Nguyen v. Barrett
Nguyen v. Barrett
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
AN NGUYEN, Individually and On § Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, § No. 550, 2015 § Plaintiff Below, § Court Below—Court of Chancery of the Appellant, § State of Delaware § v. § C.A. No. 11511-VCG § MICHAEL G. BARRETT, THOMAS § R. EVANS, ROBERT P. GOODMAN, § PATRICK KERINS, ROSS B. § LEVINSOHN, WENDA HARRIS § MILLARD, JAMES A. THOLEN, § AOL INC., and MARS § ACQUISITION SUB, INC., § § Defendants Below, § Appellees. §
Submitted: October 8, 2015 Decided: October 9, 2015
Before HOLLAND, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 9th day of October 2015, having considered the notice of emergency
appeal from interlocutory order, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The plaintiff-below/appellant, An Nguyen (“Nguyen”), has petitioned
this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an appeal from the Court of
Chancery’s October 8, 2015 bench ruling denying her request for preliminary
injunctive relief to require supplemental disclosures in a merger transaction set to close on October 16, 2015. By letter decision and order dated October 8, 2015, the
Court of Chancery denied Nguyen’s application for certification.
(2) Having considered the transcript of the October 8 oral argument on
the motion for a preliminary injunction and the bench ruling denying preliminary
injunctive relief, the Court agrees with the Court of Chancery’s letter decision and
order denying the application for certification. The Court concludes that
interlocutory review of the October 8 bench ruling denying the motion for a
preliminary injunction is not warranted under Rule 42(b)(iii)(A) - (H).
(3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound
discretion of the Court. In the exercise of discretion, the Court has concluded that
the application for interlocutory review should be refused.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory
appeal is REFUSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice
2
Reference
- Status
- Published