Title: Nguyen v. Barrett, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 550, 2015
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 9, 2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
AN NGUYEN, Individually and On 
§ 
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, §  No. 550, 2015  
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
§  Court Below—Court of Chancery of the 
 
Appellant, 
§  State of Delaware 
 
§ 
 
v. 
§  C.A. No. 11511-VCG 
 
§ 
MICHAEL G. BARRETT, THOMAS § 
R. EVANS, ROBERT P. GOODMAN, § 
 
PATRICK KERINS, ROSS B. 
§ 
LEVINSOHN, WENDA HARRIS 
§ 
MILLARD, JAMES A. THOLEN, 
§ 
AOL INC., and MARS  
§ 
ACQUISITION SUB, INC., 
§ 
 
§ 
 
Defendants Below, 
§ 
 
Appellees. 
§ 
  
Submitted: October 8, 2015  
Decided: 
October 9, 2015 
 
Before HOLLAND, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 9th day of October 2015, having considered the notice of emergency 
appeal from interlocutory order, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-below/appellant, An Nguyen (“Nguyen”), has petitioned 
this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an appeal from the Court of 
Chancery’s October 8, 2015 bench ruling denying her request for preliminary 
injunctive relief to require supplemental disclosures in a merger transaction set to 
2 
 
close on October 16, 2015.  By letter decision and order dated October 8, 2015, the 
Court of Chancery denied Nguyen’s application for certification. 
 
(2) 
Having considered the transcript of the October 8 oral argument on 
the motion for a preliminary injunction and the bench ruling denying preliminary 
injunctive relief, the Court agrees with the Court of Chancery’s letter decision and 
order denying the application for certification.  The Court concludes that 
interlocutory review of the October 8 bench ruling denying the motion for a 
preliminary injunction is not warranted under Rule 42(b)(iii)(A) - (H). 
 
(3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of the Court.  In the exercise of discretion, the Court has concluded that 
the application for interlocutory review should be refused. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
           Justice