Case Title: Roseton OL, LLC, et al. v. Dynegy Holdings, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 401, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-08-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROSETON OL, LLC and 
 
§ 
DANSKAMMER OL, LLC, 
§ 
No. 401, 2011      
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiffs-Below, 
§ 
 
Appellants, 
§ 
Court Below: Court of Chancery of  
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware 
              v. 
 
§ 
 
 
 
§ 
C. A. No. 6689 
DYNEGY HOLDINGS, INC., 
§ 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Defendant-Below, § 
 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 4, 2011 
 
 
Decided: 
August 5, 2011 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 5th day of August 2011, it appears to the Court that: 
 
1. 
The plaintiffs-below appellants, Roseton OL, LLC and Danskammer 
OL, LLC (collectively, “PSEG”), petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 42, to accept an interlocutory appeal from the Court of Chancery’s July 29, 
2011 Opinion denying PSEG’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 
(“TRO”).  While PSEG’s certification application was pending before the Court of 
Chancery, PSEG filed a Notice of Appeal in this Court, together with Motions for 
Expedited Review, for an Injunction Pending Appeal, and for Approval of a 
Supersedeas Bond.  By order dated August 4, 2011, the Court of Chancery denied 
2 
PSEG’s applications to certify an interlocutory appeal and for an injunction 
pending appeal.  Thereafter, PSEG filed a Supplemental Notice of Appeal from 
Interlocutory Order in this Court. 
 
2. 
This Court has considered PSEG’s application for Certification as well 
as their Motions for expedited review and for injunctive relief.  We have also 
considered the responses thereto submitted by Dynegy Holdings, Inc. (“DHI”), the 
defendant-below appellee, the 57-page opinion of the Court of Chancery dated July 
29, 2011 denying PSEG’s Motion for a TRO, and the Court of Chancery’s August 
4, 2011 Order denying PSEG’s application for certification. 
3. 
In the Court of Chancery, PSEG sought to enjoin DHI from 
consummating an internal corporate reorganization.  In that proposed 
reorganization transaction, several physical assets owned by existing DHI 
subsidiaries would be transferred to newly-created “bankruptcy remote” DHI 
subsidiaries.  In conjunction with that reorganization, DHI would also refinance its 
existing credit facilities by causing the newly-created DHI subsidiaries to raise an 
additional $1.7 billion of new secured financing.  PSEG claimed that that 
transaction would violate DHI’s contractual obligations to PSEG and the Delaware 
Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act.1 
                                          
 
1 12 Del. C. §§ 4301-4311. 
 
3 
 
4. 
In its well-written July 29, 2011 Opinion,2 the Court of Chancery 
determined that PSEG had failed to show both a probability of success on the 
merits of their breach of contract and fraudulent transfer claims, and the likelihood 
of imminent irreparable harm absent a grant of injunctive relief. 
 
5. 
On August 5, 2011, DHI notified this Court that the restructuring 
transaction that PSEG sought to enjoin had closed during the late afternoon of 
August 4, 2011.  DHI also informed this Court that as of 9:00 a.m. on August 5, 
2011, the only remaining step in the refinancing plan not yet completed was the 
formal funding of the loans thereunder.  At about 12:30 p.m. on August 5, 2011, 
shortly before the entry of this Order, DHI notified this Court that the latter aspect 
of the refinancing plan had been consummated. 
 
6. 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to this Court’s 
sound discretion.  This Court has conferred and considered the submissions of the 
parties.  In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded that PSEG’s 
Application for Certification of an Interlocutory Appeal should be refused for 
failure to satisfy the criteria of Supreme Court Rule 42, and that their motions to 
expedite and for injunctive relief should be denied for lack of jurisdiction and as 
moot. 
                                          
 
2 Roseton OL, LLC v. Dynegy Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 6689, Slip op. at 2 (Del. Ch. July 29, 
2011). 
 
4 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that PSEG’s 
Application to Certify an Interlocutory Appeal from the July 29, 2011 decision of 
the Court of Chancery is REFUSED, and PSEG’s Motions for Expedited Review, 
for Injunction Pending Appeal, and for Approval of a Supersedeas Bond are 
DENIED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
                  Justice