Title: Fox, et al. v. Paine

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SAUL A. FOX, MERCURY 
ASSETS, LLC, and MERCURY 
TRUST, on behalf of themselves and 
derivatively on behalf of FOX 
PAINE & COMPANY, LLC,   
 
Plaintiffs-Counterclaim  
            Defendants Below,  
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
W. DEXTER PAINE, III,  
 
Defendant-Counterclaim 
Plaintiff Below,  
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 259, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below-Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  C.A. No. 3187 
§    
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§      
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 5, 2010 
 
 
 
 
 Decided: May 28, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 28th day of May 2010, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiffs-appellants, Saul A. Fox, Mercury Assets, LLC, 
and Mercury Trust, on behalf of themselves and derivatively on behalf of 
Fox Paine & Company, LLC (collectively, “Fox”), have petitioned this 
Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to appeal from the Court of 
Chancery’s interlocutory rulings on April 5, 2010 and April 9, 2010, which 
enjoined Fox and related entities from pursuing arbitrations filed in New 
 
2 
York and California and lawsuits filed in California pending the completion 
of discovery, briefing, argument and decision on two motions filed by Fox 
and defendant-appellee W. Dexter Paine, III (“Paine”) on December 24, 
2009 and March 29, 2010, respectively, in the underlying Court of Chancery 
litigation.1   
 
(2) 
On April 30, 2010, the Court of Chancery refused to certify an 
interlocutory appeal to this Court pursuant to Rule 42 on the grounds that a) 
the motion for certification failed to meet any of the criteria set forth in Rule 
42; and b) the motion for certification failed to meet any of the criteria set 
forth in Kirpat, Inc. v. Del. Alcoholic Bev. Control Comm’n, 741 A.2d 356, 
357 (Del. 1998).   
 
(3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional 
circumstances.2  We have examined the Court of Chancery’s interlocutory 
rulings on April 5, 2010 and April 9, 2010 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 
rulings of the Court of Chancery do not exist in this case. 
                                                 
1 Fox also has filed in this Court a petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition in 
connection with the Court of Chancery’s April 5 and April 9, 2010 orders in Supr. Ct. 
No. 260, 2010. 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b). 
 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele_ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice