Case Title: The Renco Group, Inc. v. MacAndrews AMG Holdings LLC, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 158, 2015

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2015-04-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THE RENCO GROUP, INC.,  
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
MacANDREWS AMG HOLDINGS LLC, 
MacANDREWS & FORBES, INC., and 
RONALD O. PERELMAN, 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees, 
 
and  
 
AM GENERAL HOLDINGS LLC, 
 
Nominal Defendant Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 158, 2015 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below:  Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  C.A. No. 7668 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: April 27, 2015 
  Decided: April 30, 2015 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 30th day of April 2015, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, The Renco Group, Inc. (“Renco”), has 
petitioned this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an appeal from an 
interlocutory order of the Court of Chancery, dated March 18, 2015, which 
 
 
-2- 
implemented a memorandum opinion dated January 29, 2015.1  The memorandum 
opinion dismissed Renco’s fiduciary duty claims against defendant MacAndrews 
AMG Holdings LLC because they could not proceed in parallel with Renco’s 
breach of contract claims based on the complex contractual relationship 
documented by the limited liability company agreement of the nominal defendant 
AM General Holdings LLC.  The memorandum opinion also dismissed Renco’s 
fiduciary duty claims and corresponding aiding and abetting claims against 
defendants MacAndrews & Forbes, Inc. and Ronald O. Perelman. 
(2) 
Renco filed its application for certification to take an interlocutory 
appeal in the Court of Chancery on March 30, 2015.  The Court of Chancery 
denied the certification application on April 20, 2015, among other reasons, 
because interlocutory review would not resolve the litigation and because, in 
parallel litigation, Renco had prevailed on similar grounds for which it now seeks 
interlocutory review.  The Court of Chancery concluded that the parallel cases 
should be resolved applying a consistent set of principles. 
(3) 
We agree with the Court of Chancery’s reasoning.  Applications for 
interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court.  In the 
exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded, for the reasons set forth by the 
                                                 
1 See Renco Grp., Inc. v. MacAndrews AMG Holdings LLC, 2015 WL 394011 (Del. Ch. Jan. 29, 
2015). 
 
 
-3- 
Vice Chancellor, that the application for interlocutory review does not meet the 
requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42(b) and should be refused. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within 
interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.  Renco’s April 24 letter to the Court and the 
appellees’ motion to strike Renco’s letter are therefore moot. 
BY THE COURT:  
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
Chief Justice