|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
NEWS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, K. RUPERT MURDOCH AC, PETER L.
BARNES, CHASE
CAREY, PETER CHERNIN, 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,
Defendants Below,
Appellants,
v.
UNISUPER LTD., PUBLIC SECTOR
SUPERANNUATION SCHEME
BOARD, COMMONWEALTH
SUPERANNUATION SCHEME
BOARD, UNITED SUPER PTY
LTD., MOTOR TRADES
ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA
SUPERANNUATION FUND PTY
LTD., H.E.S.T. AUSTRALIA LTD.,
CARE SUPER PTY LTD.,
UNIVERSITIES
SUPERANNUATION SCHEME
LTD., BRITEL FUND NOMINEES
LIMITED, HERMES ASSURED
LIMITED, STICHTING
PENSIONENFONDS ABP, CONNECTICUT RETIREMENT PLANS AND TRUST FUNDS, and THE
CLINTON TOWNSHIP POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Plaintiffs Below,
Appellees.
Court Below Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
in and for New
Castle County C.A.
No. 1699-N
No. 635, 2005 
Submitted: January 23, 2006
Decided: January 27, 2006
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices.
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 Chernin, 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 Chancerys
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 Chancerys 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 judges 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.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice
|
