ORDER
This 24th day of January, 2000, upon consideration of the briefs and oral argument of the parties, it appears to the Court that:
1. In its briefs and at oral argument Plaintiffs-Below, Appellants, made claims that, if true, and if a breach of fiduciary duty, are troubling. A careful reading of the Complaint, however, shows that the plaintiffs did not allege any breach of fiduciary duty.
2. The Court of Chancery was therefore correct in its finding that the complaint did not sufficiently allege a breach of fiduciary duty.
See p. 11, Kahn v. Icahn, Del. Ch., C.A. 15916-NC, Chandler, Ch., (November 12, 1998).
3. In affirming the Court of Chancery we express no opinion on the other issues raised by the parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of Chancery dismissing this action be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Maurice A. Hartnett, III Justice