 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
LETTER OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CONVERSION PREFERRED STOCK TAKEFMAN INFINITY PARKER VISUAL EDGE OPINION CONTEST COURT VALIDITY DISMISS DIRECTORS INVESTORS CLARIFICATION MOTION CONTROL RELIEF CONCEDE MOOT FAITH CHANCERY OFFICERS SEEKING DECLARATORY RELIEF TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE NEVERTHELESS BREACH TERMINATION MATTER |
Date Submitted: February 8, 2000
Date Decided: February 17,200O
Stuart M. Grant
Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.
Suite 500, 1220 N. Market St.
Wilmington, DE 1980 1-2599
Martin P. Tully
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel1
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899
Re: Infinity Investors Ltd. v. Takefman, et al.
Civil Action No. 17347
Dear Counsel:
Pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 59(f), defendants Earl T.
Takefman and Richard Parker have moved for reargument or clarification of
this Court's January 28, 2000 Memorandum Opinion' ("Jan. 28 Opinion")
on the issue of the vaiidity of piaintiff InIiniry Investors Limited's
("Infinity") preferred stock conversion. Through this letter, I endeavor to
clarify the Jan. 28 Opinion with respect to the concern raised by defendants'
' ZnfirGty Investors Ltd. v. Takejnan, Del. Ch., C.A. No. 17347, mem. op. (Jan. 28,
2000).
motion. In order to so clarify, I believe a brief recitation of the facts
underlying the parties' dispute would be helpful. It is to this I now turn.
Defendants Takefman and Parker were officers and directors of
Visual Edge Systems, Inc. ("Visual Edge" or the "Company"). In August
1999, Infinity, a significant investor in Visual Edge, converted its Visual
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
INFINITY VISUAL EDGE TAKEFMAN PARKER PLAINTIFF STOCK DELAWARE FLORIDA STOCK CONVERSION INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS DEL PETERS COUNTERCLAIMANTS COURT MOTION RICHARD PARKER DIRECTORS STOCKHOLDER FIDUCIARY DUTY TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE COMPLAINT COMMON STOCK PREFERRED STOCK ALLEGATIONS VISUAL EDGE SYSTEMS PROCEEDING JURISDICTION ATTORNEYS SELLS VIDEOTAPE |
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE /4
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
INFINITY INVESTORS LIMITED, )
1
Plaintiff, 1>
V. > -._
>
EARL T. TAKEFMAN, RICHARD )
PARKER, and THOMAS PETERS, ) /-" ,-
>
Defendants. )
I Civil Action No. 17347
>
EARL T. TAKEFMAN, RICHARD )
PARKER, THOMAS PETERS, and )
VISUAL EDGE SYSTEMS, INC., )
>
Counterclaimants and )
Third Party Plaintiffs, )
>
V. >
>
RONALD F. SEALE, STUART )
CHASANOFF, J. KEITH >
BENEDICT, and INFINITY >
INVESTORS LIMITED,
i
Counterclaimants and )
Third Party Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Date Submitted: January 12,200O
Date Decided: January 28,200O
Stuart M. Grant and John C. Kairis, of GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.,
Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: William A. Brewer III and James
S. Renard, of BICKEL & BREWER, Dallas, Texas, Attorneys for Infinity
Investors Limited.
Martin P. Tully, Thomas R. Hunt, Jr., and S. Mark Hurd, of MORRIS,
NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL, Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL:
Lewis F. Murphy and Eduardo Palmer, of STEEL HECTOR & DAVIS LLP,
Miami, Florida, Attorneys for Earl T. Takefman and Richard Parker.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
PLAINTIFFS SUR-REPLY BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT JURISDICTION DISMISS DELAWARE DIRECTORS FIDUCIARY DUTY BREACH DEL INFINITY MOTION PERSONAL JURISDICTION ASSERT PLAINTIFFS VISUAL EDGE INTERFERENCE COMPLAINT LAW RELIEF TAKEFMAN REQUESTS EARL RICHARD PARKER COUNTERCLAIMANTS STATUTORY OPENING SHAREHOLDERS DUTIES DAMAGES |
<.l_ e'
[ : j !' !fV y r p pF,, !!
:] II ; ra .y'i.-,
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
INFINITY INVESTORS LIMITED, :
Plaintiff,
V. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 17347-NC
EARL T. TAKEFMAN, RICHARD
PARKER, and THOMAS PETERS, ::
Defendants.
