Case Title: Argo Global v. Watchmark Corp.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 494, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-11-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ARGO GLOBAL CAPITAL, LLC, 
GSM CAPITAL LIMITED 
PARTNERSHIP, and ARGC II, LLC, 
 
Defendants/Counterclaim and 
Third Party Claim 
Plaintiffs Below- 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
WATCHMARK CORP., a Delaware 
corporation, 
 
Plaintiff/Counterclaim  
Defendant Below- 
Appellee, 
 
and 
 
WATCHMARK ACQUISITION 
CORP., a Delaware corporation, JOHN 
HANSEN, GERALD POCH, RALPH 
FAISON, and T. MARK MAYBELL, 
 
Third Party Claim Defendants 
Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§ 
§  No.  494, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Court of Chancery
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 711-N 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: November 16, 2004 
  Decided: November 23, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-2-
 
O R D E R 
 
This 23rd day of November 2004, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendants below, ARGO Global Capital, LLC, GSM Capital 
Ltd. Partnership, and ARGC II, LLC (collectively, “ARGO”), have petitioned 
this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to appeal from an interlocutory 
ruling of the Court of Chancery dated November 4, 2004.  The Court of 
Chancery’s ruling refused ARGO’s petition to enjoin plaintiff WatchMark’s 
merger with Watchmark Acquisition Corp. (WAC) and also granted summary 
judgment against ARGO on four of its five counterclaims.   
(2) 
On November 15, 2004, the Court of Chancery denied ARGO’s 
petition to certify an interlocutory appeal to this Court. 
(3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of this Court and are granted only in extraordinary cases. 
(4) 
In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded that the 
application for interlocutory review does not meet the requirements of Supreme 
Court Rule 42(b) and should be refused. 
 
 
 
 
-3-
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within 
interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
   /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely                           
Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-4-
oc: 
Clerk (+3) 
xc: 
Hon. William Chandler 
 
Kurt M. Heyman, Esq. 
 
Peter B. Ladig, Esq. 
 
Patricia L. Enerio, Esq. 
 
Justices (8) 
 
D. Collins 
 
P. Naylor 
 
Law Clerk 
 
File/Notebook