LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

STARKMAN v UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 17,447, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: 1 N THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff: STARKMAN, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00017447, Ups, Transaction, Shareholders, Merger, Charter, Vote, Shares, Preliminary Injunction, Directors, Stock, Del, Brown, Voting, Voting Power, Management, Trust, Supermajority, Irreparable Harm, Purpose, Delaware, Stockholders, Kelly Decl, Common Stock, Entrenchment, Corn, United Parcel Service, Ipo, Blasius, Certificate, Control, Charter Amendment, Ruling, Subsidiaries, Supermajority Vote, Incorporation, Memorandum, Provisions, Plan, Introductory, Employees, Valid Business, Representing , ContentID: 120239707

Case Documents
1 1999-10-20 PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102719
7 pages
PDF
2 1999-10-20 DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102718
6 pages
PDF
3 1999-10-20 ORDER REFUSING MOTION TO CERTIFY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100241
6 pages
PDF
4 1999-10-19 MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102720
13 pages
PDF
5 1999-10-15 PLAINTIFFS REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION (REDACTED
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102715
42 pages
PDF
6 1999-10-14 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (REDACTED
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102716
45 pages
PDF
7 1999-10-12 PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (REDACTED
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102717
51 pages
PDF
8 1999-09-28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 101733
29 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 8 documents , 199 pages
Price: $ 54.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
VOTE
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANTS
COURT
UPS
RULING
DETERMINATION
CHARTER
INJUNCTION
CERTIFICATION
TRANSACTION
SHAREHOLDERS
DIRECTORS
DEL
DELAWARE
SUPPORT
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CONTENTION
APPROVING
SUPERMAJORITY
LAW
ILLEGALITY
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
BROWN
MOTION
REASONING SET
SUPREME COURT RULE
MANNER
PROVISIONS
               IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE                                   
                                                                                             4 7
                                 IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY                                      I
                                                                                            Jjq
_________-___--_-_-_----------------------------------------------           X
LINDA DEE STARKMAN, TRUSTEE, THE :
LINDA DEE STARKMAN TRUST, individually :
and representatively,

                                              Plaintiff,

                  v. : C.A. No. 17447 NC

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA, :
INC., UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, KNC., UPS :
MERGER SUBSIDIARY INC., JOHN W. ALDEN, :
WILLIAM H. BROWN, ROBERT J. CLANIN, :
MICHAEL L. ESKEW, JAMES P. KELLY, ANN :
M. LIVERMORE, GARY E. MacDOUGAL,
JOSEPH R. MODEROW, KENT C. NELSON,                                      I
VICTOR A. PELSON, JOHN W. ROGERS,
CHARLES L. SCHAFFER, LEA N. SOUPATA,                                    :
ROBERT M. TEETER, and THOMAS H.
WEIDEMEYER,

                                              Defendants. :
________________________________________-----~-------------------- X

                 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION
                  FOR CERTIFICATION OF AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT,                                             MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
 GROSS & GODDESS, P.A.                                                HYNES & LERACH LLP
Norman M. Monhait                                               Melvyn I. Weiss
Suite 1401                                                       Steven G. Schulman
Mellon Bank Center                                               Edith M. Kallas
919 North Market Street                                         Joshua H. Vinik
Wilmington, DE 19801                                             Clifford S. Goodstein
(302) 656-4433                                                   Charles S. Hellman
                                                                 One Pennsylvania Plaza
Attorneys for Plaint@                                            New York, NY 10119-0165
                                                                 (212) 594-5300

