever approved by this Court.”