LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

KAIDANOW v HQ GLOBAL WORKPLACES Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 17,875, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff: KAIDANOW, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00017875, Kaidanow, Del, Fees, Delaware, Arcoro, Purpose, Inspection, Purposes, Warrant Agreements, Defense, Merger Transactions, Agreement, Faith, Demand, Defenses, Evidence, Stated Purposes, Burdens, Warrant, Transaction, Expenses, Carramerica, Paragraph, Transactions, Books, Delaware Corporation, Petition, Chancery, Financial Information, Stockholders, Proper Purpose, Proper, Shareholders, Omni Lux, Facts, Stockholder, Connection, Kaidanow Dep, Requested Information, Assertion, Confidentiality , ContentID: 120239674

Case Documents
1 2000-07-28 PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102500
15 pages
PDF
2 2000-07-13 DEFENDANTS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102501
21 pages
PDF
3 2000-05-15 PLAINTIFFS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102502
28 pages
PDF
4 2000-03-28 PARTIAL FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100195
28 pages
PDF
5 2000-03-23 DEFENDANTS REPLY BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102504
27 pages
PDF
6 2000-03-23 PLAINTIFFS PRE-TRIAL REPLY BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102503
20 pages
PDF
7 2000-03-22 DEFENDANTS OPENING PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102506
32 pages
PDF
8 2000-03-22 PLAINTIFFS OPENING PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102505
25 pages
PDF
9 2000-03-16 ANSWER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 101311
5 pages
PDF
10 2000-03-08 COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 101312
5 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 10 documents , 206 pages
Price: $ 64.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT
DEFENSE
FAITH
DEL
FEES
ATTORNEYS
COUNSEL
REQUESTED INFORMATION
DEMAND
SUPPORT
WARRANT AGREEMENTS
DELAY
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
EVIDENCE
SUPR
PETITION
MISREPRESENTATIONS
PRODUCING
DELAWARE
KAIDANOW
PURPORTED DEFENSES
OVERBROAD
RIFLED PRECISION
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
MERGER TRANSACTIONS
EXPENSES
SE1 LER LLP
FAITH JUSTIFIES
INSPECTION
                 IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE             /;?`(
                                                                               :.:-I  7
                                IN AM> FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY


JOSEPH KAIDANOW and
ROBERT A. ARCORO,

                         Plaintiffi;,         1>
       \`.                                    ) Civil Action No.  17875-NC

HQ GLOBAL WORKPLACES,  INC.,                  i
a Delaware corporation,
                                              1
                         Defendant.           1



                    PLAINTIFFS' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
                    PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPFNSES
                    __-__---                                            i







                                           MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
                                           William M. Lafferty
                                           S. Mark Hwd
                                           1201 N. Market Street
                                           Wilmington, Delaware 19801
                                           (302) 658-9200
                                            Attorneys for Plaintiffs

OF COUNSEL:

FRIEDMAN KAPLAN & SE1 LER LLP
875 Third Avenue
New Y orlc , NY 10022
(212) 833--l 100

July 28, 2000



                                                                                1.

SNIPPETS:
  • PLAINTIFFS' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
  • PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPFNSES
  • FRIEDMAN KAPLAN & SE1 LER LLP
  • HQ'S BAD FAITH JUSTIFIES AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
  • HQ Had No Basis To Refuse Plaintiffs' Inspection Under
  • Section 10 OF The Warrant Agreements.
  • R. HQ's Brief Ignores The Misrepresentations Its Counsel
  • Made To The Court At The Scheduling Conference
  • Regarding HQ's Purported Defenses.
  • HQ's Claim That Plaintiffs' Demand Was Overbroad Or
  • I-IQ's Delay In Producing The Requested Information Is
  • Further Evidence Of Its Bad Faith.
  • SuDport Enforcern,ent v. Smallwood, Del.
  • Supr., 526 A.2d 1353.
  • misrepresentations to the Court and HQ asserted defenses that had no good faith bases in fact.
  • l I-IQ's unjuslified delay in producing the requested information,
  • withholding of large amounts of the critical financial information necessary to properly
  • F`EES AND EXPENSES.
  • 8consistent,with established Delaware law and would vindicate the twin policy imperatives
  • contractual right to information, HQ denied Plaintiffs' Demand, falsely claiming that
  • To The Court At The Scheduling Conference Regarding
  • HO's "Competition Defense" Was Frivolous.
  • To the contrary, Mr. Kaidanow
  • Without The Reauisite "Rifled Precision" Is Without Merit.
  • connection with due diligence for the Proposed Merger Transactions."

