LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

IN RE EMERGING COMMUNICATIONS Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 16,415, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff: ERICKELL PARTNERS, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00016415, Prosser, Shareholders, Transaction, Special Committee, Merger, Emerging, Ecm, Del, Valuation, Class Action, Duty, Greenlight Plaintiffs, Goodwin, Price, Paragraph, Stockholders, Board Defendants, Squeeze-out, Projections, Appraisals, Presser, Allegations, Minority Shareholders, Opinion, Directors, Icc, Brickell, Houlihan, Tender, Fiduciary Duty Action, Financial Advisor, Deny, Atn, Shareholder Litigation, Fiduciary Duty, Admit, Ec1, Brickell Plaintiffs, Duff, Admittend, Worth, Summary Judgment , ContentID: 120239611

Case Documents
1 2001-09-17 JOINT PRETRIAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS AND PETITIONERS IN CONSOLIDATED ACTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 127153
54 pages
PDF
2 2001-09-17 EMERGING DEFENDANTS PRETRIAL BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 127152
45 pages
PDF
3 2001-09-17 JOINT PRETRIAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS AND PETITIONERS IN CONSOLIDATED ACTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 127151
55 pages
PDF
4 2001-08-10 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 127225
10 pages
PDF
5 2001-07-13 OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF BOARD DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115558
64 pages
PDF
6 2001-07-03 ANSWER TO AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115273
12 pages
PDF
7 2001-07-03 ANSWER OF THE BOARD DEFENDANTS TO AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115272
14 pages
PDF
8 2001-06-18 AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115274
28 pages
PDF
9 2001-05-17 BRICKELL PARTNERS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CALSS ACTION CERTIFICATION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115559
22 pages
PDF
10 2001-05-10 ANSWER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115276
15 pages
PDF
11 2001-05-10 ANSWER OF THE BOARD DEFENDANTS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115275
15 pages
PDF
12 2000-06-27 STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT OF COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100120
14 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 12 documents , 348 pages
Price: $ 74.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . JOINT PRETRIAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS AND PETITIONERS IN CONSOLIDATED ACTION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEL
APPRAISALS
PROSSER
FIDUCIARY DUTY ACTION
PRICE
ECM
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
COURT
GOODWIN
PLAINTIFFS
FIDUCIARY DUTY
VALUATION
SHAREHOLDERS
SUPR
MERGER
SQUEEZE-OUT
MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS
PROJECTIONS
TRANSACTION
DEFENDANTS
CORPORATE OPPORTUNITIES
PETITIONERS
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
DISCOUNT RATE
PROPOSED MERGER
FINANCIAL ADVISOR
DCF
CAPITAL STRUCTURE
CORPORATE OPPORTUNITY CLAIMS
                                  ORIGINAL                                            ii?%?&/+
                                                                            CONFIDENTIAL
                                                                       FILED UNDER SEAL


      IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

                          IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY                            /%&/
                                                                                     9h#-/
_______________-_--_____________________-----------------   x                         /.Lf fv.Jq
IN RE EMERGING COMMUNICATIONS,                             :     Consolidated
INC. SHAREHOLIDERS  LITIGATION                             :     Civil Action No. 16415 NC
_-----_--__-___------------------------------------------   x



                  JOINT PRETRIAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS AND
                 PETITIONERS IN THE CONSOLIDATED ACTION



                                           SKADDEN, ARPS, SLA'I'E,
                                             MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
                                           One Rodney Square
                                           P.O. Box 636
                                           Wilmington, Delaware 19899-0636
                                           (302) 65 l-3000
                                           Attorneys for Greenlight Capital Qualified L.P.,
                                           Greenlight Capital L.P. and Greenlight Capital
                                           Offshore. Ltd.

                                           ROSENTHAL MONHAIT GROSS &
                                             GODDESS, P.A.
                                           Mellon Bank Center, Suite 1401
                                           P.O. Box 1070
                                           Wilmington, Delaware 19899
                                           (302) 656-4433
                                           Attorneys for Brickell Partners and the Class

DATED: September 17,2001



                                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                                                   

1.      Preliminary Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II.     The Legal Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • PETITIONERS IN THE CONSOLIDATED ACTION
  • The Legal Framework.
  • Fiduciary Duty Action.
  • The burden of proof does not shift to Plaintiffs.
  • The Squeeze-Out cannot be found entirely fair
  • The only credible and legally appropriate valuation in the
  • legally appropriate valuation of ECM on the Merger Date.
  • entirely fair price.
  • Defendants breached their duty of disclosure
  • Miller, Del.
  • Supr., 473 A.2d 80.5.

