Bank of America v. Steel Partners, et al. Archstone Partners, et al. v. Warren Lichtenstein
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as § § No. 378, 2009 Master Trustee of ACF MASTER TRUST, § Plaintiff Below§ § Court Below-Court of Chancery Appellant, v. § of the State of Delaware § C.A. No. 4284 STEEL PARTNERS II § (OFFSHORE) LTD., et al., § Defendants Below§ Appellees. _____________________________________________________________ ARCHSTONE PARTNERS, L.P. et § § No. 378, 2009 al., § Plaintiffs Below§ Appellants, § Court Below-Court of Chancery v. WARREN LICHTENSTEIN, et al., § of the State of Delaware § C.A. No. 4465 Defendants Below§ Appellees. Submitted: July 13, 2009 Decided: July 14, 2009 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices ORDER This 14th day of July 2009, it appears to the Court that: (1) The plaintiffs-appellants, Archstone Partners, L.P. et al. ( Archstone ), have petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to appeal from the Court of Chancery s interlocutory ruling on June 19, 2009 denying their motion for a preliminary injunction. (2) On July 10, 2009, the Court of Chancery refused to certify an interlocutory appeal to this Court pursuant to Rule 42 on the ground that Archstone had failed to demonstrate that its June 19, 2009 order determined a substantial issue, established a legal right, or met any of the criteria set forth in Rule 42(b) (i)-(v). The Court of Chancery also denied Archstone s motion for an injunction pending appeal. (3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional circumstances.1 We have examined the Court of Chancery s June 19, 2009 decision according to the criteria set forth in Rule 42. In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded that such exceptional circumstances as would merit interlocutory review of the Court of Chancery s decision do not exist in this case. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.2 BY THE COURT: /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely Justice 1 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b). Archstone s motions for injunction pending appeal and to shorten defendants time to respond to plaintiffs motion for injunction pending appeal are, accordingly, hereby denied. 2 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.
