EFiled: May 07 2015 03:40PM EDT
Transaction ID 57203332
Case No. 7668-VCN
COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
JOHN W. NOBLE 417 SOUTH STATE STREET
VICE CHANCELLOR DOVER, DELAWARE 19901
TELEPHONE: (302) 739-4397
FACSIMILE: (302) 739-6179
May 7, 2015
Stephen P. Lamb, Esquire Kevin G. Abrams, Esquire
Meghan M. Dougherty, Esquire J. Peter Shindel, Jr., Esquire
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Abrams & Bayliss LLP
& Garrison LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19801
Wilmington, DE 19801
Joel Friedlander, Esquire
Benjamin P. Chapple, Esquire
Friedlander & Gorris, P.A.
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1400
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: The Renco Group, Inc. v. MacAndrews AMG Holdings LLC
C.A. No. 7668-VCN
Date Submitted: May 1, 2015
Dear Counsel:
Plaintiff The Renco Group, Inc. (“Renco”) has moved for reconsideration of
the Court’s Letter Opinion1 which denied Renco’s application for certification of
1
Renco Gp., Inc. v. MacAndrews AMG Hldgs. LLC, 2015 WL 1830476 (Del. Ch.
Apr. 20, 2015) (the “Letter Opinion”).
The Renco Group, Inc. v. MacAndrews AMG Holdings LLC
C.A. No. 7668-VCN
May 7, 2015
Page 2
interlocutory appeal from the Court’s Order and Memorandum Opinion2 granting
in part the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.3
The debate focuses on certain fiduciary duty claims and aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty claims that the Court dismissed. In denying Renco’s
application for certification of an interlocutory appeal, the Court arguably
overstated the similarities between the Opinion and an earlier decision regarding
comparable claims of the Nominal Defendant here.4 Regardless of the Court’s
view of the relationship between the two actions, other grounds for rejection of the
interlocutory appeal were set forth, such as that an interlocutory appeal is
extraordinary and that an interlocutory appeal would not resolve the litigation.
A motion for reargument under Court of Chancery Rule 59(f) requires the
moving party to “demonstrate either that the Court overlooked a controlling
2
Renco Gp., Inc. v. MacAndrews AMG Hldgs. LLC, 2015 WL 394011 (Del. Ch.
Jan. 29, 2015) (the “Opinion”).
3
The Supreme Court has rejected Renco’s interlocutory appeal effort. Renco Gp.,
Inc. v. MacAndrews AMG Hldgs. LLC, 2015 WL 2019387 (Del. Apr. 30, 2015).
Perhaps that was the end of any interlocutory appeal of the Opinion and its
implementing order, but the Court will, nonetheless, address Renco’s motion.
4
AM General Hldgs. LLC v. Renco Gp., Inc., 2013 WL 5863010 (Del. Ch. Oct. 31,
2013).
The Renco Group, Inc. v. MacAndrews AMG Holdings LLC
C.A. No. 7668-VCN
May 7, 2015
Page 3
decision or principle of law that would have a controlling effect, or the Court
misapprehended the facts or the law such that the outcome of the decision would
be different.”5 Thus, even if the Court misapprehended the similarities between the
legal theories advanced by the parties in the two actions, the outcome would not
have been different and, therefore, Renco’s motion for reconsideration of the Letter
Opinion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/ John W. Noble
JWN/cap
cc: Thad J. Bracegirdle, Esquire
Register in Chancery-K
5
Carlyle Inv. Mgmt., LLC v. Moonmouth Co., S.A., 2014 WL 4104702, at *2 (Del.
Ch. Aug. 21, 2014).