  • 2 . EMERGING DEFENDANTS PRETRIAL BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    MERGER
    PRESSER
    SPECIAL COMMITTEE
    TENDER
    PROSSER
    COURT
    DUFF
    PHELPS
    PROJECTIONS
    BUSINESSES
    PRIVATIZATION
    STOCK
    PROFESSOR ZMIJEWSKI
    CASH FLOW
    PRIOR
    VALUATION
    HURRICANE
    COMMUNICATIONS
    VIRGIN ISLANDS
    DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW
    RTFC
    ICC
    ATN
    STOCKHOLDERS
    DEFENDANTS
    COMPARABLES
    MULTIPLES
    TRANSACTION
    PLAINTIFFS
    
                 IN  THE  COURT   OF CHANCERY  OF  THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                 IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    IN RE EMERGING COMMUNICATIONS  INC. ) Cons.  C.A. No. 16115
    SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION                      1
    
    
                                                            CONFIDENTIAL
                                                            FILED UNDER SEAL
    
    
    
    
    
    OF COUNSEL:                                  Thomas  .4. Beck
                                                 Raymond J. DiCamillo
    P. Kevin Caste1                              Catherine G. Dearlove
    Jonathan R~ Dorm&m                           Kelly C. Ashby
    Cahill Gor-don  & R&de1                      Richards, Layton & Finger
    Eighty Pine Street                           One Rodney Square,
    New York, New York 10005                     P.O. Box 551
    (212) 701-:ooo                               Wilmington, Delaware 19399
                                                 (302) 65 l-7700
                                                      Attorneys f'or Defendants Emerging
                                                      Communications, Inc., Jeffrey J. Presser
                                                      Innovative Communication Co]-poration  and
                                                      Innovative Communication Company, LLC
    
    
    Dared. September 17, 2001
    
    
    
                                       T.4BLE OF  CONT~ENTS
    
    
    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
    
    PRELIMINARY STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
    
    STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
    
            A.       TheParties........................,..................   1
    
            B.       Emerging's History.                                                               
    
            C.       Emerging Trades as an Independent Company. 6
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • IN RE EMERGING COMMUNICATIONS INC.) Cons.
  • Presser Proposes to Merge His Privately Held Businesses
  • Duff & Phelps
  • Phelps' Valuation of Emerging as of the
  • THE TENDER OFFER AND MERGER WERE ENTIRELY FAIR TO THE
  • This case is about Jeffrey J. Prosser, the former 52% owner of Emer-sins
  • To insure that the minority stockholders were adequately
  • Mr. Prosser conditioned his proposal on approval by a special committee.
  • Mr. Prosser a 46% premium over the unaffected trading price of Emerging's stock
  • and a minimum tender condition whereby the entire privatization was conditioned
  • Defendants will also establish that the company is in severe financial distress.
  • Emer$ng was formed in 1997 to recei\:e the Virgin Islands opcr-ations of its
  • Emer$ng and was the co-founder of ATN,
  • Mr. Prosser and Cornelius Prior formed ATN to purchase
  • inception through the Split Off transaction in December 1997.
  • comparable company analysis and a discounted cash flow analysis
  • Board that ICC was withdrawins the proposal to merse with ATN Co.?
  • "Greenlight points out that the RTFC was willing to provide fmancing which would
  • and a more direct hit by Hurricane Lenny
  • Greenlight ignores completely the March Projections identified by
  • projections account for the risk to cash flow posed by hurricanes and other storms.

  • 3 . JOINT PRETRIAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS AND PETITIONERS IN CONSOLIDATED ACTION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    SHAREHOLDERS
    VALUATION
    MERGER
    DEFENDANTS
    DUTY
    DEL
    PROSSER
    PRICE
    SPECIAL COMMITTEE
    GOODWIN
    COURT
    WORTH
    DISCLOSURE
    LITIGATION
    BAYSTON
    SQUEEZE-OUT
    GREENLIGHT
    MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS
    PROJECTIONS
    FINANCIAL ADVISOR
    TRANSACTION
    APPRAISALS
    CORPORATE OPPORTUNITIES
    DISCOUNT RATE
    PROPOSED MERGER
    MANAGEMENT
    DCF
    CORPORATE OPPORTUNITY CLAIMS
    CONTROLLING SHAREHOLDER
    
                                                               CONFIDENTIAL
                                                          FILED UNDER SEAL
    
    
       IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                   IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    
    IN RE EMERGING COMMUNICATIONS,           :     Consolidated
    INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION Civil Action No. 16415 NC
    
    
    
    
               JOINT PRETRIAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS AND ;~                   ;`!
              PETITIONERS IN THE CONSOLIDATED ACTION                       2;
                                                                           C\?
                                                                           T'~.?
                                                                    -..    CL,
    
                                SKADDEN, ARPS, SLA'fE,
                                 MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
                                One Rodney Square
                                P.O. Box 636
                                Wilmington, Delaware 19899-0636
                                (302) 651-3000
                                Attorneys for Greenlight Capital Qualified L.P.,
                                Greenlight Capital L.P. and Greenlight Capital
                                Offshore, Ltd.
    
                                ROSENTHAL MONHAIT GROSS &
                                 GODDESS, P.A.
                                Mellon Bank Center, Suite 140 1
                                P.O. Box 1070
                                Wilmington, Delaware 19899
                                (302) 656-4433
                                Attorneys for Brickell Partners and the Class
    
    DATED: September 17,2001
    
    
    