                                                                 Of Counsel for Plaint@



       Plaintiff hereby submits plaintiff's reply in support of granting an expedited

SNIPPETS:
  • PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION
  • FOR CERTIFICATION OF AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
  • Plaintiff hereby submits plaintiff's reply in support of granting an expedited
  • interlocutory appeal of this Court's bench ruling dated October 18,
  • Defendants have not addressed the issues and supporting reasoning set forth by
  • Court of Chancery's Ruling determined substantial issues, defendants state that plaintiff
  • was presented because UPS was attempting to recapitalize or otherwise engage in a
  • Focusing on the specific requirement of Supreme Court Rule 42,
  • manner to require explicit phraseology in a charter precluding an amendment by merger,
  • interpreting UPS's Charter in a highly restrictive manner so as to conclude that it does not
  • is quintessentially a legal determination on a substantial issue
  • preliminary injunction directly resulted.
  • that a proposed merger did not violate the standards for a change-of-control transaction or
  • plaintiff is not arguing that the denial of a preliminary injunction by
  • including a similarly high vote by the Brown Shareholders.
  • plaintiff's contention that the interests of justice will be served by an interlocutory
  • supermajority vote approving the Merger is "meaningless.
  • Del C.
  • Board of Directors, "in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Delaware General
  • Corporation Law, " will proceed with the challenged Merger by which its Charter will be
  • how the illegality and false impression created by the Proxy affects his or her vote,

  • 2 . DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COURT
    RULING
    TRANSACTION
    MERGER
    VOTE
    INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS
    UPS
    DEL
    SUPR
    PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    SHARES
    STOCKHOLDERS
    DEFENDANTS
    BROWN
    CERTIFICATION
    SUPREME COURT
    REQUEST
    PROPOSED MERGER
    CHARTER
    REASONS
    JUSTICE
    SUPERMAJORITY VOTE
    RELIEF
    EXHIBIT
    HERETO
    COURT RULE
    APPROVE
    SHAREHOLDERS
    REJECTED PLAINTIFFS
    
                    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                    IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    LINDA DEE STARKMAN, TRUSTEE, THE                     1
    LINDA DEE STARJSMAN TRUST,                           >
    individually and representatively,                   >1
                            Plaintiff,                   >>
            V.                                           >       C.A. No. 17447
                                                         >
    UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA,                    )
    INC., et al,                                         >>
                            Defendants.                  )
    
                            DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
              MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
    
                     Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, defendants hereby oppose plaintiffs
    
    application for an expedited interlocutory appeal of this Court's oral ruling dated October 18,
    
    1999 (the "Ruling"). The Ruling denied plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction order
    
    directing that the proposed Merger of United Parcel Service of America, Inc. ("UPS" or the
    
    "Company"), which would have the effect of removing all outstanding shares of UPS from an
    
    existing right of first refusal, be conducted pursuant to charter-imposed 80% super-majority vote
    
    requirement for Charter amendments. Because the Merger has now obtained the approval of
    
    over 89% of UPS's stockholders, and for the additional reasons herein, further adjudication of
    
    the matter, through appeal or otherwise, will only serve to impede the interests of justice and
    
    burden the judicial process.
    
                                            INTRODUCTION
    
                     On September 28, 1999, plaintiff initiated this action challenging a merger, which
    
    if approved on October 25, 1999, will allow UPS to become a public company, create much
    
    
    
    needed acquisition currency (Ruling at  6), and bestow a $10 billion benefit upon all of UPS's
    
    shareholders  -  - including plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that the merger and its majority vote
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
  • Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42,
  • The Ruling denied plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction order
  • directing that the proposed Merger of United Parcel Service of America, Inc. ("UPS" or the
  • requirement for Charter amendments.
  • Plaintiff alleged that the merger and its majority vote
  • Plaintiff sought the "limited relief' of a preliminary injunction order enjoining
  • The Ruling rejected plaintiffs request for relief.
  • Supr., 715 A.2d 843 and Warner Communications,
  • Inc. v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., Del.
  • rather than as a Charter amendment w-hich would have required an 80% supermajority vote.
  • The Court likewise rejected plaintiffs equitable claims.
  • The Court also recognized that "the transaction is one which promises substantial benefits to
  • the stockholders," and that an injunction would therefore require either a finding of
  • reasons previously stated, and similarly found no equity in favor of plaintiffs.
  • outstanding shares voting in favor of the Merger and holders of the "Brown" shares - - the
  • Over 134 million shares held by Brown
  • Interlocutory appeals are accepted only in "exceptional circumstances."
  • 23, 1996) (Exhibit B hereto).
  • Special Shareholders Meeting, at which time a vote will be taken on the proposed Merger" is
  • of this case "will serve the interests of justice" fails to meet the additional criteria of
  • have voted to approve the merger.

