Title: Silverberg v. Bologna, et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

HERBERT SILVERBERG and
GENE NANNETTI, No. 241, 2011
Plaintiffs Below,
Appellants,

Court Below:
Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware

v

THOMAS A. BOLOGNA, EUGENE
I DAVIS, STEFAN LOREN,
NICOLE S. WILLIAMS, JAMES
M. HART, BRUCE D. DALZIEL,
ORCHID CELLMARK INC.,

OCM ACQUISITION CORP., and
LABORATORY CORPORATION
OF AMERICA HOLDINGS,

CA, No, 6373

Defendants Below,
Appellees.

‘Submitted: May 13,2011
Decided: May 16, 2011

Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER
This 16 day of May 2011, upon consideration of the notice of appeal from
an interlocutory order filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, it appears to the
Court that:
(1) On May 13, 2011, Herbert Silverberg and Gene Nannetti (Appellants)

filed a Notice of Appeal From Interlocutory Order and a Motion for Expedited
Certification of Interlocutory Appeal and Expedited Proceedings on Appeal. They
seek review of the Court of Chancery’s May 12, 2011 decision denying their
motion for a preliminary injunction.

(2) The transaction at issue is a tender offer, to be followed by a merger, by
which a wholly-owned subsidiary of Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings,
Inc. intends to acquire Orchard Cellmark Inc. for $2.80 per share. The tender offer
is scheduled to close on May 17, 2011.

(3) The Court of Chancery, in a thorough and detailed opinion, determined
that appellants had not demonstrated a reasonable probability of success on the
‘merits; the threat of imminent, irreparable harm; or that a balancing of the equities
favors the entry of an injunction.

(4) Applications for interlocutory appeals are addressed to the sound
discretion of the Court! The Court of Chancery, in its order granting leave to
appeal, stated that review of its decision “is of vital importance to serving
considerations of justice..."? Notwithstanding the trial court’s statement, this
Court concludes, in the exercise of its discretion, that this matter does not meet the
requirements and criteria for acceptance of an interlocutory appeal.’

*Appellants' Notice of Appeal, Ex. B.
'SuprCtR. 42(0).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory
appeal in REFUSED.

BY THE COURT:

4s.Carolyn Berger
Justice