NEWS CORPORATION v. Unisuper Ltd.

906 A.2d 138, 2006 Del. LEXIS 85, 2006 WL 387998

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: January 27, 2006
• Docket: 635, 2005
• Status: Published

Opinion

HOLLAND, Justice.

This 27th day of January 2006, it appears to the Court that:

1) The defendants-appellants, News Corporation, K. Rupert Murdoch AC, Peter L. Barnes, Chase Carey, Peter Cher-nin, Kenneth E. Cowley AO, David F. Devoe, Viet Dinh, Roderick Eddington, Andrew S.B. Knight, Lachlan K. Murdoch, Thomas J. Perkins, Stanley S. Shuman, Arthur M. Siskind and John L. Thornton, have petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an appeal from an interlocutory order of the Court of Chancery dated December 20, 2005. The Court of Chancery’s order denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss Counts I and II of the Complaint.

2) The appellants contend that certification of this interlocutory appeal is appropriate because the Court of Chancery’s order determines a substantial issue and establishes a legal right. The appellants also contend that review of the interlocutory order will serve considerations of justice and judicial economy and may terminate the litigation. See Supr. Ct. R. 42.

3) On January 19, 2006, the Court of Chancery granted appellants’ request to certify its application to take an interlocutory appeal.

4) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court. Generally, this Court gives substantial deference to the trial judge’s recommendation. In the exercise of its discretion, however, this Court has concluded that the interests of justice are best served if these proceedings are not interrupted by an interlocutory appeal.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within interlocutory appeal be, and the same hereby is, REFUSED.