                                              TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                                                       
    
    I.      Preliminary Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .         
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION Civil Action No. 16415 NC
  • Greenlight Capital L.P. and Greenlight Capital
  • Duty of disclosure
  • None of Defendants' experts offers a full, credible, and legally appropriate valuation of ECM
  • Defendants cannot establish that $10.25 per share was an entirely fair price.
  • Defendants breached their duty of disclosure
  • Agranoff v. Miller, Del.
  • On October 19, 1998, Jeffrey Prosser - the chairman,
  • Cordon & Reindell -to represent himself and his wholly owned Innovative Communication
  • ECM's minority shareholders, and Prosser therefore made sure that the special
  • on behalf of the minority shareholders ("the Special Committee") could not retain
  • most importantly ECM's most recently prepared financial projections
  • Prosser allowed 077/y his side of the transaction to have
  • given to the Special Committee and its financial advisor.
  • Special Committee Chairman Richard Goodwin, Greenlight, and others that the stock
  • was worth as much as $20 per share, and that Prosser's offer was, at best, at the "low
  • Houlihan was not given the most current management projections.
  • absurdly high discount rate (double the rate Prudential had used,
  • Proposed Merger to the Board, and the Board decided to appoint a special committee
  • ' Unlike the Squeeze-Out, which benefitted only Prosser, the Proposed Merger would also have
  • , and that he would be ECM's CEO and controlling shareholder, Prosser
  • corporate opportunity claims against Prosser).
  • Bayston of Duff & Phelps prepared two reports, which are internally inconsistent,
  • In statutory appraisals, experts may value the respondent company "by any
  • Accordingly, in appropriate cases, this Court has relied solely on DCF

  • 4 . MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    GREENLIGHT PLAINTIFFS
    EVIDENCE
    RECORDING
    TRANSCRIPT
    MUOIO
    EXCLUDE
    COURT
    DEFENDANTS
    DEPO
    PREJUDICE
    INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY
    AUDIO-TAPE
    AUTHENTICATE
    DELAWARE RULE
    RECORDING DEVICE
    DEPOSITION
    PURPORT
    MCBRIDE AFF
    TESTIMONY
    EINHORN
    COUNSEL
    OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS
    PARTY
    PURSUANT
    CONTEXT
    SALVATORE MUOIO
    ADMISSIBILITY
    SETHI DEPO
    PORTION
    
                    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                              IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    
    IN RE EMERGING COMMUNICATIONS, INC.                           Cons. CA. No. 16415
    SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION
    
    
    
    ii-{                                     z         1                           .s?c.               
                                                                                   =--;
                                                                                   2.
                                                                                   TX!       ii%       
                                                                                   i'r,Z,  _
                                                                                   :xX-                
             MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF BOARD
             DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TAPE AND TRANSCRIPT                               
                                                                                   z-t,;:  r  .,  c
                                                                                   <,Gc      -.
                                          YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYL&&L~                            
                                                                                     <
                                          David C. McBride
                                          Bruce L. Silverstein
                                          11  th Floor, Wilmington Trust Center
                                          110 North Market Street
                                          P.O. Box 391
                                          Wilmington, Delaware 19899-0391
                                          (302) 571-6600
                                          Attorneys for the Board Defendants
    
    OF COUNSEL:
    PAUL,HASTINGS,JANOFSKY&WALKER LLP
    Kevin C. Logue
    Ryan K. Roth
    75 East 55'h Street
    New York, New York 10022
    (212) 318-6000
    
    THELAWOFFICESOFPAULJ.RUSKIN
    Paul J. Ruskin
    72-08 200 43rd Street
    Douglaston, NY 11363
    (718) 631-8834
    
    
    
    WP3:667757.1                                                                            54327.1001
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • THE ONE-SIDED TAPES OR TRANSCRIPTS OF ANY CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE GREENLIGHT PLAINTIFFS AND
  • Defendants Richard N. Goodwin, Salvatore Muoio, Sir Shridath Ramphal, John P.
  • , will attempt to introduce a one-sided audio-tape and/or purported
  • thereafter by the Greenlight Plaintiffs' counsel.
  • Delaware Rule of Evidence 901:
  • Under Delaware law, to be admissible, a tape recorded conversation and transcript
  • the proponent must show that: the recording device is capable of taking
  • testimony; the operator of the device is competent; the recording is authentic and correct;
  • more conversations between themselves and defendant Muoio See, e.g., Einhorn Depo., 232:3
  • See, e.g., Einhorn Depo.
  • 232:3 - 11; Sethi Depo.
  • Plaintiffs will never be able to authenticate the tape because the recording device the
  • ' True and correct copies of all cited excerpts from the deposition of David Einhorn are
  • The admissibility of the transcript created by the Greenlight Plaintiffs' counsel
  • missing and the tapes were transcribed by a party to the litigation).
  • should exclude both the tape and the transcript from evidence pursuant to Rules 901.
  • from taking material out of context.
  • necessary to explain the admitted portion, to place the admitted portion in context, to avoid
  • Delaware Rules of Evidence 801 & 805: Inadmissible Hearsay
  • the audio-tape at issue reflects out-of-court statements made by Muoio
  • outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
  • 1992 WL 390617, at *2-*3), the tape and transcript purport to reflect one side of a

  • 5 . OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF BOARD DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    TRANSACTION
    GREENLIGHT PLAINTIFFS
    STOCKHOLDERS
    BOARD DEFENDANTS
    SPECIAL COMMITTEE
    OPINION
    GOODWIN
    SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION
    DIRECTORS
    EC1
    BRICKELL PLAINTIFFS
    HOULIHAN
    SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    FACTS
    DEL
    MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS
    DRAFT OPINION
    ICC
    MERGER AGREEMENT
    ECI
    FINANCIAL ADVISOR
    BRICKELL AMENDED COMPLAINT
    VIRGIN ISLANDS
    CONSUMMATION
    TELECOMMUNICATIONS
    PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
    LEXIS
    AMBASSADOR TODMAN
    NEGOTIATIONS
    