  • 2 . DEFENDANTS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COURT
    FEES
    ATTORNEYS
    DELAWARE
    MERGER TRANSACTIONS
    DEFENDANT
    KAIDANOW
    PETITION
    AGREEMENT
    EXPENSES
    COUNSEL
    DEL
    ARCORO
    LITIGATION
    OMNI
    PROPOSED MERGER TRANSACTIONS
    AMERICAN RULE
    JOSEPH KAIDANOW
    CONNECTION
    VANTAS
    STOCKHOLDERS
    EXCEPTION
    COMPLAINT
    SHAREHOLDERS
    FINANCIAL ADVISOR
    DELAWARE LEGISLATURE
    DISCOVERY
    WILMINGTON
    AUTHORITIES
    
                 IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                               IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    JOSEPH KAIDANOW and ROBERT A.
    ARCORO,
    
                                Plaintiffs,    ;    Civil Action No. 17875
           V.                                  i
    
    HQ GLOBAL WORKPLACES, INC., a              1
    Delaware corporation,                                                                  -, 1
                                                                                           : (
                                Defendant.     ;                                                   r
                                                                                   CT- / ,-
                                                                                   :.; :
                                                                                   r:                -7
                                                                                   /. ^            -
                                                                              .-                   -I--
                                                                                                   -.:>
                                                                              !                    . .
                                                                              -5 :                 >- .,
                                                                              I,?  :  ..
                                                                              -"r                  ,-
                                                                              L.                   ~,
                   DEFENDANT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'                          `. * _ .-
                       PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
    
    OF COUNSEL:
    
    Terence P. Ross                                 Jesse A. Finkelstein
    James C. Dougherty                              Catherine G. Dearlove
    Mark E. Papadopoulos                            Richards, Layton & Finger
    Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher                         One Rodney Square
    1050 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.                  P.O. Box 551
    Washington, D.C. 20036                          Wilmington, DE 19899
    (202) 95543500                                  (302) 658-6541
                                                     Attorneys for Defendant
    
    Dated: July  13,200O
    
    
    
                                                                                                     
    
    
    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • JOSEPH KAIDANOW and ROBERT A. ARCORO,
  • PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
  • OF COUNSEL:
  • Wilmington, DE 19899 95543500
  • Attorneys for Defendant
  • TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.
  • The DC Litigation.
  • The Merger Transactions
  • Plaintiffs' Demand For Inspection of HQ's Books and Records..
  • PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES CASES DRAWN FROM OTHER
  • DELAWARE SUPREME COURT AND DELAWARE LEGISLATURE
  • Berkowitz l&gal Sea Foods, Inc., Del.

  • 3 . PLAINTIFFS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COURT
    WARRANT AGREEMENTS
    PURPOSES
    DEFENSES
    KAIDANOW
    FEES
    ATTORNEYS
    FAITH
    COUNSEL
    INSPECTION
    EXPENSES
    PROPER
    DEMAND
    DELAWARE
    ARCORO
    CONFIDENTIALITY
    MERGER TRANSACTIONS
    ASSERTIONS
    COMPETITORS
    CARRAMERICA
    JOSEPH KAIDANOW
    DEMANDING INSPECTION
    LITIGATION
    SHAREHOLDERS
    FINANCIAL INFORMATION
    STOCKHOLDER
    DIRECTORS
    WARRANT HOLDERS
    SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
    
                    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    JOSEPH KAIDANOW and
    ROBERT A. ARCORO,
    
                          Plaintiffs,         ;>
           V.                                 )     Civil Action No. 17875-NC
    
    HQ GLOBAL WORKPLACES, INC.,               ;                                  _-
                                                                                             -
    
    a Delaware corporation,                                                       :.
    
