Title: Advanced Radio Telecom Corp. et al. v. CL Investments, L. P.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 29, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 8, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ADVANCED RADIO TELECOM 
CORP. and ART LICENSING 
CORP., 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
CL INVESTMENTS, L.P., 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 29, 2001 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 17843 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 21, 2002 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: July 8, 2002 
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 8th day of July 2002, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendants-appellants, Advanced Radio Telecom Corp. and 
ART Licensing Corp., filed this interlocutory appeal in January 2001.  After 
filing the opening brief on appeal, Advanced Radio Telecom Corp. filed a 
voluntary bankruptcy petition in April 2001, which stayed the continuation 
of this proceeding. 
(2) 
 On May 31, 2002, appellants’ counsel informed the Court that 
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware had 
confirmed a plan of reorganization for the appellants.  Counsel’s letter 
 
2
further states that this appeal “concerns the interpretation of the appellants’ 
contractual duties to issue, transfer or sell common stock under a common 
stock purchase warrant dated March 8, 1996.  Under the [bankruptcy plan of 
reorganization], any obligations of the appellants to transfer any equity 
interest under that warrant have been cancelled, discharging the alleged 
contractual obligation and rendering the issues on this appeal moot.” 
(3) 
The appellants request the Court to dismiss the appeal as moot, 
vacate the Court of Chancery’s decision, and remand the case to the Court of 
Chancery with directions to dismiss the case.  The appellee agrees that the 
appeal should be dismissed as moot but contends there is no basis to vacate 
the Court of Chancery’s decision. 
(4) 
We agree that there is no basis on this record to vacate the 
Court of Chancery’s December 15, 2000 decision.  The rule of vacatur exists 
“for the protection of a party whose desire for appellate review has been 
thwarted” and is usually invoked when there is companion litigation pending 
between the same parties “to eliminate what would otherwise be the 
procedural bar of res judicata.”1  The issues in this appeal have become 
moot as a result of the appellants’ own voluntary bankruptcy petition.  Thus, 
the appellants’ desire for appellate review has not been thwarted by 
                                                 
1 Stearn v. Koch, 628 A.2d 44, 46-47 (Del. 1993). 
 
3
circumstances “beyond their control.”2  Moreover, the appellants have cited 
no other circumstances that would compel us to vacate the Court of 
Chancery’s decision in the interests of justice.  If circumstances exist that 
warrant vacatur of the Court of Chancery’s decision, the appellants may seek 
such relief from the Court of Chancery in the first instance. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within appeal is 
hereby DISMISSED as moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   s/Joseph T. Walsh 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
2 Id. at 47.