The Renco Group, Inc. v. MacAndrews AMG Holdings LLC, C.A. No. 7668-VCN (Del. Ch. Jan. 18, 2013).
This opinion is noteworthy for purposes of reiterating the well-worn standard that will be applied to a motion seeking expedited discovery and an expedited hearing in connection with a preliminary injunction. The Court explained that:
“The burden on a plaintiff in seeking an expedited proceeding is not high. A party’s request to schedule an application for a preliminary injunction, and to expedite the discovery related thereto, is normally routinely granted. Exceptions to that norm are rare. A plaintiff need only articulate a sufficiently colorable claim and show a sufficient possibility of a threatened irreparable injury, as would justify imposing on the defendants and the public the extra (and sometimes substantial) costs of an expedited preliminary injunction proceeding.” See footnotes 9 through 11 and accompanying text.
See related Chancery decision highlighted here. In that opinion a few weeks earlier involving the same dispute, which provides more extensive background facts, the Court explained that a contract provision may satisfy the prerequisite of “irreparable harm” for purposes of meeting the requirements for injunctive relief.