:
EARL T. TAKEFMAN, RICHARD ;
PARKER, THOMAS PETERS and, :
VISUAL EDGE SYSTEMS INC.,
Counterclaimants and :
Third Party Plaintiffs ::
V.
RONALD F. SEALE, STUART
CHASANOFF, J. KEITH BENEDICT, :
and INFINITY INVESTORS LIMITED, :..
Counter-claimants and :
Third Party Defendants. :
PLAINTIFF'S SUR-REPLY BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
Stuart M. Grant (Bar No. 2526)
John C. Kairis (Bar No. 2752)
GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
1220 N. Market Street, Suite 500
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
Telecopier: (302) 622-7 100
William A. Brewer III
James S. Renard
BICKEL & BREWER
4800 Bank One Center
1717 Main Street
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (214) 653-4000
SNIPPETS:
|
|
4
.
PLAINTIFFS ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS OF E. TAKEFMAN AND R. PARKER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
INFINITY COURT PARKER VISUAL EDGE TAKEFMAN COUNTERCLAIM MOTION DEL STOCK THIRD PARTY VISUAL EDGE BOARD DIRECTORS PLAINTIFFS DISMISS RICHARD PARKER OFFICERS INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS DELAWARE THOMAS PETERS STOCK CONVERSION EMPLOYEES CHANCERY CHASANOFF KEITH BENEDICT OPPOSITION COMMON STOCK RESOLUTION CONTROVERSY VALIDITY |
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
INFINITY INVESTORS LIMITED, :..
Plaintiff, *...
v. .. CIVIL ACTION NO. 17347-NC
EARL T. TAKEFMAN, RICHARD :
PARKER, and THOMAS PETERS, :..
Defendants. ......
EARL T. TAKEFMAN, RICHARD :
PARKER, THOMAS PETERS and, :
VISUAL EDGE SYSTEMS INC., :..
Counterclaimants and :
Third Party Plaintiffs :..
V. ..
.
RONALD F. SEALE, STUART ..
CHASANOFF, J. KEITH BENEDICT, :
and INFINITY INVESTORS LIMITED :..
Counterclaim and ..
Third Party Defendants. :
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO DISMISS OF EARL T. TAKEFMAN AND RICHARD PARKER
Stuart M. Grant (Bar No. 2526)
John C. Kairis (Bar No. 2752)
GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
1220 N. Market Street, Suite 500
Wilmington, Delaware 1980 1
(302) 622-7000
(302) 622-7100 (facsimile)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
OF COUNSEL:
William A. Brewer III
James S. Renard
BICKEL & BREWER
4800 Bank One Center
17 17 Main Street
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (2 14) 653-4000
SNIPPETS:
|
|
5
.
OPENING BRIEF OF E. TAKEFMAN AND R. PARKER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT VISUAL EDGE PARKER TAKEFMAN DISMISS DIRECTORS OFFICERS MOTION PROCEEDING MESSRS MOOT DELAWARE JACOBS CONTRACTS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS COUNTERCLAIM CHANCERY COUNSEL HARTNETT CONSOL HYBRILONICS CONVERSION INTERVENORS SHARES ELECTION VALIDITY ANNUAL MEETING RESPONDENTS |
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
INFINITY INVESTORS LIMITED,
Plaintiff, 1
V . )
)
EARL T. TAXEFMAN, RICHARD PARKER, )
THOMAS PETERS, and VISUAL EDGE )
SYSTEMS INC., )1 C.A. No. 17347-NC
Defendants, )
Counterclaimants and 1
Third Party Plaintiffs >)
V . )1
RONALD F. SEALE, STUART CHASANOFF, )
J. KEITH BENEDICT and INFINITY 1
INVESTORS LIMITED, )1
Counterclaim and >
Third-Party Defendants. )
OPENING BRIEF OF EARL T. TAKEFMAN
AND RICHARD PARKER IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
Martin P. Tully
Thomas R. Hunt, Jr.
S. Mark Hurd
1201 N. Market Street
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899
(302) 658-9200
Attorneys for Defendants,
Counterclaimants and Third Party
Plaintiffs Earl T. Takefman and
Richard Parker
OF COUNSEL:
Lewis F. Murphy
Eduardo Palmer
Steel Hector & Davis LLP
200 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33131
(305) 577-7000
November 15, 1999
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SNIPPETS:
|
|
6
.