  • 3 . ORDER REFUSING MOTION TO CERTIFY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    UPS
    SUPERMAJORITY VOTE
    CHARTER
    MOTION
    CERTIFY
    PROPOSED MERGER
    PARAGRAPH
    CONSIDERATIONS
    INTERLOCUTORY
    PLAINTIFF
    PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    SUPREME COURT
    DELAWARE
    SHARES
    DIRECTORS
    APPROVE
    PRECLUDES
    STOCKHOLDER
    JUSTICE
    UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
    AMERICA
    LANGUAGE
    DEL
    SUPR
    POWER
    COMMON
    AMENDMENT
    PLAINTIFF CONCEDES
    PROCEEDING
    
             IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE                           /c-j  '
                                                                                         :-+I+-, I
                           IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    LINDA DEE STARKMAN, TRUSTEE, THE )
    LINDA DEE STARKMAN  TRUST,                     >
    Individually and representatively,             >)
                               Plaintiff,          1
    
           V .                                     >      C.A. No. 17447-NC
    
    UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA,)
    INC. , et al.                                  )
    
                               Defendants.         >
    
                             ORDER REFUSING MOTION
                      TO CERTIFY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
    
    
           1. Plaintiff, Linda Dee Starkman, moves pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules
    
    of the Supreme Court of Delaware for an order certifying an interlocutory
    
    appeal. She seeks to appeal this court's October 19, 1999 ruling in which I
    
    refused to enter a preliminary injunction against the consummation of a merger
    
    proposed between United Parcel Service of America, Inc. and its wholly-owned
    
    subsidiary. She claimed that Article Fifth, paragraph (9) of the UPS charter
    
    either precludes UPS from engaging in the merger at all or requires an 80%
    
    supermajority vote for its approval. I denied that motion because, based on clear
    
    and controlling precedents of the Delaware Supreme Court and the clear and
    
    
    
    unambiguous language of the UPS certificate of incorporation, Article Fifth,
    
    paragraph (9) neither precludes consideration of the proposed merger nor
    
    requires an 80% supermajority vote for its approval.
    
          2. Relying on Elliot Associates, L. P. v. Avatex Corp., Del. Supr., 715
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA,)
  • ORDER REFUSING MOTION
  • TO CERTIFY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
  • Plaintiff, Linda Dee Starkman, moves pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules
  • of the Supreme Court of Delaware for an order certifying an interlocutory
  • refused to enter a preliminary injunction against the consummation of a merger
  • paragraph of the UPS charter
  • either precludes UPS from engaging in the merger at all or requires an 80%
  • unambiguous language of the UPS certificate of incorporation, Article Fifth,
  • paragraph neither precludes consideration of the proposed merger nor
  • requires an 80% supermajority vote for its approval.
  • Supr.,
  • A.2d 843 and Centaur Partners v. National Intergroup, Inc., Del.
  • UPS has the power to engage in mergers without obtaining a supermajority vote
  • rather than proceeding by way of a charter amendment,
  • "preclusive" of the free exercise of the stockholder franchise.
  • interests of justice do not support the motion to certify.
  • restricts the transferability of that corporation's common shares by subjecting
  • article requires an 80% supermajority vote of the common stock to approve "any
  • In that connection, its directors
  • Plaintiff concedes, by
  • otherwise serve the considerations of justice.

  • 4 . MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CHARTER
    MERGER
    UPS
    SHAREHOLDERS
    RULING
    SUPERMAJORITY
    SHARES
    CERTIFICATE
    PLAINTIFF
    PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    VOTE
    INTERLOCUTORY
    CHANCERY
    INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS
    SUPREME COURT
    CHARTER AMENDMENT
    DEFENDANTS
    TRANSACTION
    DIRECTORS
    DELAWARE
    MOTION
    DENYING
    PROPOSED MERGER
    LEGAL RIGHTS
    DETERMINATION
    AVATEX
    SPECIAL SHAREHOLDERS MEETING
    JUSTICE
    INTENT
    
           1:N THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                               IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    _________~-_________________I__________----------------~---------
                                                                    X
    LINDA DEE STARKMAN, TRUSTEE, THE
    LINDA DEE  STARKMAN TRUST, individually                    :
    and representatively,
    