    
    
    
    
                          Defendant.                                              :
                                                                                       .          "
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                      PLAINTIFFS' OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
                        PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • PLAINTIFFS' OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
  • PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
  • Subsequent Events -- HQ Retreats, Retreats, Retreats.
  • THE COMPANY'S BAD FAITH DEFENSE OF THIS ACTION
  • Inspection Under Section 10 Of The Warrant Agreements.
  • Demanding Inspection Were Not Proper Were Frivolous.
  • The Company's Assertions That Plaintiffs Were
  • Categories Of Information Sought In The Demand Were
  • This case was filed on March 8,2000, by plaintiffs Joseph Kaidanow and Robert A.
  • Arcoro, who own non-voting common stock and warrants to purchase non-voting
  • requested inspection for proper purposes under Delaware law, i.e., to value their HQ shares
  • asserted four meritless affirmative defenses.
  • CarrAmerica Realty Corporation
  • a majority of the members of HQ's board of directors
  • they became the only HQ shareholders not
  • District of Columbia Litigation.
  • Kaidanow in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
  • In connection with the Merger Transactions,
  • On the same day that the transactions were announced, counsel for Carrhmerica
  • The plaintiffs are also competitors of ours in the New York
  • protect any legitimate confidentiality concern of HQ.
  • Holder with financial information comparable to that provided to
  • The plaintiffs are warrant holders,
  • CarrAmerica as an entity, as a stockholder entity.

  • 4 . PARTIAL FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COURT
    TRANSACTION
    CHANCERY
    WARRANT
    DELAWARE
    MERGER
    AGREEMENTS
    OMNI LUX
    BOOKS
    DEFENDANT
    EVIDENCE
    PARTIES
    SORT
    COURT REPORTERS
    VALUATION
    CARRAMERICA
    PROPER PURPOSE
    GLOBAL WORKPLACES
    PURSUANT
    LITIGATION
    INVESTMENT
    DIRECTORS
    BUSINESS
    CREDIBLE BASIS
    CASTLE COUNTY
    JUDGEMENT
    AGREEMENTS RELATING
    RELATED INFORMATION
    COUNSEL
    
                    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                               IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
                                                                      r:     I  `/
    JOSEPH KAIDANOW, AND ROBERT A.                                          .-  :
    ARCORO,                                                                 i  ;
                                              )                  ;          c>        `.
                               Plaintiffs,    )    Civil Action No. 17875-NC :
    
             V.
    
    HQ GLOBAL WORKPLACES, INC., a
    Delaware corporation,
    
                               Defendant.
    
    
                             PARTIAL FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT
    
    
                      WHEREAS, on or about January 20, 2000, defendant HQ
    
    Global Workplaces, Inc. ("HQ Global"), entered into a series of
    
    agreements relating to, among other things, the merger of
    
    VANTAS, Incorporated with and into HQ Global (collectively, and
    
    as may be amended from time to time, the "Merger Transactions");
    
                      WHEREAS, plaintiffs filed this action, pursuant to 8
    
    CDel.          . § 220 and Section 10 of certain warrant agreements (the
    
     "Warrant Agreements") between each of them and HQ Global seeking
    
    to inspect certain books and records (and related information)
    
    of HQ Global;
    
                      WHEREAS, the Court conducted a trial of this action on
    
    March 24, 2000, and considered, among other things, the evidence
    
    
    
    presented at trial, the arguments of counsel at trial, and the
    
    pretrial briefs submitted by the parties; and
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
  • HQ GLOBAL WORKPLACES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
  • PARTIAL FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT
  • WHEREAS, on or about January 20, 2000, defendant HQ
  • as may be amended from time to time, the "Merger Transactions");
  • WHEREAS, plaintiffs filed this action, pursuant to 8
  • "Warrant Agreements") between each of them and HQ Global seeking
  • to inspect certain books and records (and related information)
  • March 24, 2000, and considered, among other things, the evidence
  • presented at trial, the arguments of counsel at trial, and the
  • any valuation of HQ Global,
  • CarrAmerica Realty Corporation by HQ Global in the last six
  • packages for HQ Global, Omni UK and Omni Lux (containing, among
  • Merger Transactions shall not occur until five business days
  • Plaintiff has:he burden to show a proper purpose.
  • It mdepends on whether or not a credible basis
  • CHANCERY COURT REPORTERS
  • i 19 transaction would be divided.
  • directors really played a role in this on behalf of 10 BQ* Moreover, it appear8 that EQ's
  • lnderatend the company's concerns about the D.C. 6 Litigation.
  • One would sort of expect
  • 18 heard from other parties with an interest -- I think