PLAINTIFFS MOTOIN FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
STOCK CONVERSION INFINITY SHARES AFFIDAVIT DIRECTORS COMMON STOCK PURSUANT CHASANOFF OFFICERS CONSENT EXHIBIT THERETO COURT DEFENDANTS AGREEMENT CERTIFICATE SEALE SERIES A-2 SECURITIES PURCHASE DESIGNATION DELIVERY DECLARATION ZANETTI SUMMARY JUDGMENT NASDAQ SHAREHOLDERS TRANSFER AGENT STUART |
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
INFINITY INVESTORS LIMITED, !$0
Plaintiff,
v. 8 CIVIL ACTION NO. 17347-NC
8
EARL T. TAKEFMAN, RICHARD 5
PARKER,, and THOMAS PETERS, 8
5
Defendants. 9
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR,
ALTERNATIVELY, FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiff Infinity Investors Limited ("Infinity") files this Motion for Summary Judgment or,
alternatively, for Preliminary Injunction against defendants Earl T. Takefinan ("Takefman"), Richard
Parker ("Parker"), and Thomas Peters ("Peters"), pursuant to this Court's oral scheduling order of
August 13, 1999, as follows:
1. By this motion, Infinity seeks a judicial determination that defendants are no longer
officers anid directors of Visual Edge Systems, Inc. ("Visual Edge" or the "Company"). An
undisputed Event of Default has occurred under the provisions of the Company's Securities Purchase
Agreement with Infinity - namely, Visual Edge's de-listing from the NASDAQ Small Cap Market.
As a result, Infinity became entitled to convert its preferred stock to a sufficient number of
of Visual Edge common stock which, together with the vote of another substantial shareholder,
allowed it to obtain control of the Company.
2. In accordance with the Company's Certificate of Designation, when Infinity delivered
its written notice of conversion to the corporate transfer agent on August 13, 1999, Infinity was
"deemed to have become the holder of record of the common stock at such time." Thereafter, by
a Section 228 shareholders' consent, defendants were removed from the Visual Edge Board of
SNIPPETS:
|
|
7
.
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS TAKEFMAN PARKER AND PETERS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
VISUAL EDGE ALLEGATIONS RESPONSIVE PLEADING INFINITY PLAINTIFF THIRD PARTY PARAGRAPH TAKEFMAN COMMON STOCK PETERS PARKER COMPLAINT SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT CHARACTERIZATION THEREOF SHARES ANTICIPATORY BREACH PREFERRED STOCK AVERMENTS DIRECTORS AMENDMENT RICHARD PARKER THOMAS PETERS CERTIFICATE CONVERSION DESIGNATION COUNTERCLAIM STOCKHOLDER WRITTEN CONSENTS REPUDIATION DEFENDANT AVER |
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ,?)
Plaintiffs, )>
V. >>
EARL T. TAKEFMAN, RICHARD > . _
PARKER, THOMAS PETERS, and >
VISUAL EDGE SYSTEMS, INC., >1 . _
Defendants. > .. -
--1>
EARL T. TAKEFMAN, RICHARD > C.A. No. 17347-NC
PARKER, THOMAS PETERS, >
VISUAL EDGE SYSTEMS, INC., >
>
Counterclaimants and >
Third Party Plaintiffs >
>
V. >
>
RONALD F. SEALE, STUART >
CHASANOFF, J. KEITH BENEDICT >
and INFINITY INVESTORS LIMITED, >
>
Counterclaim and >
Third Party Defendants,
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS
EARL T. TAKEFMAN, RICHARD
PARKER AND THOMAS PETERS
Defendants Earl T. Takefman, Richard Parker and Thomas Peters (collectively
"Defendants") hereby submit their Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint of
Plaintiff Infinity Investors Limited ("Plaintiff') filed on August 2, 1999. On August 13, 1999,
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal pursuant to Ch. Ct. R. 41(a)(l)(i) dismissing Visual Edge
Systems tnc. ("Visual Edge") as a defendant in this case. Therefore, no responsive pleading is
required from th.e Defendants as to the averrnents and allegations in Count II, alleging a claim of
anticipatory breach and repudiation of contract against Visual Edge only.