                                       Plaintiff,
    
                  V.                                           : Civil Action No. 17447 NC
    
    UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA,
    INC., UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,  IJPS
    MERGER SUBSIDIARY INC., JOHN W. ALDEN,
    WILLIAM H. BROWN, ROBERT J. CLANIN,
    MICHAEL L. ESKEW, JAMES P. KELLY, ANN
    M. LIVERMORE, GARY E.  MacDOUGAL,
    JOSEPH R.  MODEROW, KENT C. NELSON,
    VICTOR A. PELSON, JOHN  W. ROGERS,
    CHARLES L. SCHAFFER, LEA N. SOUPATA,
    ROBERT M. TEETER, and THOMAS H.
    WEIDEMEYER,
    
                                       Defendants.
    
    
    
         MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
    
    
    ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT,                                   MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
     GROSS  & GODDESS, P.A.                                HYNES  & LERACH LLP
    Norman M. Monhait (DSBA No. 1040)                     Melvyn I. Weiss
    Suite 1401                                            Steven G. Schulman
    Mellon Bank Center                                    Edith M. Kallas
    919 North Market Street                               Joshua H. Vinik
    `Wilmington, DE 19801                                  Clifford S. Goodstein
    (302) 656-4433                                         Charles S.  Hellman
                                                           One Pennsylvania Plaza
    Attornqys  for  Plaint@                                New York, NY 10119-0165
                                                           (212) 594-5300
    
                                                           Of Counsel for Plaint@
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
  • Plaintiff Linda Starkman, as Trustee of the Linda Starkman Trust, by and through
  • Bench Ruling of the Court of Chancery on October 18, 1999, denying
  • Inc. shareholders seeking injunctive relief
  • and/or damages in connection with a recapitalization transaction by which UPS will
  • acquire a new charter but will do so by merger, and a majority vote, rather than
  • supermajority 80% vote,
  • public offering by UPS and a related self-tender for a portion of UPS's shares that will
  • At the Special Shareholders Meeting, specifically, shareholders will be asked to vote
  • on a proposed merger between UPS and UPS Merger Subsidiary,
  • Defendants' conceded purpose for the Merger is to obtain a new charter to govern
  • IBoard of Directors immune from any hostile takeover and vesting it with preemptive
  • Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction restraining the conduct of the shareholder
  • Supreme Court Rule 42permits the certification of an interlocutory appeal from
  • Interlocutory appeals are favored where "resolution of the questions of law on which the
  • i.njury or clarify an issue of general importance to the administration of justice."
  • And Commercial Practice in the Delaware Court of Chancery p. 880.
  • the Court of Chancery's decision primarily rests on a determination of the
  • The Court of Chancery held that Avatex is limited to situations where the
  • certificate of incorporation specifically and expressly states that a charter amendment
  • held that the specific intent of a corporation's certificate of incorporation should
  • ESTABLISHED LEGAL RIGHTS

  • 5 . PLAINTIFFS REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION (REDACTED)

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    SHAREHOLDERS
    CHARTER
    TRANSACTION
    VOTE
    UPS
    PURPOSE
    ENTRENCHMENT
    SHARES
    MERGER
    COURT
    PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    VOTING
    PLAINTIFF
    CONTROL
    DEL
    SUPERMAJORITY
    MEMORANDUM
    MANAGEMENT
    INTRODUCTORY
    PROVISIONS
    BROWN SHAREHOLDERS
    VOTING POWER
    EMPLOYEE-OWNERS
    EFFICIENCY
    VOTE TOTALS
    ENRICH DEFENDANTS
    VOTING RIGHTS
    CHARTER AMENDMENT
    IPO
    
                  IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWm
    
                                   IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    --_-----________________________________-------------------------- X
    LINDA DEE STARKMAN, TRUSTEE, THE                                  :
    LINDA DEE STARKMAN TRUST, individually                            :
    and representatively,
    
                                      Plaintiff,
    
            V.                                                        : Civil Action No. 17447 NC
    
    UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA,                                 :
    INC., UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., UPS                            :
    MERGER SUBSIDIARY INC., JOHN  W. ALDEN,                           :      REDACTED
    WILLIAM H. BROWN, ROBERT J. CLANIN,                               :
    MICHAEL L. ESKEW, JAMES P. KELLY, ANN                             :
    M. LIVERMORE, GARY E. MacDOUGAL,                                  :
    JOSEPH R.  MODEROW,  KENT C. NELSON,                              :
    VICTOR A. PELSON, JOHN W. ROGERS,
    CHARLES L. SCHAFFER, LEA N. SOUPATA,                              :
    ROBERT M. TEETER, and THOMAS H.
    WEIDEMEYER,
    