  • 5 . DEFENDANTS REPLY BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DEL
    COURT
    BURDENS
    DEFENSE
    ARCORO
    DEFENDANT
    EVIDENCE
    WARRANT
    AGREEMENT
    FEES
    ATTORNEYS
    ASSERTION
    DELAWARE
    KAIDANOW
    PURPOSE
    PLAINTIFFS FUNDAMENTALLY MISCONSTRUE
    DELAWARE CORPORATION
    ARBITRIUM
    UTTERLY FAIL
    LITIGATION
    CARRAMERICA
    POB
    STOCKHOLDERS
    STATED PURPOSES
    AUTHORITIES
    SUPREME COURT
    INSPECTION
    NON-VOTING STOCK
    KAIDANOW DEP
    
                      IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                             IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNT COUNTY
    
    JOSEPH  KAIDANOW  and ROBERT A.           )
    ARCORO,
    
                             Plaintiffs,      I      Civil Action No. 17875
             V.                               ;
    
    
    HQ GLOBAL WORKPLACES, INC., a             ;
    Delaware corporation,
    
                             Defendant.       i
    
    
    
    
    
                              DEFENDANT'S REPLY PIUS-TRIAL  Blm
    
    
    
    OF COUNSEL:
    
    Terence P. Ross                                   Jesse A. Finkelstein
    James C. Dougherty                                Catherine G. Dearlove
    Gibson, Dunn & Crntcher                           Michael D. Allen
    1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.                     Richards, Layton & Finger
    Washington, D.C. 20036                             One Roldney  Square
    (202-955-8500                                     P. 0. Box 551
                                                      Wilmington, DE 19899
                                                       (302) 658-6541
                                                        Attorneys for Defendant
    
    Dated: March  23,200O
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    RLFl-2135135-1
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • PLAINTIFFS FUNDAMENTALLY MISCONSTRUE AND UTTERLY FAIL TO MEET THEIR:BURDEN
  • Plaintiffs Do Not Proffer Any Evidence To Meet
  • Section 10 of the Warrant Agreement Does Not Grant
  • PLAINTIFFS' ASSERTION THAT THE COMPANY HAS
  • Defendant Properly Asserted Each Of Its
  • PLAlNTIFFS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS'
  • -ii-TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
  • Arbitrium Handels AG v. Johnston,
  • plaintiffs transparently attempt to cast themselves as oppressed minority stockholders ofHQ,
  • HQ is a Delaware corporation that owns and operates full-service temporary o&es
  • The founding and largest shareholder of HQ is CarrAmerica Realty Corporation
  • was owned by Kaidanow and Arcoro.
  • Kaidanow and Arcoro negotiated with HQ for the sale of their
  • purchase 100,000 and 85,000 shares of HQ non-voting stock, respectively, at $20.00 per
  • Testimony in the DC Litigation has revealed that Kaidanow and Arcoro
  • documents even remotely relevant to that purpose without making any additional showing.
  • attorneys' fees and costs in this litigation.
  • See POB at 19 ("At this juncture,
  • inspection of all of the documents requested.").
  • Demand are "essential and sufficient" to their stated purposes.
  • at 14; see Kaidanow Dep.
  • plaintiffs instead simply rely upon two Dela-ware Supreme Court cases
  • garner information to assist the stockholders in meeting the high burdens for bringing such

  • 6 . PLAINTIFFS PRE-TRIAL REPLY BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    KAIDANOW
    PURPOSES
    COURT
    FACTS
    MERGER TRANSACTIONS
    LOUIS
    BOOKS
    DELAWARE
    ARCORO
    COUNSEL
    PROPER PURPOSES
    MATERIALS
    HOAK BREEDLOVE
    FINANCIAL INFORMATION
    KAIDANOW DEP
    STATED PURPOSES
    FAIRNESS OPINION
    DEFENDANT
    WARRANT AGREEMENTS
    REASONS SET
    VALUATION
    STOCKHOLDERS
    INVESTMENT
    CONNECTION
    GOLDMAN SACHS
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    DEPOSITION
    FRIEDMAN KAPLAN
    SEILER LLP
    
                 IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    JOSEPH KAIDANOW  and
    ROBERT A. ARCORO,
    
                          Plaintiffs,           ;1
           V.                                   ) Civil Action No. 17875-NC
    HQ GLOBAL WORKPLACES, INC.,                                                I.:"
                                                ;                              -.:
    a Delaware corporation,
                                                i                                      . . ./
                                                                                       I
                          Defendant.                                                   -_ :
                                                >
    
    
                               PLAINTIFFS' PRE-TRIAL REPLY BRIEF
    
    
    
    
                                            MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
                                            William M. Lafferty
                                             S. Mark Hurd
                                             1201 N. Market Street
                                            P.O. Box 1347
                                            Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
                                             (302) 658-9200
                                              Attorneys for Plaintiffs
    
    OF COUNSEL:
    
    FRIEDMAN KAPLAN & SEILER LLP
    875 Third Avenue
    New York, NY 10022
    (212) 833-1100
    
    
    March 23,200O
    
    
    
    
                                         1.
    
                                                                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • PLAINTIFFS' PRE-TRIAL REPLY BRIEF
  • OF COUNSEL:
  • FRIEDMAN KAPLAN & SEILER LLP
  • STATEMENT OF FACTS
  • RECORDS UNDER SECTION 220, AND DEFENDANT HAS NOT
  • ARE NECESSARY FOR THEIR STATED PURPOSES
  • HQ's Rule 30witness, Jill Louis, testified that Plaintiffs are not
  • rights to the requested information pursuant to Section 10 of the Warrant Agreements.
  • Demand is an end-run around the court in the District of Columbia litigation.
  • the Company asserts that Mr. Kaidanow
  • admitted that he was not aware of any specific facts suggesting a breach of fiduciary duty.
  • their contention that Omni UK was overvalued in connection with the Merger Transactions.
  • The Company also asserts that Mr. Arcoro has admitted that the materials
  • Company had not produced the Hoak Breedlove materials so it was impossible for Mr. Arcoro to
  • Mr. Arcoro also testified that the investment banking opinion
  • Mr. Kaidanow's actual deposition testimony explained why this
  • information was essential and noted that a valuation without these materials "was not as
  • PROPER PURPOSES TO INSPECT THE REQUESTED BOOKS
  • financial information that has been provided to the Board,
  • Kaidanow Dep.
  • the Merger Transactions' and HQ's investment banker fairness opinion and "board book,"
  • for the reasons set forth below with respect to
  • HQ has not produced certain materials prepared by Goldman Sachs & Co.,
  • HQ's opening brief, however, contains a different representation with respect to what
  • FRIEDMAND KAPLAN & SEILER LLP

  • 7 . DEFENDANTS OPENING PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PURPOSE
    INSPECTION
    COURT
    KAIDANOW
    STATED PURPOSES
    PARAGRAPH
    TRANSACTIONS
    ARCORO
    DEL
    DELAWARE CORPORATION
    AGREEMENT
    PROVING
    STOCKHOLDER
    OMNI LUX
    PROPOSED MERGER
    SHAREHOLDERS
    CONNECTION
    LITIGATION
    KAIDANOW DEP
    FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    CARRAMERICA
    VALUATION
    ENTITLEMENT
    MATERIALS
    GLOBAL WORKPLACES
    DEFENDANT
    PROCEEDING
    VANTAS
    
                      IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                             IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNT COUNTY
    
    JOSEPH KAIDANOW and ROBERT
    ARCORO,
    
                             Plaintiffs,
    
              V.
    
    HQ GLOBAL WORKPLACES, INC., a
    Delaware corporation,
    
                             Defendant.
    
    
    
    
    
                            DEFENDANT'S OPENING PFCE-TRIAL BRIEF
    
    
    
    OF COUNSEL:
    
    Terence P. Ross                                   Jesse A. Finkelstein
    James C. Dougherty                                Catherine G. Dearlove
    Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher                           Michael D. Allen
    1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.                     Richards, Layton & Finger
    Washington, D.C. 20036                            One Rodney Square
    (202-955-8500                                     P. 0. Box 551
                                                      Wilmington, DE 19899
                                                      (302) 658-6541
                                                       Attorneys for Defendant
    
    Dated: March 22, 2000
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    RLFI-2134559-I
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • JOSEPH KAIDANOW and ROBERT
  • HQ GLOBAL WORKPLACES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
  • To Satisfy Their Stated Purposes
  • PLAINTIFFS CANNOT MEET THEIR BURDEN OF PROVING THEIR ENTITLEMENT TO THE BROAD
  • SUFFICIENT" TO THEIR PURPOSE
  • Paragraph 16.
  • IF THE COURT ORDERS ANY FURTHER INSPECTION, SUCH INSPECTION SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE
  • Inc., Del.
  • Michael D. Goldman, "The Delaware Corporation Law -- Shareholders' Bight to Make an Informed
  • Robert A. Arcoro seek inspect:ion of 24 broad categories
  • possible breaches of fiduciary duty by the Board of Directors of the Company in connection
  • pending transactions, and the minutes of all board meetings at which the pending transactions
  • defendant contends that plaintiffs have not met their burden of proof to compel
  • VANTAS is owned principally by Reckson Service
  • `OmniOffices, Inc. is the former name of HQ and is a plaintiff in the D.C. Litigation, For
  • an Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among HQ, CarrAmerica,
  • Omni Lux, VANTAS and Reckson, pursuant to which immediately following the merger the
  • have not carefully reviewed the materials disclosed in these Offer Statements,
  • 16-17, see also Kaidanow Dep.
  • Proposed Merger Transactions of HQ's cash on hand in excess of the
  • All documents constituting or concerning any valuation or appraisal
  • Current financial statements and balance sheets for HQ, Omni UK,
  • PLAINTIFFS CANNOT MEET THEIR BURDEN OF PROVING THElR
  • ENTITLEMENT TO THE BROAD INSPECTION THEY SEEK.
  • Where the stockholder seeks to inspect the corporation's books and records other than its

  • 8 . PLAINTIFFS OPENING PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    KAIDANOW
    COURT
    DELAWARE
    DEL
    COUNSEL
    ATTORNEYS
    MERGER TRANSACTIONS
    PROPER PURPOSE
    ARCORO
    DEFENDANT
    AGREEMENT
    AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
    DEMAND
    WILMINGTON
    YORK
    INSPECTION
    STOCKHOLDERS
    COMMON STOCK
    WARRANT AGREEMENTS
    CARRAMERICA
    FINANCIAL INFORMATION
    LITIGATION
    SELF-DEALING
    JOSEPH KAIDANOW
    GLOBAL WORKPLACES
    THIRD AVENUE
    CONFIDENTIALITY
    NON-VOTING COMMON STOCK
    DIRECTORS
    
                 IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                 IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    JOSEPH KAIDANOW and                        1
    ROBERT A. ARCORO,
    
                          Plaintiffs,          11
           V.                                  ) Civil Action No. 17875NC
    
    HQ GLOBAL WORKPLACES, INC.,
    a Delaware corporation,
    
                          Defendant.
                                                                                         :  :
                                                                                         . .
                                                                             tt          -_-. _
                               PLAINTIFFS' OPENING PRE-TRIAL Bm              -_          t..: I
                                                                                   -\
    
    
    
    
                                            MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
                                            William M. Lafferty
                                            S. Mark Hurd
                                            1201 N. Market Street
                                            P.O. Box 1347
                                            Wilmington, DE 1989'9-1347
                                            (302) 658-9200
                                             Attorneys for Plaintiffs
    
    OF COUNSEL:
    
    FRIEDMAN KAPLAN & SEILER LLP
    875 Third Avenue
    New York, NY 10022
    (212) 833-1100
    