                  IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                   IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    ________________________________________----------------------
    IN RE EMERGING COMMUNICATIONS,                                          Cons. C.A. No. 16415
    INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION
    ________________________________________----------------------
    
    
                                      OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
         BOARD DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS:
                    OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    
                                                    YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP
    
                                                    David C. McBride
                                                    Bruce L. Silverstein
                                                     1  I* Floor, Wilmington Trust Center
                                                    110 North Market Street
                                                    P.O. Box 391
                                                    Wilmington, Delaware 19899-0391
                                                    (302) 571-6600
                                                    Attorneys for the Board Defendants-
    OF COUNSEL:                                                                                       
    PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
    Kevin C. Logue
    Ryan K. Roth
    75 East 55th Street
    New York, New York 10022
    (212) 318-6000
    
    THE LAW OFFICES OF PAUL J. RUSKIN
    Paul J. Ruskin
    72-08 200 43rd Street
    Douglaston, NY 11363
    (718) 631-8834
    
    July  13,200l
    
    
    
    
    
    NYW91307.1
    WP3:657446.1                                                                                   
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
  • STATEMENT OF FACTS
  • The Brickell Plaintiffs
  • The Greenlight Plaintiffs
  • The Transaction at Issue
  • Prosser Offers to buy-out ECI's public stockholders
  • Houlihan's draft opinion
  • STANDARD APPLIED TO MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER
  • The EC1 Certificate of Incorporation Bars A Damages Award
  • Against The Board Defendants.
  • Prosser, and thus, acted disloyally or in bad faith.
  • Mere Appointment to the Board of Directors does
  • Allegations that the Special Committee failed to
  • the minority stockholders.
  • Andreae v. Andreae, Del.
  • LEXIS 144 (Del.
  • Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Del.

  • 6 . ANSWER TO AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PARAGRAPH
    DEFENDANTS
    DENY
    ALLEGATIONS
    EMERGING
    ADMIT
    SPECIAL-PURPOSE
    FIRST SENTENCE
    SPECIAL COMMITTEE
    PLAINTIFFS
    PROSSER
    PRIVATE TRANSACTION
    SECOND SENTENCE
    DIRECTORS
    AGREEMENT
    INCORPORATE
    COMMON STOCK
    TRUTH
    FALSITY
    SQUEEZE
    SHARES
    OUTSTANDING
    ATN
    COURT
    TERMS THEREOF
    ACQUISITION
    FINANCING
    MERGER
    ICC
    
                      IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 79                             
                                                                                               q$  -
                                    IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY                               r.b'; % 
                                                                                               s>"-' 
                                                                                                d+*;3-;
                                                                                                3.:::. 
    IN RE EMERGING COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ) Cons. CA. No. 16415 NC                                  
    SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION                                   >                                        
                                                                                                   Ajax
    
                                                                                                   
                                                                                                    -SF
                        ANSWER  TO AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT                                   :c *
                                                                       -     I      -     -            
    
             Jeffrey J. Prosser, Emerging Communications, Inc. ("Emerging"), Innovative Communication
    
    Company, LLC ("ICC") and Innovative Communication Corporation ("Innovative") (collectively
    
    "Defendants") hereby answer the amended class action complaint filed by PlaintiffBrickell Partners
    
    (the "Complaint") as follows:
    
                                          NATURE OF THE ACTION
    
             1.        Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a  beliefas 
    
    truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 1, which allegations therefore are denied.
    
             2.        Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
    
    truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 1, which allegations therefore are denied.
    
             3.        Admitted.
    
             4.        Admitted.
    
             5.        Admitted.
    
             6.        Admitted that Prosser owns 100% of ICC. The remaining allegations of paragraph
    
    6 are denied.
    
             7.        Admitted that ICC owned approximately 52% of the outstanding shares of  Ecmerging
    
    common stock prior to the going private transaction, except Defendants deny the characterization
    
    inherent in the term "Squeeze Out." The remaining allegations of paragraph 7 state a legal
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • "Defendants") hereby answer the amended class action complaint filed by PlaintiffBrickell
  • truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 1,
  • conclusion which Defendants neither admit nor deny.
  • The second sentence ofparagraph 9 states
  • The first sentence of paragraph 10 is denied, except it is admitted that Messrs.
  • Ramphal and Raynor served as directors of E:merging's predecessor, Atlantic `Tele-Network,
  • Admit that prior to the going private transaction,
  • 10,900,OOO shares of Emerging common stock outstanding.
  • approved a Principal Terms Agreement whereby, among other things, the assets and liabilities
  • associated with ATN Co., Vitelco, Vitelcorn Cellular and Vitelcom would be placed:in a new
  • respectfully referred to the Principal Terms Agreement for the complete terms thereof
  • Denied, except it is admitted that on March 17, 1997, Prosser signed a letter of intent
  • unwilling to make:such an acquisition.
  • Companies by Mr. Presser was not contingent upon RTFC financing and was guaranteed by Mr.
  • committee to consider the fairness of the merger of Innovative and ATN Co. proposed by
  • with representatives of Prudential and counsel for ICC to discuss the feasibility of ICC
  • The Court is respectfully referred to that letter for the complete
  • Emerging appointed a special committee to evaluate the $9.125 offer made by ICC (the "Special
  • The remaining allegations of paragraph 41 are admittetcl.
  • except admitted that special-purpose financial projections containing
  • Defendants incorporate as if si:t forth in full the responses in paragraphs 1 through
  • characterization inherent in the term "Squeeze Out."
  • Some or all of plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of lathes.

