A Delaware court has ruled against MyCarrier, LLC, in its request for attorney fees and costs following an arbitration dispute with Project 44, LLC. The Court of Chancery found that neither party prevailed in the underlying arbitration, which significantly impacts how legal fees are handled in similar cases.

The court's decision, issued on November 12, 2026, came after MyCarrier renewed its motion for fees on September 4, 2026. The ruling is crucial for businesses engaged in arbitration, as it clarifies the interpretation of fee-shifting provisions in contracts.

Background

MyCarrier, LLC, and Project 44, LLC, entered into a dispute that led to arbitration regarding various issues related to their business dealings. MyCarrier initially sought attorney fees and costs on April 8, 2025, after the arbitration proceedings began. However, the court decided to stay the consideration of the fees until the arbitration concluded, emphasizing that the arbitrator would be best positioned to determine any fee awards.

The arbitration concluded on August 24, 2026, with a mixed outcome for both parties. The arbitration panel ruled that each party should bear its own fees and costs, denying both MyCarrier's and Project 44's requests for attorney fees. MyCarrier argued that it had prevailed on significant issues, claiming that the arbitration outcome was a strong rebuke of Project 44's case.

The Ruling

Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick issued the ruling, stating, "The arbitration panel already concluded that no party prevailed on the merits." The court emphasized that the fee-shifting provision MyCarrier relied upon was an all-or-nothing clause, meaning that a party must fully prevail to be entitled to fees. McCormick noted that MyCarrier's argument for being treated as a separate proceeding was previously rejected, as the proceedings were closely related.

The court highlighted that the lack of clear delineation between the arbitration and the litigation meant that the assessment of the prevailing party needed to consider the overall context of both proceedings. Since the arbitration panel found that no party prevailed, the court ruled that there was no basis to declare MyCarrier as the prevailing party in this case.

Impact

This ruling carries significant implications for businesses involved in arbitration. It reinforces the idea that fee-shifting provisions in contracts may require a party to achieve a clear victory to recover legal costs. The court's decision may deter parties from pursuing fee requests unless they can demonstrate unequivocal success in arbitration or litigation.

Furthermore, this case illustrates the importance of understanding the relationship between arbitration outcomes and subsequent legal actions. The ruling may encourage businesses to carefully consider how they structure contracts and the implications of fee-shifting clauses.

What's Next

MyCarrier's options for appeal are not detailed in the court filing. It remains to be seen if MyCarrier will pursue further legal action or if there are related cases pending that could influence future rulings on similar issues.