                                      Defendants.
    --__----__-----___------------------------------------------------ x
    
                  PLAINTIFF'S REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
                          OF ITS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ,ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT,                                         MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
     GROSS & GODDESS, P.A.                                        HYNES & LERACH LLP
    Norman M. Monhait                                            Melvyn I. Weiss
    Suite 1401                                                   Steven G. Schulman
    Mellon Bank Center                                           Joshua H. Vii
    919 North Market Street                                      Edith M. Kallas
    Wilmington, DE 19801                                         Clifford S. Goodstein
    (302) 6564433                                                Charles S. Hellman
                                                                 One Pennsylvania Plaza
    Attorneys for Plaintlr                                       New York, NY 10119-0165
                                                                 (212) 594-5300
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWm
  • PLAINTIFF'S REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
  • UPS Is Not An "Employee-Owned" Company
  • No Inferences Can Be Drawn From To-Date Vote Totals
  • This Transaction Is All About Getting A New Charter
  • Defendants' "Efficiency " Argument Is Meritless
  • The Proposed Changes Are For The Purpose of Entrenchment
  • These Transactions Will Enrich Defendants
  • Defendants Vastly Overstate The Economic Benefits To Shareholders
  • DEFENDANTS IGNORE SIGNIFICANT PROVISIONS OF THE
  • CHARTER ESTABLISHING THAT THE MERGER IS UNLAWFUL.
  • ABSENT A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, PLAINTIFF AND THE
  • Del.
  • Sullivan Money Management.
  • corporate machinery intended to interfere with and frustrate the voting rights of substantial
  • IPO and the acquisitions that the creation of a publicly-traded class of UPS securities may
  • would have received full value for the voting control that they
  • in the protection of voting rights strongly support plaintiff's position that the instant
  • to vote subject to the Charter's 80% supermajority provision.
  • Nonetheless, in the interest of accuracy, it should be pointed out that defendants
  • For example, holders of Brown shares, if they know that they will be able to insist,
  • Defendants' "Efficiency" Argument Is Meritless
  • participation of any Brown Shareholders, management cannot fail to attain 68% shareholder
  • be changed to B shares which is a loss of voting power.

  • 6 . BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (REDACTED)

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    TRANSACTION
    UPS
    COURT
    DIRECTORS
    IRREPARABLE HARM
    STOCK
    SHARES
    MERGER
    BUSINESS
    KELLY DECL
    VOTE
    PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    CORN
    STOCKHOLDERS
    BLASIUS
    SHAREHOLDERS
    VALID BUSINESS
    IPO
    MANAGEMENT
    PELSON DECL
    PROBABILITY
    PREFERRED STOCK
    DEFENDANTS
    UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
    SUPERMAJORITY VOTE
    VOTING POWER
    SHAREOWNERS
    COMMON STOCK
    CLANIN DEP
    
                    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                   IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    LINDA DEE STARKMAN, TRUSTEE, THE                     >
    LINDA DEE STARKMAN TRUST,                            >
    individually and representatively,                   >1
                           Plaintiff,                    1)
            V.                                           )          C.A. No. 17447
                                                         >
    UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA, )
    INC., et al,                                         )>            REDACTED
                           Defendants.                   >
    
    
                                          BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
                     PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    
    
                                                  MORRIS, MCHOLS, ARSHT  &  TUNNELL
                                                  Kenneth J. Nachbar
                                                  William M. Lafferty
                                                  S. Mark Hurd
                                                  Jessica Zeldin
                                                  1201 N. Market Street
                                                  P.O. Box 1347
                                                  Wilmington, DE 19899- 1347
                                                  (302) 658-9200
                                                     Attorneys for Defendants
    
    OF COUNSEL:
    
    :Mitchell A. Karlan
    Peter J. Beshar
    GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER
    200 Park Avenue
    New York, NY 10166-0193
    
    
    October 14, 1999
    
    
    
                                                                                       1.
    
