Joint Stock Company Commercial Bank PrivatBank v. Kolomoisky

• Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware
• Decided: December 29, 2020
• Docket: C.A. No. 2019-0377-JRS
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

417 S. State Street JOSEPH R. SLIGHTS III Dover, Delaware 19901 VICE CHANCELLOR Telephone: (302) 739-4397 Facsimile: (302) 739-6179

Date Submitted: December 2, 2020 Date Decided: December 29, 2020

John M. Seaman, Esquire David J. Margules, Esquire Michael A. Barlow, Esquire Elizabeth A. Sloan, Esquire Abrams & Bayliss LLP Ballard Spahr LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200 919 North Market Street, 11th Floor Wilmington, DE 19807 Wilmington, DE 19801

Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esquire Albert H. Manwaring, IV, Esquire Daniel Kaprow, Esquire Albert J. Carroll, Esquire Megan E. O’Connor, Esquire Morris James LLP Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Wilmington, DE 19801

Re: Joint Stock Company Commercial Bank PrivatBank v. Kolomoisky, et al. C.A. No. 2019-0377-JRS

Dear Counsel:

I have reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Reargument (D.I. 169) relating to the

Court’s decision, dated November 19, 2020, to grant Defendants’ Motion to

Bifurcate Briefing on Motions to Dismiss and Stay Jurisdictional Discovery

(D.I. 164, 167). After carefully reviewing the matter, I remained convinced that the

sequencing of briefing the pending motions, and the stay of jurisdictional discovery, Joint Stock Company Commercial Bank PrivatBank v. Kolomoisky, et al. C.A. No. 2019-0377-JRS December 29, 2020 Page 2

as laid out in the Court’s November 19th Order, is the most efficient and appropriate

means by which to address the motions, particularly given the likely scope of

jurisdictional discovery implicated by the Plaintiff’s proffered theory of personal

jurisdiction.

As I am not satisfied the Court has “overlooked a controlling decision or

principle of law that would have controlling effect, or [] has misapprehended the law

or the facts so that the outcome of the decision would be different,” I cannot conclude

that the Motion for Reargument has stated valid bases for relief.1 Accordingly, the

Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Joseph R. Slights III

1 Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Nat’l Installment Ins. Servs., 2008 WL 2133417, at *1 (Del. Ch. May 21, 2008) (stating the requisite grounds for granting reargument).