  • 7 . ANSWER OF THE BOARD DEFENDANTS TO AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    ALLEGATIONS
    BOARD DEFENDANTS
    TRUTH
    FALSITY
    DENY
    EMERGING
    ADMIT
    SPECIAL COMMITTEE
    SECOND SENTENCE
    SHARES
    COMMON STOCK
    AGREEMENT
    GOODWIN
    SQUEEZE-OUT
    OUTSTANDING
    DIRECTORS
    INFORMATION SUFFICIENT
    PRIVATE TRANSACTION
    VONDRAS
    CHARACTERIZATION INHERENT
    ATN
    TERMS THEREOF
    MERGER
    ICC
    PAUL
    HOULIHAN
    ALLEGED FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
    VITELCOM
    LAW
    
                       IN THE  COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                                         IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY                             01 
    ____________________-------------------------------------------                                    
                                                                       >                           ii' 
                                                                                                   I.. 
    IN RE EMERGING COMMUNICATIONS,                                                                     
    INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION                                       i) Cons. Civil Action No. 16415
    ________________________________________-------"-----------~---    >
    
                                   ANSWER OF THE BOARD DEFENDANTS TO
                                     AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
    
               Defendants Richard N. Goodwin, Salvatore Muoio, Sir Shridath  Ramphal, John R.
    
    Raynor, Terrence A. Todman and John G. Vondras (collectively the "Board Defendants"), by
    
    their undersigned counsel, hereby answer the amended class action complaint in this
    
    consolidated action (the "Amended Complaint") as follows:
    
                                              NATURE OF THE ACTION
    
               1.           The Board Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to
    
    belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 1, which allegations therefore are
    
    denied. Moreover, the Board Defendants specifically deny the characterization inherent in the
    
    term "Squeeze-Out".
    
                                                        THE PARTIES
    
               2.           The Board Defendants are without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as
    
    truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 2, which allegations therefore are denied.
    
               3.           Admitted.
    
               4.           Admitted.
    
               5.           Denied, except it is admitted that prior to its December 3 1, 1998 merger
    
    Atlantic Tele-Network Co,  ("ATN Co."), Innovative Communication Corporation was a U.S.
    
    Virgin Islands corporation with its principal place of business in St. Croix.
    
    
    NYSW39837.1
    07/03/01 28969.00002
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 1,
  • the Board Defendants specifically deny the characterization inherent in the
  • truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 2,
  • Atlantic Tele-Network Co, ("ATN Co."), Innovative Communication Corporation was a U.S.
  • the characterization inherent in the term "Squeeze-Out".
  • states a legal conclusion which the Board Defendants need neither admit nor deny.
  • approximately 52% of the outstanding shares of Emerging common stock prior to his acquisition
  • The second sentence of paragraph 9 states a legal conclusion which the
  • were approximately 10,900,OOO shares of Emerging common stock outstanding.
  • Board of Directors approved a Principal Terms Agreement whereby, among other things, the
  • Vitelcom Cellular and Vitelcom would
  • including, but not limited to, a potential merger with Innovative.
  • Innovative and that this special committee consisted of Messrs.
  • Goodwin, Ramphal and Raynor.
  • met with representatives of Prudential and counsel for ICC to discuss the feasibility of ICC
  • Ramphal and Vondras.
  • William Schwitter of the law firm of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP.
  • Committee retained Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin Capital as its financial
  • engagement agreement for the complete terms thereof.
  • Directors held a telephonic meeting to consider the proposed going private transaction.
  • Defendants were unaware of the alleged financial projections that allegedly were prepared on
  • state that the Board Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

  • 8 . AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFF
    PROSSER
    EMERGING
    SQUEEZE-OUT
    DEFENDANTS
    CLASS ACTION
    SECOND COMMITTEE
    CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
    PRICE
    DELAWARE
    CLASS MEMBERS
    HOULIHAN
    MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS
    ICC
    CARIBBEAN CABLE COMPANIES
    COMMON STOCK
    ATN
    AMENDED CLASS ACTION
    RODNEY SQUARE
    WILMINGTON
    PROJECTIONS
    MATERIAL INFORMATION
    VIRGIN ISLANDS
    FIDUCIARY DUTIES
    PROPOSED MERGER
    TRANSACTION
    LITIGATION
    RICHARDS LAYTON
    FINANCIAL ADVISOR
    
                                                  ORIGINAL
                   IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF  DELAWARE 2
                                                                                                     :.,
                                                                                                     I 
                                                                                                       
                                       IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY                                 
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                      -
    __________-______~_____________________---------------------    x                                
                                                                                                      i
    IN RE EMERGING  COMMUNICATIONS, INC.  1                                  C O N S O L I D A T E D  
    SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION : CIVIL ACTION NO.  16415-NC 13
                                                                                                       
    _________________~_----------------------------- -_---------- _x
                   NOTICE OF  FILING AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
    
    TO: Thomas A. Beck, Esquire
                       Richards Layton  & Finger
                       One Rodney Square
                       Wilmington, Delaware 19801
    
                       Bruce L. Silverstein, Esquire
                       Young  Conaway Stargatt  & Taylor
                       Suite 1100, Rodney Square North
                       Wilmington, Delaware 19899
    
                       PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff herewith files the attached Amended Class
    
    Action Complaint as of right pursuant to Rule  15(a).
    
                       In compliance with Rule 15(aa), plaintiff avers that the Amended Complaint is in
    
    full substitutio'n  for the Complaint heretofore filed on June 1, 1998.
    
                                                     ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT, GROSS  & GODDESS,
    
    
    
    
                                                               Suite 140 1, Mellon Bank Center
                                                               9 19 North Market Street
                                                               P.O. Box 1070
                                                               Wilmington, Delaware 19899
                                                               (302) 656-4433
                                                               Attorneys for Plaintiff
    June  18, 2001                                             Brickell Partners
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 2
  • SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION:
  • Richards Layton & Finger
  • Wilmington, Delaware 19801
  • Suite 1100, Rodney Square North
  • PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff herewith files the attached Amended Class
  • foregoing Notice Of Filing Amended Class Action Complaint and Amended Class Action
  • shareholders of defendant Emerging Communications,
  • Plaintiff Brickell Partners was the owner of shares of the common stock of the
  • Company since prior to the Squeeze-Out until it tendered its shares under the Squeeze-Out
  • Defendant Prosser was a.t all relevant times, Chairman of the Board,
  • company, which has its principal place of business in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.
  • Defendant Prosser owns dl of the outstanding membership interests in ICC,
  • Defendants Richard N. Goodwin, Salvatore Muoio, Sir Shridath Ramphal,
  • The class is so numerous that joinder of all Class members is
  • In 1987 ATN Inc. acquired Virgin Islands Telephone
  • Prosser signed a letter of intent to acquire four Caribbean cable companies
  • exclusive financial advisor with respect to a review of strategic alternatives and
  • While the Proposed Merger was a clearly self-interested transaction,
  • Proposed Merger.
  • Towards the end of May 1998 Emerging's stock price was languis.hing.
  • not be trusted to protect Emerging's minority shareholders,
  • Ramphal and Muoio to the Second Committee.
  • Goodwin wrote that he had found Houlihan "understood the deal,
  • Houlihan relied on outdated March 25, 1998 management projections, rather
  • Prosser, ICC, and Innovative breached their fiduciary duties by, among other
  • and failing to disclose to his fellow directors material information relating to the

  • 9 . BRICKELL PARTNERS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CALSS ACTION CERTIFICATION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    MEMBERS
    BRICKELL
    COURT
    PLAINTIFF
    DEL
    PARTNERS
    COUNSEL
    CHANCERY
    CERTIFICATION
    CIR
    ADEQUATELY PROTECT
    CERT
    TRANSFER BINDER
    FARUQI
    JOINDER
    DEFENDANTS
    SHAREHOLDERS
    DEUTSCHMAN
    MOTOR FREIQHT SVSTEM
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    ECI
    REPRESENTATIVE PARTIES
    LITIGATION
    LLP
    ADVISORV COMRNITTEE NOTES
    EAST TEXAS
    EISENBERQ
    DENIED SUB NOM
    EMERALD PARTNERS
    
                                                 ORIGINAL
                 IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                      IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    
    IN RE EMERGING COMMUNICATIONS, INC.                                          :        CONSOLIDATED
    SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION                                                      :    CIVIL ACTION NO.
    
    _---------__------~-------------------------------------------------    X
    
    
    
                        BRICKELL PARTNERS' OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT
                        OF ITS MOTION FOR CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION
    
    
                                                           ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT, GROSS  &
                                                             GODDESS,  1P.A.
                                                           Norman M. Monhait
                                                           Suite 1401, Mellon Bank Center
                                                           P.O. Box 1070
                                                           Wilmington, Delaware 19899-1070
                                                           (302) 656-4433
                                                           Attorneys for Plaintiff
                                                           Brickell Partners
    
    
    OF COUNSEL:
    
    FARUQI  & FARUQI, LLP
    320 East  3gth Street
    New York, NY 10016
    (212) 983-9330
    
    
    
    May 17, 2001
    
    
    
                              TABLE OF  CONTED                              m
    TABLE OF CITATIONS                                                       ii
    
    NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS                                     1
    
    STATEMENT OF FACTS                                                      3
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • BRICKELL PARTNERS' OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT
  • OF ITS MOTION FOR CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION
  • FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
  • Numerous That Joinder Of All Members
  • Advisorv Comrnittee Notes to Rule 23,
  • Deutschman v. Beneficial Corp.,
  • East Texas Motor Freiqht Svstem.
  • 766 F.2d 7705 (3d Cir.),
  • Patrick & Co., [I992 Transfer Binder], Fed.
  • Del.
  • Plaintiff Brickell Partners, a shareholder of Emerging Communications,
  • Inc. ("ECI" or,the "Company"), commenced this action on June 3,
  • 19, 1998, the merger was approved at a special meeting of ECI shareholders.
  • On or about December 15, 2000, counsel
  • Brickell submits this memorandum in support of its motion for class certification.
  • the transaction was unfair as to price and process, that defendants favored Prosser's
  • General Motors Carp,, 532 F.2d 511, cert.
  • 429 U.S. 870 (civil rights litigation).
  • class action device in actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty.
  • the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.4
  • Eisenberq, 766 F.2d at 786.
  • Emerald Partners v. Berlin, Del.

  • 10 . ANSWER

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DEFENDANTS
    EMERGING
    PROSSER
    DENY
    FIRST SENTENCE
    ALLEGATIONS
    ADMIT
    SECOND SENTENCE
    PLAINTIFFS
    SPECIAL-PURPOSE
    TRANSACTION
    SPECIAL COMMITTEE
    AGREEMENT
    ATN
    DIRECTORS
    MERGER
    ICC
    COURT
    INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATION
    GOODWIN
    CHARACTERIZATION INHERENT
    SQUEEZE-OUT
    DELAWARE
    RAYNOR
    PRIOR
    MESSRS
    DEFENDANTS INCORPORATE
    TERMS THEREOF
    PRIVATE TRANSACTION
    
                                                                                                       
                                                                                             ~8 .' ] ;;
    
    
                      IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                        IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    GREENLIGHT CAPITAL QUALIFIED, L.P.,
    GREENLIGHT CAPITAL, L.P., and
    GREENLIGHT CAPITAL OFFSHORE, LTD.,
    
                                 Plaintiffs,
    
             V.
    
    JEFFREY J. PROSSER, EMERGING
    COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware
    corporation, INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATION
    COMPANY, LLC., a Delaware limited liability
    company,  INNOVATIVE  COMMUNICATION
    CORPORATION, a U.S. Virgin Islands
    corporation, RICHARD N. GOODWIN,
    SALVATORE MUOIO, SIR SHRIDATH
    RAMPHAL,  JOHN P. RAYNOR, TERRENCE A.
    TODMAN and JOHN G. VONDRAS,
    
                                 Defendants.
    _______I________________________________-----------------                                          
    IN RE EMERGING COMMUNICATIONS,                                         >                           
                                                                           ) CONSOLIDATED  C.A. No.
    INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION                                           >
    
    
    
                                                                 ANSWER
    
              Jeffrey J. Prosser, Emerging Communications, Inc. ("Emerging"), Innovative Communication
    
    Company, LLC ("ICC") and Innovative Communication Corporation ("Innov,ative")  (collectiveYy
    
    "Defendants") hereby answer the complaint in C.A. No. 18816 (the "Complaint") as follows:
    
                                                NATURE OF THE ACTIOJ
    
              1.        Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
    
    truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 1, which allegations therefore are denied.
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATION COMPANY, LLC., a
  • Jeffrey J. Prosser, Emerging Communications, Inc., Innovative Communication
  • "Defendants") hereby answer the complaint in C.A.
  • truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 1,
  • It is admitted that plaintiffs purchased 750,300 shares of Emerging common stock
  • Paragraph 4 states a legal conclusion which Defendants need neither admit nor deny.
  • Denied, except it is admitted that prior to its December 3 1,199s merger with Atlantic
  • Admitted that Prosser owns 100% of ICC.
  • The first sentence of paragraph 11 is admitted,
  • characterization inherent in the term "Squeeze-Out".
  • The second sentence of paragraph 13 is denied.
  • The first sentence of paragraph 15 is denied, except it is admitted that Messrs.
  • Ramphal and Raynor served as directors of Emerging's predecessor, Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc.
  • Prosser and Prior formed ATN to acquire the Virgin Islands Telephone Corporation
  • respectfully referred to the Principal Terms Agreement for the complete terms thereof.
  • Goodwin, Ramphal
  • engaged by ICC in connection with the going-private transaction.
  • Emerging appointed a special committee to evaluate the $9.125 offer made by ICC (the "Special
  • held a telephonic meeting to consider the proposed going private transaction.
  • except admitted that special-purpose linancial projections containing
  • Defendants incorporate as if set forth in full the responses in paragraphs 1 through

  • 11 . ANSWER OF THE BOARD DEFENDANTS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PARAGRAPH
    BOARD DEFENDANTS
    ALLEGATIONS
    DENY
    EMERGING
    ADMIT
    INFORMATION SUFFICIENT
    FIRST SENTENCE
    PROSSER
    SECOND SENTENCE
    SPECIAL COMMITTEE
    FALSITY
    PRIVATE TRANSACTION
    TRUTH
    MERGER
    DIRECTORS
    AGREEMENT
    COURT
    RAYNOR
    ICC
    JOHN
    GOODWIN
    ATN
    SQUEEZE-OUT
    TERMS THEREOF
    COUNSEL
    SHARES
    CHARACTERIZATION INHERENT
    MESSRS
    
                    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                           IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    GREENLIGHT CAPITAL QUALIFIED, L.P.;                                )
    GREENLIGHT  CAPITAL, L.P., and
    GREENLIGHT CAPITAL OFFSHORE, LTD.,                                 ;
    
                                                                       i
                                     Plaintiffs,
                                                                       t
                                     V.                                ) CA. No.1 8816
    
                                                                       i
    JEFFREY  J.  PROSSER  EMERGING
    COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware                                   i
    corporation, INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATION  )
    COMPANY, LLC., a Delaware limited liability
    company, INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATION                                   i
    CORPORATION, a U.S. Virgin Islands
    corporation, RICHARD N. GOODWIN,                                    t
    SALVATORE MUOIO, SIR  SHRIDATH                                      >
    RAMPHAL, JOHN  P,  RAYNOR, TERRENCE A.  )
    TODMAN and JOHN G. VONDRAS,
                                                                        1
                                      Defendants.
    _______________,____----.-----------------------,.-------- I ------ i
    IN RE EMERGING COMMUNICATIONS,
                                                                        ;  ICONSOLIDATED  C.A. No. 16415
    INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION                                        )
    
    
                                    ANSWER OF THE BOARD DEFENDANTS
    
              Defendants Richard N. Goodwin, Salvatore Muoio, Sir Shridahth Ramphal,  John R. Raynor,
    
    Terrence A. Todman and John G. Vondras (collectively the "Defendants"), by their undersigned
    
    counsel, hereby answer the complaint in C.A. No. 188 16 (the "Complaint") as follows,
    
                                               NATURE OF THE ACTION.
    