    
                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
                                                                                    Page
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA,)
  • PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
  • PLAINTIFF CANNOT SHOW A PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS
  • The Transaction Was Undertaken For Valid Business
  • Because The Transaction Treats All Holders Equally,
  • Even If The Directors Actions Are Judged Under Blasius
  • WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM IF THE INJUCTION IS
  • The Horsham Corn.,
  • In re Grace Energv Corp. Shareholders Litie.,
  • Richard M. Buxbaum, Preferred Stock - Law and Draftsmanship,
  • 125,000 other shareholders of United Parcel Service of America, Inc. ("UPS" or the
  • millions of other UPS shares will wield -- super voting power that no UPS shareholder now
  • favor of the merger.
  • refusal that may not be repealed without the affirmative vote of 80% of the outstanding
  • the reflexive invocation of a claim that management
  • Nor will the director defendants reap benefits in the transaction
  • Kelly Decl.
  • employee stock ownership and management by these shareowners.
  • A11 of the outstanding shares of UPS stock (there is one class of common stock and no
  • 11 11-13; Pelson Decl.
  • 3 The package delivery business has evolved rapidly over the last two decades, driven by the
  • the window of opportunity in 1999 for an IPO would begin to close by mid-November and be
  • 11 35; Clanin Dep.
  • Section 251 authorizes mergers in which stockholders receive either stock of a
  • in his seminal article on preferred stock nearly
  • supermajority vote for an amendment to a certificate of incorporation will not require a like

  • 7 . PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (REDACTED)

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    MERGER
    SHARES
    SHAREHOLDERS
    DEFENDANTS
    CHARTER
    BROWN
    COURT
    TRANSACTION
    VOTING
    DELAWARE
    TRUST
    DEL
    LAW
    PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    VOTE
    COMMON STOCK
    SUBSIDIARIES
    SUPERMAJORITY
    VOTING POWER
    REPRESENTING
    CHARTER AMENDMENT
    MANAGEMENT
    UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
    SUPERMAJORITY VOTING REQUIREMENTS
    IPO
    CERTIFICATE
    MANIPULATION
    STOCKHOLDERS
    INCORPORATION
    
                  IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                  IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    -__________--_--------------------
                                    ____-_-------------_s_____l_____
                                                                    X
    LINDA DEE STARKMAN, TRUSTEE, THE :
    LINDA DEE STARKMAN TRUST, individually :
    and representatively,
    
                                      Plaintiff,
    
            V. : C.A. No.   17%W
                                                                                   r-
    UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA, :
    INC., UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., UPS :
    MERGER SUBSIDIARY INC., JOHN W. ALDEN, :
    WILLIAM H. BROWN, ROBERT J. CLANIN, :
    MICHAEL L. ESKEW, JAMES P. KELLY, ANN :                                  REDACTED
    M. LIVERMORE, GARY E. MacDOUGAL, :
    JOSEPH R. MODEROW,  KENT C. NELSON, :
    VICTOR A. PELSON, JOHN W. ROGERS, :
    CHARLES L. SCHAFFER, LEA N. SOUPATA, :
    ROBERT M. TEETER, and THOMAS H.
    WEIDEMEYER,
    
                                      Defendants.
    ______________---_------------------------------------------------ x
    
                       PLAINTIFF'S  MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
                         OF ITS MOTION  FOR PRELIMINARY  INJUNCTION
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT,                                          MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
     GROSS & GODDESS, P.A.                                        HYNES & LERACH LLP
    Norman M. Monhait                                            Meivyn I. Weiss
    Suite 1401                                                   Steven G. Schulman
    Mellon Bank Center                                           Edith M. Kallas
     919 North Market Street                                     Joshua H. Vinik            -
    Wilmington, DE 19801                                         Clifford S. Goodstein
     (302) 656433                                                Charles S. Hellman
                                                                 One Pennsylvania Plaza
    Attorneys for Plainti$                                       New York, NY 10119-0165
                                                                 (212) 594-5300
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • LINDA DEE STARKMAN TRUST, individually:
  • UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA,: INC., UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., UPS: MERGER SUBSIDIARY
  • PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
  • OF ITS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
  • The Plaintiff, A Brown Shareholder
  • The UPS Entities
  • E. The Board Approves The Transaction.
  • F. The Proposed Merger Transaction.
  • Defendants Acted In Their Own Self-Interest In Proposing A Merger
  • Transacticon Rather Than Charter Amendment
  • Stockholders By Improperly Interfering With The Corporate
  • Manipulation Of the Corporate Voting Process
  • SHAREHOLDERS WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM ABSENT
  • Del.

