The Bander Family Partnership, L.P. v. Towerhill Wealth Management, et al.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE THE BANDER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, § L.P., § § Defendant Below, § Appellant, § § v. § § TOWERHILL WEALTH MANAGEMENT,§ LLC, f/k/a CAPITAL PRIVATE WEALTH § MANAGEMENT, LLC, TOWERHILL US § EQUITIES, LLC, f/k/a NEWPORT NET § PERFORMANCE LLC, TOWERHILL § LONG/SHORT EQUITY, f/k/a CAPITAL § PRIVATE WEALTH STOCK SELECTION § LLC and TOWERHILL INTERNATIONAL§ EQUITIES, LLC, f/k/a CPW § INTERNATIONAL EQUITIES, LLC, § § Plaintiffs Below, § Appellees. § No. 474, 2008 Court Blow Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 3830 Submitted: October 16, 2008 Decided: November 3, 2008 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 3rd day of November 2008, it appears to the Court that: (1) Defendant-appellant ( Defendant ) has petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42 ( Rule 42 ), to accept an appeal from the Court of Chancery s order dated September 8, 2008, which denied Defendant s motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs-appellees motion for preliminary injunction. On October 20, 2008, Defendant filed a motion seeking to stay the Court of Chancery s September 8 order. By order dated October 9, 2008, the Court of Chancery denied Defendant s application for certification of the interlocutory appeal and, alternatively, Defendant s motion for stay pending appeal. (2) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional circumstances. The Court has examined the Court of Chancery s September 8, 2008 order according to the criteria set forth in Rule 42. The Court concludes that exceptional circumstances as would merit interlocutory review of the order do not exist in this case. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is REFUSED. The motion to stay is MOOT. BY THE COURT: /s/. Myron T. Steele Chief Justice 2

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.