Nguyen v. Barrett, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE AN NGUYEN, Individually and On § Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, § § Plaintiff Below, § Appellant, § § v. § § MICHAEL G. BARRETT, THOMAS § R. EVANS, ROBERT P. GOODMAN, § PATRICK KERINS, ROSS B. § LEVINSOHN, WENDA HARRIS § MILLARD, JAMES A. THOLEN, § AOL INC., and MARS § ACQUISITION SUB, INC., § § Defendants Below, § Appellees. § No. 550, 2015 Court Below—Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware C.A. No. 11511-VCG Submitted: October 8, 2015 Decided: October 9, 2015 Before HOLLAND, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. ORDER This 9th day of October 2015, having considered the notice of emergency appeal from interlocutory order, it appears to the Court that: (1) The plaintiff-below/appellant, An Nguyen (“Nguyen”), has petitioned this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an appeal from the Court of Chancery’s October 8, 2015 bench ruling denying her request for preliminary injunctive relief to require supplemental disclosures in a merger transaction set to close on October 16, 2015. By letter decision and order dated October 8, 2015, the Court of Chancery denied Nguyen’s application for certification. (2) Having considered the transcript of the October 8 oral argument on the motion for a preliminary injunction and the bench ruling denying preliminary injunctive relief, the Court agrees with the Court of Chancery’s letter decision and order denying the application for certification. The Court concludes that interlocutory review of the October 8 bench ruling denying the motion for a preliminary injunction is not warranted under Rule 42(b)(iii)(A) - (H). (3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of the Court. In the exercise of discretion, the Court has concluded that the application for interlocutory review should be refused. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is REFUSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 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.
