May 7, 2015
The Renco Group, Inc.
MacAndrews AMG Holdings LLC
Submitted: May 1, 2015
Stephen P. Lamb, Esquire Meghan M. Dougherty, Esquire Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Kevin G. Abrams, Esquire J. Peter Shindel, Jr., Esquire Abrams & Bayliss LLP
Joel Friedlander, Esquire Benjamin P. Chapple, Esquire Friedlander & Gorris, P.A.
Plaintiff The Renco Group, Inc. ("Renco") has moved for reconsideration of the Court's Letter Opinion which denied Renco's application for certification of interlocutory appeal from the Court's Order and Memorandum Opinion granting in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
The debate focuses on certain fiduciary duty claims and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims that the Court dismissed. In denying Renco's application for certification of an interlocutory appeal, the Court arguably overstated the similarities between the Opinion and an earlier decision regarding comparable claims of the Nominal Defendant here. Regardless of the Court's view of the relationship between the two actions, other grounds for rejection of the interlocutory appeal were set forth, such as that an interlocutory appeal is extraordinary and that an interlocutory appeal would not resolve the litigation.
A motion for reargument under Court of Chancery Rule 59(f) requires the moving party to "demonstrate either that the Court overlooked a controlling decision or principle of law that would have a controlling effect, or the Court misapprehended the facts or the law such that the outcome of the decision would be different." Thus, even if the Court misapprehended the similarities between the legal theories advanced by the parties in the two actions, the outcome would not have been different and, therefore, Renco's motion for reconsideration of the Letter Opinion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
JOHN W. NOBLE VICE CHANCELLOR