    March 22,200O
    
    
    
    
                                                                                                       
    
    
                                                                                                      
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • HQ GLOBAL WORKPLACES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
  • PLAINTIFFS' OPENING PRE-TRIAL Bm
  • FRIEDMAN KAPLAN & SEILER LLP 875 Third Avenue New York,
  • DEFENDANT'S OTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ARE
  • Abelman v. Katz, Del.
  • Wilmington Trust Comnanv v. Coulter,
  • This case was tiled on March 8,2000, by plaintiffs Joseph Kaidanow and Robert A.
  • Arcoro, who own non-voting common stock and warrants to purchase non-voting
  • Plaintiffs seek the inspection pursuant
  • Section 10 of the Warrant Agreements.
  • Plaintiffs should be awarded their attorneys' fees in prosecuting this action.
  • They collectively own 149,000 shares of non-voting common stock of HQ.
  • majority of the members of HQ's board of directors were affiliated with or beholden to HQ's
  • Although CanAmerica is not a party to this action, its lawyer appeared at the depositions of
  • Holder with financial information comparable to that provided to
  • District of Columbia Litigation.
  • Kaidanow in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
  • Transaction constituted a self-dealing sale of equity to CarrAmerica at dramatically less
  • The Merger Transactions.
  • have to enter into various other agreements, including a Stock Purchase Agreement,
  • Company (and therefore have the opportunity to enter into a Stockholders Agreement,
  • On the same day that the transactions were announced, counsel for CanAmerica
  • E. The Demand.
  • The plaintiffs are also competitors of ours in the New York
  • On March 16, 2000, defendant answered the Complaint, and asserted four
  • provision does not protect any legitimate confidentiality concern of HQ.
  • a proper purpose is "one which is reasonably related to such person's

  • 9 . ANSWER

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PURPORTING
    DEMAND
    DEFENDANT
    COMPLAINT
    PURPOSE
    DEMAND PURSUANT
    WARRANT AGREEMENTS
    EXHIBIT
    COUNSEL
    IMPROPER INSOFAR
    COURT
    LAW
    DELAWARE
    RESPONSE
    PARTIES
    BUSINESS
    PENDING LITIGATION
    DISTRICT
    COLUMBIA
    CREDIBLE EVIDENCE
    PROBABLE WRONGDOING SUFFICIENT
    BREACHES
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    INSPECTION
    I-NSOFAR
    STATED PURPOSE
    ADVERSE
    BUSINESS VENTURES
    COMPETE
    
                      IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DEL                                     
    
                                      IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    JOSEPH KAIDANOW and
    ROBERT A. ARCORO,
    
                       Plaintiffs,                               ;
                                                                                          ,,-
              V.                                                 ;     Civil Action No.  I7875NC   i  i
                                                                                                      -
                                                                                                     .m.
    HQ GLOBAL WORKPLACES, INC.,                                  ;                                   
    a Delaware corporation,                                                                           .
                                                                                                      .
                                                                                                     
                       Defendant.                                                                     .
                                                                 I                       L. I:       
    
    
                                                     ANSWER
    
                       Defendant HQ Global Workplaces, Inc. ("HQ" or "the Company"), for its answer,
    
    responds as follows:
    
                       1.       Denied, except that it is admitted that this purports to be an action
    
    to Section 220 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware ("Section 220") and that
    
    copies of Warrant Agreements dated March 4, 1998 are attached to the Complaint as Exhibits A
    
    and B.
    
