Case Title: Palmer et al. v. Berger et al. and Ugly Duckling Corporation et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 259, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-08-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
  
THOMAS C. PALMER and 
PHILLIP GOLDSTEIN, 
 
Objectors Below- 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
PAUL BERGER, BRYAN 
BENTON, THOMAS TURBERG, 
JOE BRECHER, DARREN 
SUPRINA and DON HANKEY 
LIVING TRUST (DON R. 
HANKEY, TRUSTEE), 
 
Plaintiffs Below- 
Appellees, 
 
and 
 
UGLY DUCKLING 
CORPORATION, ERNEST C. 
GARCIA, II, VERDE 
INVESTMENTS, INC., GREGORY 
B. SULLIVAN, JOHN N. 
MacDONOUGH, CHRISTOPHER 
D. JENNINGS, and FRANK P. 
WILLEY,  
 
         Defendants Below- 
         Appellees. 
 
§ 
§ 
§  
§ 
§ 
§  
§  
§  
§   No. 259, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below-Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County  
§  C.A. No. 18746 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 29, 2002 
  Decided:   August 14, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 14th day of August 2002, the Court has considered the motion to 
affirm of defendants-appellees Garcia, Sullivan and Verde Investments, the 
motion to affirm of plaintiffs-appellees Berger, Benton, Turberg, Brecher, 
Suprina and Don Hankey Living Trust, and the motion to affirm of defendant-
appellee Ugly Duckling Corporation pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a) and 
finds it manifest on the face of the opening brief of objector-appellant Goldstein 
that the appeal is without merit for the reasons stated by the Court of Chancery 
in its well-reasoned decisions dated April 18, 2002.1 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motions to affirm are 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Court of Chancery is AFFIRMED.2 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ E. Norman Veasey 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
1The Court of Chancery issued two decisions, one approving the parties’ settlement of 
the class and derivative claims and one approving the application for attorney’s fees and 
expenses. 
2We do not reach the merits of the motion to dismiss filed by defendants-appellees 
MacDonough, Jennings and Willey, and in which other parties have joined.