In. response to the averments and allegations in Plaintiffs "Preliminary Statement" of its
SNIPPETS:
|
|
8
.
1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
INFINITY COMMON STOCK TAKEFMAN DIRECTORS DEFENDANTS PARKER PETERS CONTROL SHAREHOLDERS PREFERRED STOCK SHARES MEMBERS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CONVERSION SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT CAP MARKET GREG NORMAN THIRD AMENDMENT THEREAFTER CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK INTERFERENCE AMENDED COMPLAINT THOMAS PETERS STOCKHOLDERS SERIES A-2 STOCK EXCHANGE TRANSFER AGENT PLAINTIFF INFINITY INVESTORS RICHARD PARKER |
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
INFINITY INVESTORS LIMITED, 5
Plaintiff, §8
V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 17347-NC
§ - -
i `?
EARL T. TAKEFMAN, RICHARD § .
PARKER, and THOMAS PETERS, 5 3
§ I
Defendants. §
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Infinity Investors Limited ("Infinity") files this First Amended Complaint, on
personal knowledge with respect to itself and its own acts and on information and belief as to all
other matters, against defendants Earl T. Takefman ("Takefman"), Richard Parker ("Parker"), and
Thomas Peters ("Peters"), as follows:
I.
PRELIMINARY STATEMEN'I
On August 13, 1999, following the filing of its Schedule 13D and upon the expiration of the
ten-day waiting period prescribed by SEC Rule 13d-1, Infinity lawfully took control of Visual Edge
Systems, Inc. ("Visual Edge"). More particularly, Infinity exercised its right to convert a portion
its preferred stock into common stock of Visual Edge. Infinity thereafter voted that stock and,
together with the votes of another substantial shareholder, removed defendants as members of the
Visual Edge board of directors. The newly-constituted board then terminated the employment of
defendants as officers of the company.
Unfortunately, defendants have refused to recognize their removal as board members
their terrnmation as officers. In short, Takefman, Parker, and Peters have made good on their
SNIPPETS:
|
|
9
.
LETTER OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COUNSEL MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS NORMAN WILMINGTON GRANT CONTRACT RULING STIPULATED STANDSTILL ORDER PAYMENTS GREG NORMAN CONTRACT AVOID BASIS CONSISTENT DEFENDANTS POST BOND ADVISED PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL MODIFY DIRECTED COUNSEL COUNTERCLAIMS MOTION ACCOMPANYING BRIEFS VIOLATION ELICIT CONTEMPT CITATION WILLIAM CHANDLER REGISTER CHANCERY |
C OURT OF C HANCERY
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
IHE F A M I L Y C O U R T
August 16,1999 P.O. B O X 581
G E O R G E T O W N . D E L A W
WA FAX & U.S. MAIL
Stephen C. Norman
Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP
P.O. Box 951
Wilmington, DE 19899
Stuart M. Grant
Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.
1220 N. Market Street, Suite 500
Wilmington, DE 1980 1
Re: Infinity Investors Ltd. v. Takefman et al.
Civil Action No. 17347
Dear Counsel:
To clarify my ruling last Friday, current management (i.e., the management
governed by the Stipulated Standstill Order) must arrange for payments due under
the Greg Norman contract, in order to avoid a default under that contract. If that
condition is met, current management may continue to operate and manage the
company on a day-to-day basis so long as it does so consistent with the terms of
the Standstill Order.
In addition, I denied an application to have defendants post a bond.
However, I advised plaintiffs counsel that he may, for good cause shown, move to
modify the Standstill Order if he believes it appropriate to do so. I also directed
counsel for defendants promptly to file their answer and/or counterclaims, and
instructed all counsel to file, expeditiously, any appropriate motion, together with
accompanying briefs. Defendants are on notice that a violation of the Standstill
Order would likely elicit a contempt citation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
SNIPPETS:
|
|
10
.
STANDSTILL STIPULATION AND ORDER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
STOCK PLAINTIFF BUSINESS ALTER DEBT DIRECTORS TERMINATING AGREEMENT STIPULATION COURT DEFENDANTS AMEND REPEALS COMMON STOCK COMPENSATION BONUSES SEVERANCE PAYMENTS PACKAGES OFFICERS GREG NORMAN WHITE SHARK ENTERPRISES LICENSE ENTERING BIND VISUAL EDGE MANTHS INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ELECT APPOINT VISUAL EDGE BOARD |
08/03/99 18:48 FAX 302 622 7075 GRANT & EISENHOFER, PA
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
INFINITY INVESTORS LIMITED, :..
