Title: Hammons, et al. v. Jolly Roger Fund, LP, et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN RE:  JOHN Q. HAMMONS  
§ 
HOTELS, INC. SHAREHOLDER 
§ 
No. 642, 2009 
LITIGATION 
 
 
 
§ 
______________________________ § 
Court Below—Court of  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Chancery of Delaware in    
JOHN Q. HAMMONS, DONALD H. § 
C.A. No. 758 
DEMPSEY, JACQUELINE ANNE 
§ 
DOWDY, DANIEL L. EARLEY, 
§ 
WILLIAM J. HART, JOHN E.   
§ 
LOPEZ-ONA, JAMES F. MOORE, § 
DAVID C. SULLIVAN, JQH  
§ 
ACQUISITION LLC, JQH MERGER 
§ 
CORPORATION, and JOHN Q. 
§ 
HAMMONS HOTELS, INC.,  
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellants,  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
JOLLY ROGER FUND, LP, JOLLY § 
ROGER OFFSHORE FUND, LTD., § 
and LEMON BAY PARTNERS, 
§ 
individually and on behalf of all  
§ 
others similarly situated,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiffs Below,  
 
§ 
 
 
Appellees.  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 3, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
November 23, 2009 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
O R D E R 
 
This 23rd day of November 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
Defendant-appellant, John Q. Hammons (Hammons), and 
defendants-appellants, John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc., JQH Acquisition 
 
2
LLC, JQH Merger Corporation, John E. Lopez-Ona, Jacqueline Anne 
Dowdy, Daniel L. Earley, William J. Hart, Donald H. Dempsey, David C. 
Sullivan and James F. Moore (Other Defendants), have jointly petitioned 
this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42 (“Rule 42”), to appeal from 
the Court of Chancery’s memorandum opinion of October 2, 2009 and 
implementing order of October 16, 2009.    
 
(2) 
By order dated October 30, 2009, the Court of Chancery denied 
Hammons’ application for certification of an interlocutory appeal and 
request for a stay.  By order dated November 2, 2009, the Court of Chancery 
denied the Other Defendants’ application for certification of an interlocutory 
appeal.  As to both applications, the Court of Chancery ruled that the criteria 
of Rule 42 had not been met. 
 
(3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional 
circumstances.  We have examined the October 2, 2009 memorandum 
opinion according to the criteria set forth in Rule 42.  The Court has 
concluded that exceptional circumstances as would merit interlocutory 
review of the memorandum opinion do not exist in this case. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the joint 
interlocutory appeal is REFUSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice