LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

GRANT v MITCHELL Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 18,370, County: New Castle County, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY 0 F THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Defendant: , Plaintiff: GRANT, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00018370, Grant, Mitchell, Epasys, Directors, Incorporator, Delaware, Foreign Corporation Certificate, Meltzer, Mcdermott, Ralph Grant, Officers, Julee Mitchell, Massachusetts, Facts, Writing, Del, Sole, Bankruptcy Court, Letters, Sole Incorporator, Vice President, Boston, Julee, Organization Meeting, Representation, Founders, Dob, Agreement, Statute, Penalties, Testimony, Investors, Consent, Formation, Employees, Pob, Mitchell Dep, Officer, Delaware Law, Contention, Prospective Employees , ContentID: 120239645

Case Documents
1 2001-02-23 MEMORANDUM OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100160
36 pages
PDF
2 2001-01-26 DEFENDANT J. MITCHELLS POST-TRIAL REPLY BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102292
22 pages
PDF
3 2001-01-26 PLAINTIFFS REPLY POST-TRIAL BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102291
33 pages
PDF
4 2001-01-17 PLAINTIFFS OPENING POST-TRIAL BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102293
48 pages
PDF
5 2001-01-02 DEFENDANTS PRETRIAL BRIEF (REVISED
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102294
35 pages
PDF
6 2000-12-27 DEFENDANTS PRETRIAL BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102295
35 pages
PDF
7 2000-12-22 PLAINTIFFS PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102296
26 pages
PDF
8 2000-10-31 ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANT J. MITCHELL
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100833
4 pages
PDF
9 2000-09-29 COMPLAINT UNDER 8 DEL. C. SEC 225
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100834
5 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 9 documents , 244 pages
Price: $ 59.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . MEMORANDUM OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MITCHELL
DIRECTORS
EPASYS
INCORPORATOR
SOLE
ATTORNEY
OFFICERS
FOUNDERS
MCDERMOTT
MELTZER
CONSENT
FOREIGN CORPORATION CERTIFICATE
MASSACHUSETTS
BOSTON
JULEE
DELAWARE
BUSINESS
AUTHORITY
CONTENTION
MITCHELL DENIES
GRANT CONTENDS
DEFENDANT
ESQUIRES
STOCK OPTION PLAN
PLAINTIFF RALPH GRANT
GRANT CLAIMS
EVIDENCE
FORMATION
MWE ATTORNEY WEBB
             IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

                            IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

       RALPH GRANT,                                 1>
                          Plaintiff,                >
             V.                                     11 Civil Action No. 18370
       JULEE MITCHELL,                              >)
                          Defendant,                1
             and                                    1)
       EPASYS, INC., a Delaware corporation,        >>
                          Nominal Defendant.        >

I                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                 Date Submitted: January  26,200l
                                 Date Decided: February 23,200 1

       David A. Jenkins and Michele  C. Gott, Esquires, of SMITH, KATZENSTEIN  &
       FURLOW,  Wilmington, Delaware; Of Counsel: Michael J. Tuteur and Carrie J.
       Fletcher, Esquires, of EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, Boston, Massachusetts,
     Attorneys for Plaintiff.

       Arthur G. Connolly, III, Esquire, of CONNOLLY, BOVE, LODGE  & HUTZ,
       Wilmington, Delaware; Of Counsel: Joanne  D'Alcomo,  Esquire, of SCHNEIDER
       REILLY, Boston, Massachusetts, Attorneys for Defendant.


       STRINE,  Vice Chancellor



      Plaintiff Ralph Grant brings this action under 8 Del. C.  $ 225 to
SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • David A. Jenkins and Michele C. Gott, Esquires, of SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & FURLOW, Wilmington,
  • Arthur G. Connolly, III, Esquire, of CONNOLLY, BOVE, LODGE & HUTZ, Wilmington, Delaware; Of
  • Plaintiff Ralph Grant brings this action under 8 Del.
  • determine the proper directors and officers of nominal defendant, Epasys,
  • Grant had earlier exercised his authority as sole incorporator to create a twoperson board
  • The Foreign Corporation Certificate identified Grant
  • The most reliable evidence
  • dispute among the founders of Epasys.
  • plaintiff Grant, defendant Mitchell, and non-party Jack Meltzer.
  • systems integration business, and had cash resources he could invest.
  • The Founders Seek The Advice Of McDermott,
  • Grant claims that it was agreed that he would have control,
  • Grant contends that before Epasys began doing business,
  • Q* Now, prior to the formation of EpaSys, did you have any
  • 29 percent each to Jack and Julee, half vested now, the remainder over three years.
  • denies Grant's contention that no board was to be formed until outside
  • Will was asked to draft the stock option plan.
  • Mitchell denies that this was the arrangement.
  • JX 36 (S/15/00 time entry for MWE attorney Webb);
  • In this regard, it is notable that the corporate notebook that McDermott, Will prepared for

  • 2 . DEFENDANT J. MITCHELLS POST-TRIAL REPLY BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DIRECTORS
    INCORPORATOR
    FOREIGN CORPORATION CERTIFICATE
    COURT
    EPASYS
    WRITING
    DELAWARE
    MITCHELL
    PLAINTIFFS
    STATUTE
    SOLE INCORPORATOR
    JULEE
    MEETING
    DEFENDANT
    AGREEMENT
    MCDERMOTT
    DELAWARE LAW
    PENALTIES
    INCORPORATOR ACT
    CONTENTION
    REPRESENTATION
    ENVIRONMENTAL SOFTWARE
    STOCK OPTION
    ORGANIZATION MEETING
    RALPH GRANT
    BILLING RECORDS
    SHAREHOLDERS
    PARALEGAL RENEE CARSON
    REFERENCE
    
                                                                        ,-     -  x  r  ,r  ?  T"  t, 
    
                                                                        `.     `.                      
    
    
               IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                              IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    RALPH GRANT,
    
                 Plaintiff
                                             i
    V.                                              CA. NO. 18370NC
                                             ;
    JULEE MITCHELL                           >
    
                 Defendant
    
    and
    
    EPASYS, INC., a Delaware corporation,    )
    
                 Nominal Defendant
    
    
              DEFENDANT JULEE MITCHELL'S POST-TRIAL REPLY BRIEF
    
    
                                             CONNOLLY, BOVE, LODGE & HUTZ LLP
    
                                             Arthur G. Connolly, III
                                             1220 Market Building
                                             P.O. Box 2207
                                             Wilmington, DE 19899
                                             (302) 658-9141
    
    
                                             SCHNEIDER REILLY LLP
    
                                             Joanne D'Alcomo
                                             Three Center Plaza
                                             Boston, MA 02 118
                                             (617) 227-7500
    
                                             Attorneys for Defendant
    
    DATED: January 26,200l
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • RALPH GRANT,
  • EPASYS, INC., a Delaware corporation,)
  • Nominal Defendant
  • DEFENDANT JULEE MITCHELL'S POST-TRIAL REPLY BRIEF
  • Even if Section 108 required a writing to establish a Board of Directors -- which it does not
  • Since there is no requirement in Section 108 that an incorporator act in writing, if this
  • enforcement of Grant's representation that he and Mitchell
  • E. Grant's contention that a single paralegal at McDermott, Will & Emery dreamed up the idea
  • directors is an incorrect recitation of Delaware law
  • Plaintiffs Br.
  • Holding "an organization meeting of the incorporator or incorporators."
  • Legislature made it clear that sole incorporators could either hold an organization meeting
  • has spoken and addressed the matter: the Legislature chose& to require that a sole
  • In addition, it is clear that Epasys' corporate lawyers, McDermott, Will & Emery,
  • it designates a Board of Directors; and it is executed by Ralph Grant,
  • was director because, inter alia, she did not tile suit on the agreement they had
  • Mitchell, with her dual roles in and loyalties to Epasys and Phoenix Environmental, had an
  • Grant's optimistic view of Epasys as an investment is obvious because he claims he has spent
  • Mitchell testified that she may have met paralegal Renee Carson once in John Egan's office
  • However, McDermott, Will & Emery's billing records show that Grant
  • That reference is a meeting on October 22, 1999, reflected
  • The obvious reason that a letter, rather than an actual stock option, was issued

  • 3 . PLAINTIFFS REPLY POST-TRIAL BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    MITCHELL
    GRANT
    EPASYS
    COURT
    DELAWARE
    LETTERS
    PLAINTIFFS
    MCDERMOTT
    DOB
    JULEE MITCHELL
    FOREIGN CORPORATION CERTIFICATE
    DEL
    POB
    PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEES
    RALPH GRANT
    MCDERMOTT ATTORNEYS
    INCORPORATOR
    TESTIMONY
    CREDIBILITY
    MASSACHUSETTS
    AGREEMENT
    STOCK OPTION
    EXISTENCE
    STOCK OPTION PLAN
    ELECT DIRECTORS
    MITCHELL RELIES
    NOMINAL DEFENDANT
    TUTEUR CARRIE
    EPASYS-CREATED DOCUMENT
    
           IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                           IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    RALPH GRANT,
    
                           Plaintiff,
    
           V.                                       >                              7:
    
    JULEE MITCHELL,
    
                           Defendant,
    
           and
    
    EPASYS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
    
                           Nominal Defendant.       ;
    
    
    
                          PLAINTIFF'S REPLY POST-TRIAL BRIEF
    
    
                                                 SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & FURL0 W LLP
                                                 David A. Jenkins
                                                 Michele  C. Gott
                                                 800 Delaware Avenue
                                                 Post Office Box 4 10
    OF COUNSEL:                                  Wilmington, DE 19899-0410
                                                 (302) 6.52-8400
    EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C.                Attorneys for Plaintiff Ralph Grant
    Michael J. Tuteur
    Carrie J. Fletcher
    75 State Street, 27th Floor
    Boston, MA 02109-l 8 13
    (617) 342-4000
    
    
    January  26,200l
    
    
    
                                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                                                       
    
       INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • Nominal Defendant.
  • Michael J. Tuteur Carrie J. Fletcher
  • Mitchell Has Materially Changed Her
  • Claim as to How She Became a Director of Epasys
  • That a Board of Directors Existed Before August 24,200O.
  • The Letters to Prospective Employees Are Not Such
  • Were Created by a Paralegal at McDermott,
  • The Massachusetts Foreign Corporation Certificates.
  • Mitchell's Theories That McDermott and Mr. Grant
  • The Testimony of the McDermott Lawyers is Credible.
  • Defendant's Credibility Arguments Make No Sense.
  • Enforcing Any Oral Agreement With Mr. Grant.
  • Ch., 123 A.2d 893, rev `d on other grounds, Del.
  • with John Egan of McDermott, Will & Emery, they agreed that Ralph Grant, who would be
  • matters he attempted to reach consensus with the other two founders, Julee Mitchell and Jack
  • August 24,200O (when Mr. Grant, the sole incorporator, elected himself as a director).
  • amending the incorrect Foreign Corporation Certificate.
  • `When consensus was not reached, however, it was Mr. Grant's decision that prevailed (POB 24)
  • to officially elect directors, they thought that filing the Foreign
  • August, the McDermott attorneys, even though they knew that a board of directors had
  • a prompt stockholder meeting to properly elect directors for Epasys (DOB 1 n.1).
  • As explained in the opening brief no Epasys-created document actually
  • The Letters to Prospective Emplovees Are Not Such Documents
  • Mitchell relies,
  • when the stock option plan might be approved; thus,
  • Titles To the Existence of a Board of Directors

  • 4 . PLAINTIFFS OPENING POST-TRIAL BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    GRANT
    MITCHELL
    DIRECTORS
    DELAWARE
    INCORPORATOR
    FOREIGN CORPORATION CERTIFICATE
    COURT
    RALPH GRANT
    MELTZER
    PLAINTIFF
    MCDERMOTT
    DEFENDANT
    BOSTON
    SOLE INCORPORATOR
    OFFICERS
    MEETING
    JULEE MITCHELL
    FORMATION
    INVESTORS
    LLC
    OWNERSHIP
    ELECT DIRECTORS
    TESTIMONY
    WRITTEN ACTION
    VENTURE CAPITALISTS
    MASSACHUSETTS FOREIGN CORPORATION
    START-UP COMPANY
    ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
    AGREEMENT
    
          IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                            IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    RALPH GRANT,
    
                            Plaintiff,
    
           V.
    
    JULEE MITCHELL,
    
                            Defendant,
    
           and
    
    EPASYS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
    
                            Nominal Defendant.  )
    
    
    
                          PLAINTIFF'S OPENING POST-TRIAL BRIEF
    
    
                                             SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & FURLOW LLP
                                             David A. Jenkins
                                             Michele  C. Gott
                                             800 Delaware Avenue
                                             Post Office Box 410
    OF COUNSEL:                              Wilmington, DE 19899-0410
                                             (302) 6528400
    EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C.            Attorneys for Plaintiff Ralph Grant
    Michael J. Tuteur
    Carrie J. Fletcher
    75 State Street, 27th Floor
    Boston, MA 02 109- 18 13
    (617) 342-4000
    
    January  17,200l
    
    
    
                                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
                                                                                                       
    
        TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • EPASYS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
  • Nominal Defendant.
  • Phoenix Environmental, LLC
  • Mitchell at Epasys--"The Best She Ever Had It"
  • Formation of a Board of Directors for Epasys.
  • McDermott Discovers the Foreign Corporation Certificate
  • Mr. Grant Elects Himself as Sole Director of Epasys
  • No One at Epasys Acted as if Directors Had Been Elected
  • Ralph Grant is the Sole Director and Officer of Epasys
  • Only a Written Action by the
  • Incorporator Could Elect Directors
  • The plaintiff is Ralph Grant,
  • The defendant is Julee Mitchell,
  • Jack Meltzer) have a more checkered work
  • `A separately bound appendix containing Trial Testimony and Trial Exhibits is being filed
  • were introduced to John Egan, a corporate partner at the Boston office of McDermott, Will
  • The parties also discussed the ownership of the to-be-formed company.3 After
  • to have control pending investment by some professional investors" (Id.
  • %he does admit, however, that they were told that "venture capitalists sometimes like to see"
  • Mitchell denied that any such agreement ever was reached,
  • typical or usual for "someone who puts cash into a start-up company,
  • understanding "was based on the meeting we had with John Egan and the agreement that we
  • or not that was memorialized in my mind by virtue of the fact that I was the sole incorporator
  • Mitchell's sudden interest in having a copy of Epasys' alleged corporate documents in her
  • not formally elected officers or even elected a board of directors.

  • 5 . DEFENDANTS PRETRIAL BRIEF (REVISED)

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    EPASYS
    MITCHELL
    COURT
    MELTZER
    DIRECTORS
    DELAWARE
    BUSINESS
    OFFICERS
    RALPH GRANT
    MEETING
    FACTS
    MCDERMOTT
    FOREIGN CORPORATION CERTIFICATE
    INCORPORATOR
    LAW
    MASSACHUSETTS
    VICE PRESIDENT
    BANKRUPTCY COURT
    PLAINTIFF
    REPRESENTATION
    EMPLOYEES
    ORGANIZATION MEETING
    CRIMINAL ACTION
    TREASURER
    JULEE MITCHELL
    PENALTIES
    STOCK AGREEMENTS
    GRANT ADMITS
    CORPORATE COUNSEL
    
                  IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                                     IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    RALPH GRANT,
    
                     Plaintiff
    
    V.                                                             CA. NO.  18370NC
    
    JULEE MITCHELL                                        1
    
                     Defendant                            i
    
    and                                                   i>
    EPASYS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
                                                          i
                     Nominal Defendant                    >
    
    
    
                              DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL BRIEF  *[REVISED1
    
    
                                                           CONNOLLY, BOVE, LODGE & HUT2 LLP
    
                                                           Arthur G. Connolly, III
                                                                               .
                                                           1220 Market Butldmg
                                                           P.O. Box 2207
                                                           Wilmington, DE 19899
                                                           (302) 658-9141
    
    
                                                           SCHNEIDER REIL,L,Y  LLP
    
                                                           Joanne D'Alcomo
                                                           Three Center Plaza
                                                           Boston, MA 02118
                                                           (617) 227-7500
    
                                                           Attorneys for Defen.dant
    
    DATED: January  2,200l
    *This version includes citations to the trial exhibits and corrects word-processing and
    
    
    
                                                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • RALPH GRANT,
  • EPASYS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
  • FACTS.
  • n Threat of criminal action as strategy for dealing with Mitchell and Meltzer.
  • n Discussions about closing Epasys and having Grant re-open the business
  • Directors as represented on the Foreign Corporation Certificate and that he did not
  • Board of Directors by that Date
  • because officers can only be elected by the Board of Directors
  • under Delaware law, Grant's claim that there was no Board of Directors until
  • sole Director, and then appoint himself President, Secretary and Treasurer.
  • the plaintiff Ralph Grant, the defendant Julee Mitchell and a third person, John P. "Jack"
  • incorporator, he purported to appoint himself the sole director, and then, in turn, appoint
  • points to, among other things, a filing with the Massachusetts Secretary of Stat'e's Office
  • purported to file on behalf of Epasys a Chapter 11 proceeding in Bankruptcy Court in
  • The defendant Julee Mitchell and Jack Meltzer collectively have about 35 years experience
  • Grant, Mitchell and Meltzer met with the law firm McDermott, Will
  • McDermott, Will & Emery under "penalties of perjury," that identified himself as "President,"
  • represent them in forming the corporation, and to become corporate counsel to Epasys,
  • Grant admits there were additional officers named beyondF'resident,
  • and that Mitchell would hold a position of Vice President of Administration or Operations.
  • Grant admits that two other employees also became ofticers before August 24,2000, the date
  • lock employees out of meetings if they attempted to come into a meeting late.
  • In late July, Grant gave Mitchell and Meltzer copies of stock agreements that, it turned out,

  • 6 . DEFENDANTS PRETRIAL BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    MITCHELL
    EPASYS
    COURT
    MELTZER
    DELAWARE
    DIRECTORS
    BUSINESS
    JULEE MITCHELL
    RALPH GRANT
    OFFICERS
    MEETING
    FACTS
    MCDERMOTT
    LAW
    FOREIGN CORPORATION CERTIFICATE
    INCORPORATOR
    DEFENDANT
    MASSACHUSETTS
    VICE PRESIDENT
    FOREIGN CORPORATION
    BANKRUPTCY COURT
    PHOENIX ENVIRONMENTS1
    REPRESENTATION
    EMPLOYEES
    ORGANIZATION MEETING
    TREASURER
    BANKRUPTCY PETITION
    PENALTIES
    GRANT ADMITS
    
               IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                              IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    RALPH GRANT,
    
                 Plaintiff                   )
    
    V.                                              CA. NO. 18370NC
                                             1
    JULEE MITCHELL
                                             ;
                 Defendant
                                             ;
    and                                      >
    
    EPASYS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
                                             i
                 Nominal Defendant           >
    
    
    
                              DEFENDAN T'S PRETRIAL  BRIEF
    
    
                                             CONNOLLY, BOVE, LODGE & HUT.2 LLP
    
                                             Arthur G. Connolly, III
                                             1220 Market Building
                                             P.O. Box 2207
                                             Wilmington, DE 19899
                                             (302)  658-9141
    
    
                                             SCHNEIDER REILLY LLP
    
                                             Joanne D'Alcomo
                                             Three Center Plaza
                                             Boston, MA 02118
                                             (617) 227-7500
    
                                             Attorneys for Defendant
    
    DATED: December 27,200O
    
    
    
                                                      TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • RALPH GRANT,
  • EPASYS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
  • n Threat of criminal action as strategy for dealing with Mitchell and Meltzer.
  • n Discussions about closing Epasys and having Grant re-open the business
  • Directors as represented on the Foreign Corporation Certificate and that he did not
  • Board of Directors by that Date
  • Grant has admitted that he 2nd Julee Mitchell were officers of EPASYS by early January 2000;
  • Grant should be estopped from asserting that there was no Board of Directors for Epasys
  • E. Grant's claim that he never held an organization meeting rests solely on his credibility
  • the plaintiff Ralph Grant, the defendant Julee Mitchell and a third person, John P. "Jack"
  • incorporator, he purported to appoint himselfthe sole director, and then, in turn, appoint
  • points to, among other things, a filing with the Massachusetts Secretary of State's Offrce
  • to file on behalf of Epasys a Chapter 11 proceeding in Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington,
  • Insisting that he was reserving his rights to file another bankruptcy petition later,
  • Grant, Mitchell and Meltzer met with the law firm McDermott, Will
  • McDermott, Will & Emery under "penalties of perjury," that identified himself as "President",
  • Grant admits there were additional officers named beyond President,
  • and that Mitchell would hold a position of Vice President of Administration or Operations.
  • Grant admits that two other employees also became officers before August 24,2000, the date
  • in Phoenix Environments1 to give him a greater share.

  • 7 . PLAINTIFFS PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    EPASYS
    GRANT
    DELAWARE
    DIRECTORS
    INCORPORATOR
    DEL
    COURT
    MELTZER
    MITCHELL DEP
    FOREIGN CORPORATION CERTIFICATE
    OFFICER
    MEETING
    NOMINAL DEFENDANT
    BRANDNER
    JACOBS
    MCDERMOTT
    EGAN DEP
    RALPH GRANT
    INVESTORS
    BANKRUPTCY COURT
    DEPOSITION
    JULEE MITCHELL
    WEBB DEP
    PRESIDENT
    WRITTEN CONSENT
    MASSACHUSETTS
    BUSINESS
    DELAWARE LAW
    ORGANIZATION MEETING
    
       IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                         IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    RALPH GRANT,                             >
    
                         Plaintiff,          i
    
           V.                                ;
    
    JULEE MITCHELL,                          i      CA. No. 18370
    
                         Defendant,          1                                pYF=_,  4  :
                                                                              g;.  g  `>"
           and                                                                XT.  -          4
                                             i                                -T-J:-&   -
                                                                              Cnti  **
                                             >                                ="s  "w
    EPASYS, INC., a Delaware corporation, )                                     -<
                                             >
                         Nominal Defendant.)
    
    
                           PLAINTIFF'S PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
    
                                       SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & FURLOW LLP
                                       David A. Jenkins
                                       800 Delaware Avenue
                                       Post Office Box 410
                                       Wilmington, DE 19899-04 10
                                       (302) 652-8400
    December 27,200O                   Attorneys for Plaintiff Ralph Grant
    
    OF COUNSEL:
    
    EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
    Michael J. Tuteur
    75 State Street, 27th Floor
    Boston, MA 02109-1813
    (617) 342-4000
    
    
    
                                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    
    
        TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    
        NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • Brandner Corp. v. Stelnick, Del.
  • No. 14463, 1996 WL 82461, Jacobs, V.C..
  • director and officers of the nominal defendant, Epasys, Inc.
  • Grant, who believes he is a director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Epasys;
  • Mr. Grant has provided essentially all the funding for the company since its inception.
  • The defendant is Julee Mitchell, who claims to be a director and officer of Epasys.
  • Mitchell and Mr. Meltzer were the owners of Entech Systems,
  • District of K.ansas (Mitchell Dep.
  • *In addition to their business partnerships,
  • introduced to John Egan, a corporate partner at the Boston office of McDermott, Will
  • At a later meeting, Mr. Egan
  • Delaware "y action of an incorporator" (Id.
  • After being informed that it was typical to do so, the three agreed that "Ralph Grant
  • hey would be unvested initially" (Egan Dep.
  • directors and that at that time Julee Mitchell would be appointed to the Board subject
  • to the investors' approval" (Egan Dep.
  • Mitchell testified in her deposition that Mr. Grant agreed to loan all of this money to the
  • be the need to elect a board before those options could be issued (Webb Dep.
  • First, on August 24,2000, Mr. Grant executed a Written Consent of the Sole
  • 17Between September 1,200O and the filing of this lawsuit on September 29, 2000, Epasys filed
  • With no discovery having been taken, the Bankruptcy Court was unconvinced that Mr. Grant,
  • Mitchell will object to following the corporate formalities of Delaware law in this case, she
  • 260missions refer to actions taken at an organization meeting of directors,
  • Circumstances quite similar to those here occurred in Brandner Corp.

  • 8 . ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANT J. MITCHELL

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    GRANT
    PLAINTIFF
    DEFENDANT MITCHELL ADMITS
    EPASYS
    ALLEGATIONS
    PARAGRAPH
    COURT
    DEFENDANT MITCHELL DENIES
    OFFICER
    DISMISS
    RELIEF
    JULEE MITCHELL
    DELAWARE CORPORATION
    COMPLAINT
    RESPONSIVE PLEADING
    INCORPORATOR
    DIRECTORS
    BANKRUPTCY COURT
    PROCEEDING
    LACKS PERSONAL JURISDICTION
    REQUESTS
    RALPH GRANT
    HEREBY
    MASSACHUSETTS
    CERTIFICATE
    PURPORTING
    ACT
    OBJECTIONS
    MOTION
    
                      IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY 0:F THE STATE OF DELAWARE                               D
                                    IN AN:D FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    RALPH GRANT
    
                       Plaintiff
                                                        i
           V.                                                      CIVIL ACTION NO. 18370
                                                        ;
    JULEE MITCHELL,
                                                        1
                       Defendant                        >
    
    
    EPASYS, INC., a Delaware corporation
    
    
    
                          ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANT JULEE MITCHELL
    
           The defendant Julee Mitchell, hereby answers the allegations in plaintiffs complaint
    
    according 1:o the numbered paragraphs in the complaint as follows:
    
                1.     Paragraph one states a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is
    
                       required.
    
           2.          Denied.
    
                3.     Denied.
    
           4.          The defendant Mitchell admits that EPASYS is a start-up company that, in part,
    
                       develops software dealing in environmental issues. The defendant Mitchell
    
                       admits that EPASYS has offices in Massachusetts and New Jersey. Defendant
    
                       Mitchell lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to truth
    
                       the allegations of the current number of employees at EPASYS and, therefore,
    
                       denies same. The remaining factual allegations of paragraph four are denied.
    
                5.     The defendant Mitchell admits that EPASYS was incorporated on December 23,
    
                       1999, that it is a Delaware corporation, and that Ralph Grant acted as the sole
    
                       incorporator. The defendant Mitchell admits that the certificate of incorporation
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANT JULEE MITCHELL
  • hereby answers the allegations in plaintiffs complaint
  • Paragraph one states a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is
  • admits that EPASYS has offices in Massachusetts and New Jersey.
  • The remaining factual allegations of paragraph four are denied.
  • The defendant Mitchell admits that EPASYS was incorporated on December 23,
  • 1999, that it is a Delaware corporation, and that Ralph Grant acted as the sole
  • incorporator.
  • The defendant Mitchell admits that the certificate of incorporation
  • and that she insists that there are two directors,
  • officer of the company.
  • perjury by the plaintiff Grant with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in
  • defendant Mitchell denies the remaining allegations in paragraph seven.
  • petition, but rather Grant purporting to act on behalf of the company, and denies
  • The defendant Mitchell admits that on September 27, 2000, Grant, purporting to
  • bankruptcy proceeding and that there were no objections to the motion to dismiss.
  • The defendant Mitchell admits that on September 29, 2000, the Bankruptcy Court
  • plaintiff Grant seeks individual relief in his requests for relief.
  • This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant Mitchell because the plaintiff
  • the defendant Mitchell respectfully requests that the complaint be

  • 9 . COMPLAINT UNDER 8 DEL. C. SEC 225

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    GRANT
    COURT
    DIRECTORS
    MITCHELL
    SOLE
    INCORPORATOR
    BANKRUPTCY
    RELIEF
    PLAINTIFF
    OFFICER
    DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION FINANCING
    PETITION
    PROCEEDING
    DISMISS
    DELAWARE
    LIEU
    ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
    WRITTEN CONSENT
    PURSUANT
    RALPH GRANT
    DEFENDANT
    DEVELOPER
    MASSACHUSETTS
    CERTIFICATE
    INSTRUMENT
    OFTHE
    INTER
    LAW
    REPRESENTING
    
                           THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                    IN .AND FOR  A'EW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
        RALPH GRANT,                                       )
    
                                    Plaintiff              11
                     V.                                    )1
        JULEE  MITCHELL                                            C.A. No.
                                                           I
                                    Defendant                                                          
    
                     and                                   >
    
        EPASYS, INC., a Delaware corporation,              i>
                                    Nominal Defendant.  )
    
                                     QXVIPLAINT UNDER 8 DEL. C. 6 225
    
                              1.    This is an action pursuant to 8  L&E. C.  6 225 for  dec.laratory 
    
        injunctive relief
    
                             3-.    Plaintiff Ralph Grant is the only properly elected director of and
    
        only officer of Nominal Defendant Epasys, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Epasys" or the
    
        "Company")
    
                             3.     Defendant  Julee  Mitchell is improperly holding herself out as a
    
        direcror  of Epasys.
    
                             4.     Epasys is a start-up software developer specializing in
    
        compliance issues. Epasys has offices in Massachusetts and New Jersey and employs
    
        approximately 20 person:;, primarily in the research and development of software. No relief
    
    
    IMJll67  \N'D                                          1
    
    
    
         is sought from Epasys; its presence is necessary solely to ensure that it is bound by any
    
         decision of this Court.
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • This is an action pursuant to 8 L&E.
  • injunctive relief
  • Plaintiff Ralph Grant is the only properly elected director of and the
  • only officer of Nominal Defendant Epasys, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Epasys" or the
  • Epasys is a start-up software developer specializing in environmental
  • Ralph Grant, acting as sole incorporator.
  • As Epasys' certificate of incorporation did not
  • name any directors, Mr. Grant, as the sole incorporator, was authorized by 8 Del.
  • "an instrument that states the action so taken" in lieu of an organizationmeeting.
  • director of Epasys, execuled a unanimous written consent ofthe board ofdirectors that, inter
  • Mitchell claims that she is an officer of the Company.
  • document filed with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on January 7,200O by Mr. Grant
  • document, however, was improperly prepared by the law firm then representing the
  • On September 14, 2000, the Company filed a voluntary petition
  • pursuant to chapter 11 ofthe United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy
  • Court for the District of Delaware and sought approval of debtor-in-possession financing
  • dismissal of the bankruptcy proceeding.
  • There were no objections to the motion to dismiss, and on September 29,
  • Plaintifr has no adequate remedy at law.
  •    |