Case Title: Bank of America v. Steel Partners, et al. Archstone Partners, et al. v. Warren Lichtenstein

Citation: 

Docket Number: 378, 3009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-07-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as 
Master Trustee of ACF MASTER 
TRUST,  
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
v. 
STEEL PARTNERS II 
(OFFSHORE) LTD., et al., 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 378, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below-Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  C.A. No. 4284  
§   
§ 
§ 
_____________________________________________________________ 
ARCHSTONE PARTNERS, L.P. et 
al.,  
Plaintiffs Below- 
Appellants, 
v. 
WARREN LICHTENSTEIN, et al., 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 378, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below-Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  C.A. No. 4465  
§   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 13, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 14, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 14th day of July 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiffs-appellants, Archstone Partners, L.P. et al. 
(“Archstone”), have petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
42, to appeal from the Court of Chancery’s interlocutory ruling on June 19, 
2009 denying their motion for a preliminary injunction.   
 
2 
 
(2) 
On July 10, 2009, the Court of Chancery refused to certify an 
interlocutory appeal to this Court pursuant to Rule 42 on the ground that 
Archstone had failed to demonstrate that its June 19, 2009 order determined 
a substantial issue, established a legal right, or met any of the criteria set 
forth in Rule 42(b) (i)-(v).  The Court of Chancery also denied Archstone’s 
motion for an injunction pending appeal. 
 
(3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional 
circumstances.1  We have examined the Court of Chancery’s June 19, 2009 
decision according to the criteria set forth in Rule 42.  In the exercise of its 
discretion, this Court has concluded that such exceptional circumstances as 
would merit interlocutory review of the Court of Chancery’s decision do not 
exist in this case. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED.2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b). 
2 Archstone’s motions for injunction pending appeal and to shorten defendants’ time to 
respond to plaintiffs’ motion for injunction pending appeal are, accordingly, hereby 
denied.