  • 8 . CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    SHAREHOLDERS
    PLAINTIFF
    MEMBERS
    SHARES
    MERGER
    VOTING POWER
    TRUST
    DIRECTORS
    STOCK
    MANAGEMENT
    PLAN
    TRANSACTION
    EMPLOYEES
    BROWN
    JOHN
    CERTIFICATE
    INCORPORATION
    UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
    LINDA DEE STARKMAN
    LIVERMORE
    FIDUCIARY DUTIES
    COMMON STOCK
    SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
    MERGERSUB
    CONSUMMATION
    EXECUTIVES
    STOCK OPTIONS
    MATERIAL FACTS
    ATTORNEYS
    
                             i --
                           J /  (&.j
                           ,_.  :/  .'
                    pi  ~,  :-
          /-I  /
     :`
          r
    i 4
     i                  / ,  .,f)  /  5
    !/
                                           IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                                       IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
                       ------------------------------------ -_-X
                       LINDA DEE STARKMAN, TRUSTEE, THE
                       LINDA DEE STARKMAN TRUST,
                       individually and representatively,
    
                                                                Plaintiff,
    
                                                   -against-                   : C.A. No.
    
                       UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA,
                       INC., UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
                       UPS MERGER SUBSIDIARY INC., JOHN W.
                       ALDEN, WILLIAM H. BROWN, ROBERT J.
                       CLANIN, MICHAEL L. ESKEW, JAMES P.
                       KELLY, ANN M. LIVERMORE, GARY E.
                       MacDOUGAL, JOSEPH R.  MODEROW, KENT C
                       NELSON, VICTOR A. PELSON, JOHN W.
                       ROGERS, CHARLES L. SCHAFFER, LEA N.                                       I     
                       SOUPATA, ROBERT M. TEETER, and THOMAS                                    f.`
                                                                                                  .`
                                                                                                       .
                       H. WEIDEMEYER,                                                            _.",
    
    
                                                                Defendants.
                       -------------------------------------                   X
    
    
    
    
                                                          CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
    
                                             Plaintiff, by and through plaintiff's attorneys and on
    
                       behalf of plaintiff and all other shareholders similarly
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • LINDA DEE STARKMAN, TRUSTEE, THE
  • UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA,
  • UPS MERGER SUBSIDIARY INC., JOHN W.
  • ALDEN, WILLIAM H. BROWN, ROBERT J.
  • KELLY, ANN M. LIVERMORE, GARY E.
  • its attorneys, except for paragraphs 12 and 29 below, which are
  • behalf of itself and all other shareholders of defendant United
  • for the benefit of current management.
  • seek to put in place a two-class common stock capital structure
  • shareholder vote in avoidance of the 80% shareholder vote that is required by the Company's
  • Management then caused New U.P.S. to create a whollyowned subsidiary called UPS Merger
  • The Plan is to merge Old U.P.S into MergerSub,
  • the stock owned by
  • newly-issued Class A shares of New U.P.S. New U.P.S., in turn,
  • Class A stock in the transaction and New U.P.S. will
  • The resulting concentration of Class A shares and voting power held
  • The Director Defendants have
  • the Board of Directors and it allies within
  • Plaintiff seeks the equitable relief herein,
  • of fiduciary duties owed by the Director Defendants as more
  • other members of the Class,
  • consummation of the Plan, or, alternatively, damages.
  • Linda Dee Starkman Trust, has been, at all times relevant to the
  • well as the Senior Vice President and Business Development Group
  • the grant of stock options for more than 29,000 shares.
  • disclose all material facts relating to the Plan;
  • In 1998, our 330,000 employees delivered more than three billion packases and documents
  • He fostered a corporate culture in which executives were recruited from the ranks of the
  •    |