The Renco Group, Inc. v. MacAndrews AMG Holdings LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 VICE CHANCELLOR 417 SOUTH STATE STREET DOVER, DELAWARE 19901 TELEPHONE: (302) 739-4397 FACSIMILE: (302) 739-6179 May 7, 2015 Stephen P. Lamb, Esquire Meghan M. Dougherty, Esquire Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Kevin G. Abrams, Esquire J. Peter Shindel, Jr., Esquire Abrams & Bayliss LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200 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).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