Plaintiffs, ::
V. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 17347-W
.
EARL T. TAKEFMAN, RICHARD
PARKER, THOMAS PETERS, and
VISUAL EDGE SYSTEMS, INC,
Defendants.
STANDSTILL STIPLULATION AND ORDER
IT IS HBRBBY STB?ULATEI> AND AGREED that, pending hnal resolution of
Plairrtiff's Section 225 Action, or any amendment thereto:
1. Neither Visual Edge, nor any of the defendants, shall amend, repeal, alter, change
or otherwise affect the `bylaws or the Certificate of Incorporation of Visual
2. Visual Edge shall not issue any securities (other than pretiousIy authorized but
unissued common stock upon exercise of conversion rights by a preferred
stockholder or noteholder) or incur any debt (other than trade debt in the
course);
3. Visual Edge shall not alter the compensation of any of its directors or
including, but not Iimited to, giving raises, bonuses, severance payments or
packages, options, stock or any other consideration;
4. Visual Edge shall not make any loans to any of its officers or directors;
08/03/99 18:48 FAX 302 622 7075 GRANT 8: EISENHOFER, PA
SNIPPETS:
|
|
11
.
LETTER TO CHANCELLOR CHANDLER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT DEL EXHIBIT HERETO INJUNCTION DEFENDANTS REQUEST TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER RELIEF PROCEEDING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION CONTROL HARM TRANSACTION CHANDLER COMPLAINT SCHEDULE THREATENS PREMATURE MEM SPECULATION IMPROPER FIDUCIARY DUTY HONORABLE WILLIAM CHANCERY GRANT IRREPARABLE INJURY PENDING DIRECTORS |
P OTTER A NDERSON & C ORROON LLP
H E R C U L E S P L A Z A
1 3 1 3 N O R T H M A R K E T S T R E E T
P.O. BOX 9 5 1
W I L M I N G T O N , D E L A W A R E ,s+e~~-oss,
(302 t 964-6000
F A C S I M I L E (3021 656-1192
H O M E P A G E : A T T Y S . P A C D E L A W A R E . C O M
EMAIL: snorman@pacdelaware.com
DIRECT DIAL: (302) 984-6038
August 3, 1999
BY FACSIMILE & FEDERAL EXPRESS
The Honorable William B. Chandler, III
Court of Chancery
The Family Court Building
The Circle
Georgetown, DE 19947
Re: Infinity Investors Limited v. Takefman, Del. Ch., C.A. No. 17347-NC
Dear Chancellor Chandler:
We represent defendants in the above-captioned proceeding. Our co-counsel,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, did not receive a copy of the complaint and other papers tiled by
plaintiff until yesterday afternoon and forwarded a copy to us last evening. We have been
advised that Plaintiff contacted the Court ex parte and has scheduled a teleconference with Your
Honor for 8:30 a.m. today to discuss the scheduling of its application for a temporary restralining
order. Given the limited amount of time, defendants submit this letter (rather than a more
formal pleading) in opposition to plaintiffs request for an expedited hearing on its application.
The decision whether to grant expedited relief is committed to the sound
discretion of this Court. DiRocco v. Roessner, Del. Supr., No. 273, 1985 (August 14, 1985)
(ORDER) (Exhibit A hereto). In order to obtain expedited relief, plaintiff must demonstrate (1)
SNIPPETS:
|
|
12
.
MOTION FOR EXPEDITED PROCEEDINGS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANTS MOTION VISUAL EDGE STOCK EXPEDITING INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS COURT REQUIRING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION RIGHTS CONTROL SHARES THREATENING CONVERSION PLAINTIFF INVESTORS COMMON STOCK VOTING FUNDS VOTE TAKEFMAN DELAWARE EXERCISE OFFICERS SERVE PARTIES CONTRACTS PREFERRED STOCK CONVERTIBLE NOTES |
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 4
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
INFINITY INVESTORS LIMITED, :..
Plaintiffs, ....
