Musk v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System ( 2018 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ELON MUSK, BRAD W. BUSS, §
ROBYN M. DENHOLM, § No. 221, 2018
IRA EHRENPREIS, §
ANTONIO J. GRACIAS, § Court Below: Court of Chancery of
STEPHEN T. JURVETSON, and § the State of Delaware
KIMBAL MUSK, §
§ Consolidated C.A. No. 12711
Defendants Below, §
Appellants, §
§
and §
§
TESLA, INC., §
§
Nominal Defendant Below, §
Appellant, §
§
v. §
§
ARKANSAS TEACHER §
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, §
BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, §
ROOFERS LOCAL 149 PENSION §
FUND, §
OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS §
PENSION AND RETIREMENT §
SYSTEM, §
KBC ASSET MANAGEMENT NV, §
ERSTE-SPARINVEST §
KAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT §
M.B.H., §
STICHTING BLUE SKY ACTIVE §
LARGE CAP EQUITY FUND USA, §
and AARON ROCKE, §
§
Plaintiffs Below, §
Appellees. §
Submitted: April 27, 2018
Decided: May 3, 2018
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 3rd day of May 2018, upon consideration of defendant’s-appellant’s
appeal from interlocutory order, it appears to the Court that:
The defendants-appellants seek interlocutory review of the Court of
Chancery’s opinion of March 28, 2018, denying their motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs-appellees’ second amended verified class action and derivative complaint
under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6).1 The Court of Chancery refused the
application for certification in a detailed order dated April 27, 2018, explaining why
interlocutory review was not warranted under the principles and criteria of Supreme
Court Rule 42(b). Interlocutory review is addressed to the sound discretion of the
Court.2 In the exercise of our discretion, we conclude that the application for
interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for certification under Rule
42(b).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is
REFUSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.
Justice
1
In re Tesla Motors, Inc. S’holder Litig., 2018 WL 1560293 (Del. Ch. Mar. 28, 2018).
2
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v).
2