In the annals of American corporate law, few cases have left as indelible a mark on the public imagination as the TransPerfect saga. What began as a bitter feud over the control of one of the world’s largest translation companies has now entered legal vernacular, with the term “going TransPerfect” gaining traction as a euphemism for courtroom theatrics, high-stakes drama, and strategic corporate maneuvering.
The saga traces back to the mid-2010s, when TransPerfect’s co-founders, Phil Shawe and Liz Elting, found themselves locked in a heated power struggle. The narrative was that they were unable to resolve their differences, and so the Delaware Court of Chancery took the unprecedented step of ordering the sale of the successful company, citing irreparable harm to its operations. The decision sparked widespread controversy, with Shawe alleging judicial overreach and launching a relentless campaign to challenge the ruling.
Over the years, the battle spilled far beyond the courtroom. Shawe’s public crusade against the Delaware judiciary was accompanied by scathing advertisements and lobbying efforts by an aligned organization made up of TransPerfect employees and local Delaware citizens, and the company’s eventual reincorporation in Nevada. The dispute turned into a multi-faceted drama that captivated legal professionals, corporate executives, and the general public alike.
“Going TransPerfect”: A New Legal Phenomenon
Fast forward to 2025, and the term “going TransPerfect” has become shorthand for a particular style of legal brinkmanship. The phrase was recently popularized in a University of Pennsylvania law professor’s commentary on Elon Musk’s ongoing legal battles. Musk, embroiled in a high-profile dispute over his $56 billion Tesla compensation plan, has publicly lambasted the Delaware Court of Chancery, accusing it of corruption and bias—echoing Shawe’s tactics from years prior.
Legal experts have embraced the term with a mix of humor and caution. “When someone says a case has ‘gone TransPerfect,’ you know you’re in for a spectacle,” said Dr. Jane Langford, a corporate law professor at Southern States University. “It’s about more than just legal arguments; it’s about turning the courtroom into a stage and the media into an amplifier.”
The Cultural Impact
The TransPerfect case has not only influenced legal strategies but also highlighted the evolving dynamics between corporations and the courts. As companies increasingly leverage public opinion and digital platforms, the courtroom has become just one battleground in a broader war for narrative control.
Social media campaigns, lobbying efforts, and high-profile PR stunts have become standard tools in the playbook of litigants aiming to “go TransPerfect.” The phrase has even inspired memes and commentary, with some depicting Shawe and Musk as modern-day gladiators, fighting not just for legal victories but for public vindication.
What It Means for Delaware’s Courts
For the Delaware Court of Chancery, the rise of “going TransPerfect” poses both challenges and opportunities. As the nation’s premier venue for corporate disputes, the court has long been viewed as a beacon of stability and expertise. However, high-profile cases like TransPerfect and Tesla have brought increased scrutiny and public debate.
“The court’s integrity hinges on its capacity to maintain focus amidst external pressures,” remarked Alex Warren, a well-regarded analyst in corporate governance. “Yet, as these cases illustrate, even the most venerable institutions can feel the weight of modern media and public scrutiny.”
A decade after the original ruling, TransPerfect remains a thriving enterprise, now headquartered in Nevada. Shawe’s relentless fight against the Delaware judiciary has solidified his reputation as a maverick, while the case itself continues to be a cautionary tale for corporate America.
“Going TransPerfect” may have started as a tongue-in-cheek reference, but it has evolved into a powerful symbol of the intersection between law, media, and corporate strategy. As the phrase enters the lexicon of legal professionals and commentators, it serves as a reminder that in today’s world, the court of public opinion can be just as influential as the court of law.