                       2.       Admitted.
    
                       3.       Admitted.
    
                       4.       Denied, except that it is admitted that the Company received  aletter
    
    to be a demand pursuant to Section 220, a copy of which is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit C,
    
    that the language quoted in paragraph 4 is contained in Section 10 of the Warrant Agreements, and
    
    that a copy of the purported Demand was received by the registered agent for the Company in the
    
    State of Delaware.
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Defendant HQ Global Workplaces, Inc., for its answer,
  • copies of Warrant Agreements dated March 4, 1998 are attached to the Complaint as Exhibits A
  • except that it is admitted that the Company received aletter purporting
  • to be a demand pursuant to Section 220, a copy of which is attached to the Complaint as
  • State of Delaware.
  • Denied, except that it is admitted that in response to the Demand, Jesse A.
  • Finkelstein, Esquire, of the law firm of Richards, Layton & Finger sent counsel for
  • parties discussed a possible resolution of this matter.
  • except that it is admitted that five business days have elapsed since the
  • documents which they have been unable to obtain in pending litigation between the parties in
  • District of Columbia.
  • Plaintiffs' purpose is improper insofar as they have not met their burden of demonstrating
  • credible evidence of probable wrongdoing sufficient to warrant further investigation of
  • breaches of fiduciary duty.
  • Plaintiffs are not entitled to the inspection they seek i-nsofar as they seek to inspect
  • records beyond those which are essential and sufficient to their stated purpose.
  • Plaintiffs' purpose is adverse to the Company insofar as plaintiffs are engaged in
  • business ventures which compete with the Company.
  • Defendant respectfully requests that the Court:

  • 10 . COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DEMAND
    WARRANT AGREEMENTS
    DELAWARE
    BOOKS
    PURPOSES
    DEMANDING INSPECTION
    COUNSEL
    GLOBAL WORKPLACES
    LAW
    HERETO
    EXHIBIT
    SHARES
    PERMIT
    AUTHORIZED DESIGNEES
    COURT
    PURSUANT
    DEFENDANT
    PARTIES
    BUSINESS
    DALLAS
    HOLDER
    SHAREHOLDERS
    DIRECTORS
    CONNECTION
    RESPONSE
    RICHARDS
    LAYTON
    FINGER
    THEREAFTER
    
                   IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                  IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    JOSEPH KAIDANOW, AND ROBERT A.  )
    ARCORO,                                              )
    
                                    Plaintiffs,                 Civil Action No. i ?GC
    
           V.
                                                         >
    HQ GLOBAL WORKPLACES, INC., a  )
    Delaware corporation,
                                                         1
                                    Defendant.
    
    
                                                   COMPLAINT
    
                   Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned attorneys, for their complaint allege
    
    as follows:
    
                                             Nature of the Action
    
                    1.       This is an action pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General
    
    Corporation Law ("Section 220") and Section 10 of the Warrant A.greements,  to which plaintiffs
    
    and defendant are parties, dated March 4, 1998 (collectively, the "Warrant Agreements") (true
    
    and correct copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits A & B), seeking an order compelling
    
    defendant, HQ Global Workplaces, Inc. ("HQ Global" or the "Company"), to provide to
    
    plaintiffs certain books and records of the Company for purposes of inspection and copying.
    
    
                                                     Parties
    
                   2.        Plaintiffs, Joseph Kaidanow and Robert A. Arcoro, are record holders of
    
    shares of the Company.
    
                   3.        Defendant HQ Global is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
    
    business at 15950 North Dallas Parkway, Dallas, Texas 752,48.
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • HQ GLOBAL WORKPLACES, INC., a) Delaware corporation,
  • This is an action pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General
  • Corporation Law and Section 10 of the Warrant A.greements, to which plaintiffs
  • and defendant are parties, dated March 4, 1998 (collectively, the "Warrant Agreements") (true
  • plaintiffs certain books and records of the Company for purposes of inspection and copying.
  • shares of the Company.
  • business at 15950 North Dallas Parkway, Dallas, Texas 752,48.
  • A true and correct copy of the Demand is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
  • copies of information and reports it provides to its shareholders
  • Holder with financial information comparable to that provided to
  • A copy of the Demand was also served on the Company's registered agent in Delaware,
  • Plaintiffs' purposes in demanding inspection of the books and records set
  • Board of Directors of the Company in connection with certain recently announced transactions.
  • of Richards, Layton & Finger, on behalf of the Company, sent to counsel for Plaintiffs a
  • A true and correct copy of the Response is attached
  • hereto as Exhibit D. Thereafter, counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for the Company had
  • Ultimately, however, the parties were
  • and the Company has failed to permit the demanded inspection.
  • By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs and their authorized designees are
  • Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order
  •    |