              1.        The Board Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient  to form a
    
    belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 1, which allegations therefore are
    
    denied
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • RAMPHAL, JOHN P, RAYNOR, TERRENCE A.)
  • TODMAN and JOHN G. VONDRAS,
  • IN RE EMERGING COMMUNICATIONS,
  • Defendants Richard N. Goodwin, Salvatore Muoio, Sir Shridahth Ramphal, John R. Raynor,
  • counsel, hereby answer the complaint in C.A.
  • belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 1,
  • The Board Defendants admit upon information and belief that plaintiffs purchased
  • The remaining allegations of paragraph 2 are
  • The Board Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
  • belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations set forth in paragraph 3,
  • Paragraph 4 states a legal conclusion which the Board Defendants need neither admit
  • Denied, except it is admitted that prior to its December 3 1, 1998 merger with Atlantic
  • Admitted upon information and belief that Prosser owns 100% of ICC.
  • The first sentence of paragraph 11 is admitted, except the Board Defendants deny
  • the characterization inherent in the term "Squeeze-Out".
  • the characterization inherent in the term "Squeeze-Out"`, The second sentence of paragraph 13
  • The first sentence of paragraph 15 is denied, e:xcept it is admitted that Messrs.
  • Ramphal and Raynor served as directors of Emerging's predece:ssor,
  • Prosser and Prior formed ATN to acquire the Virgin Islands Telephone Corporation
  • approved a Principal Terms Agreement whereby, among other things, the assets and liabilities
  • referred to Mr. Pro:sser' s employment agreement for the comp1et.e terms thereof
  • The first sentence of paragraph 42 is admitteNd.
  • Innovative and that this special committee consisted of Messrs.
  • of the outstanding public shares of Emerging.
  • held a telephonic meeting to consider the proposed going private transaction.

  • 12 . STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT OF COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    STIPULATION
    COURT
    DEFENDANTS
    COUNSEL
    PLAINTIFF
    PARTIES
    EMC
    EXECUTION
    COMPLAINT
    ATTORNEYS
    FEES
    HERETO
    APPROVING
    CHANCERY
    INNOVATIVSE
    MEMBERS
    SHAREHOLDERS
    NEGOTIATIONS
    REPRESENTATIVES
    DISBURSEMENTS
    DELAWARE
    PROSSER
    DIRECTORS
    LITIGATION
    EXPENSES
    PROCEEDING
    JUDGEMENT
    SUCCESSORS
    EXHIBIT
    
          IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                             IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    ERICKELL PARTNERS, on behalf of
    itself and all others similarly
    situated,
    
                                 Plaintiff,
    
                       -  aga.inst  -              C.A. No. 16415-NC
    JEFFREY J. PROSSER, RICHARD
    GOODWIN, SALVATORE HUOIO, SIR
    SHRIDATH  RAMPHAL, JOHN P.
    RAYNOR, JOHN G. VONDRAS,
    TERRENCE A. TODMAN and EMERGING
    COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
    
                                 Defendants.
    
    
    
                                STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT
                             OF COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT
    
                 The parties to the above-captioned civil action (the
    
    "Action"), by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby
    
    submit this Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settle-
    
    ment (the "Stipulation") for the Court's approval:
    
                 WHEREAS:
    
                 A.        Emerging Communications, Inc.  (IIEMC" or the
    
    "Company") is a Delaware corporation with its principal
    
    executive offices in St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands.
    
                 B.        Defendant Jeffrey J. Prosser  ("Prosserl') was the
    
    Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    of the Company, and owned 52% of EMC's outstanding stock at all
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • "Action"), by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby
  • submit this Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement for the Court's approval:
  • Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer
  • is a company wholly owned by defendant Prosser.
  • Defendants") were members of EMC's Board of Directors during
  • the period relevant to this litigation.
  • E. On May 29, 1998, EMC announced that Innovative
  • F. On June 3, 1998, Plaintiff filed a complaint
  • negotiations; the Offer did not serve a legitimate business
  • counsel fo:r the parties held discussions concerning the
  • interest of EMC a.nd EMC's public shareholders.
  • Complaint, Plaintiff's counsel conducted an extensive factual
  • representatives, trustees, predecessors, successors, heirs, assigns, counsel, affiliates and
  • other duty or otherwise, or any fees, expenses or costs incurred in prosecuting or settling
  • Provided, however, that the appraisal proceeding that is presently being prosecuted against
  • Innovativse acknowledges that one of several reasons it
  • the Order and Final Judgment referred to in paragraph 4 hereof.
  • Crder in the form set forth as Exhibit A to this Stipulation.
  • shall be substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C:
  • appeal, excluding an appeal solely regarding the amount of attorneys' fees and disbursements,
  • who shall be restored to their respective positions exi.sting immediately prior to the
  •    |