V . .. CIVIL ACTION NO. i7_`s?jy h/L
EARL T. TAKEFMAN, RICHARD
PARKER, THOMAS PETERS, and
VISUAL EDGE SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendants.
I
TO: Earl T. Takefman Richard Parker
c/o Visual Edge Systems, Inc. c/o Visual Edge Systems, Inc.
2424 North Federal Highway 2424 North Federal Highway
Suite 100 Suite 100
Boca Raton, FL 3343 1 Boca Raton, FL 3343 1
Thomas Peters Visual Edge Systems, Inc.
c/o Visual Edge Systems, Inc. 2424 North Federal Highway
2424 North Federal Highway Suite 100
Suite 100 Boca Raton, FL 3343 1
Boca Raton, FL 3343 1
David W. Pollak, Esquire
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10 178-0060
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff will present the attached Motion for Expedited
Proceedings at the earliest convenience of the Court and counsel.
Dated: August 2, 1999
Stuart M. Grant (Bar No. 2526)
John C. Kairis (Bar No. 2752)
GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
1220 N. Market Street, Suite 500
Wilmington, DE 19801
(302) 622-7000
(302) 622-7 100 (facsimile)
ATT'ORN EY S FOR PLAINTIFF
SNIPPETS:
|
|
13
.
PLAINTIFFS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
INFINITY TAKEFMAN DEL DEFENDANTS SECURITIES AMENDMENT SEALE AFF COMMON STOCK TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PARKER PETERS MARION EQUITY SHARES PLAINTIFF AGREEMENT CONVERSION DIRECTORS SECOND AMENDMENT ZANETTI AFF INTERFERE PROCEEDING GREG NORMAN INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS SHAREHOLDERS SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT THOMAS PETERS VISUAL EDGE SYSTEMS SERIES A-2 |
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
INFINITY INVESTORS LIMITED, :.
Plaintiffs, ..
V. .. CIVIL ACTION NO. 17347-NC
EARL T. TAKEFMAN, RICHARD :
PARKER, THOMAS PETERS, and :
VISUAL EDGE SYSTEMS, INC. :
.
Defendants. ..
PLAINTIFF'S OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION
FOR ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Dated: August 2, 1999 Stuart M. Grant (Bar No. 2526)
John C. Kairis (Bar No. 2752)
GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
1220 N. Market Street, Suite 500
Wilmington, DE 1980 1
(302) 622-7000
(302) 622-7100 (facsimile)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
STA.TEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. TheParties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. The Business of Visual Edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Infinity's Substantial Investment In Visual Edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SNIPPETS:
|
|
14
.
COMPLAINT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
INFINITY TAKEFMAN COMMON STOCK DIRECTORS INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS PARKER PETERS SHAREHOLDERS CONTROL PREFERRED STOCK VOTE SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT SHARES NORMAN RIGHTS SUBSTANTIAL SHAREHOLDER CONVERSION THOMAS PETERS GREG NORMAN THIRD AMENDMENT THEREAFTER INTERFERE RICHARD PARKER LICENSE AGREEMENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATE VICE PRESIDENT INTERFERING PLAI-STIFF INFINITY INVESTORS |
1- 2
-:
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
INFINITY INVESTORS LIMITED, $j
0
Plaintiff, 90
V. § CIVIL ACTION NC& r7347 NC
EARL, T. TAKEFMAN, RICHARD
PARKER, THOMAS PETERS, and
VISUAL :EDGE SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
Plai-stiff Infinity Investors Limited ("Infinity") files this Complaint, on personal
with respec. to itself and its own acts`and on information and belief as to all other matters,
defendants .3arl T. Takefman ("Takefman"), Richard Parker ("Parker"), Thomas Peters ("Peters"),
and Visual Edge Systems, Inc. ("Visual Edge"), as follows:
I.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On 4ugust 13, 1999, following the filing of its Schedule 13D and upon the expiration of the
ten-day waiting period prescribed by SEC Rule 13d-1, Infinity will lawfully take control of Visual
Edge. Mar: particularly, Infinity will exercise its right to convert its preferred stock and notes
common stock of Visual Edge. Infinity will thereafter vote that stock and, together with the votes
of another substantial shareholder, will remove the individual defendants as members of the Visual
Edge board of directors. It is the plan that the newly-constituted board will then terminate the
employment of the individual defendants as officers of the company.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
