LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

DERDIGER v TALLMAN Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 17,276, CourtCode: SM, CourtName: ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 12,200O AND (II) WHETHER THE CALIFORNIA COURT MAY EXERCISE PERSONAL, Plaintiff: DERDIGER, State: WA Washington, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00017276, Access Directors, Motion, Class Action, Delaware, Hboc, Merger, Del, California, Proxy Statement, Access Stockholders, Complaint, Hbo, Fiduciary Duty, California Class, Derdiger, Forum, California Class Action, Chandler, Mcwane, Support, Dismiss, Prior, Partial Summary Judgment, Disclosure, Net Income, Honorable William, Class Certification, Chancery, Supplement, Lead Plaintiff, Jurisdiction, Former Access, Mckesson, Certification, Corn, Connection, Personal Jurisdiction, Conveniens , ContentID: 120239717

Case Documents
1 2001-12-20 PLAINTIFFS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF OMOTION TO VACATE THE STAY
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 127139
16 pages
PDF
2 2000-08-14 ORDER REFUSING MOTION TO CERTIFY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100257
8 pages
PDF
3 2000-07-20 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100258
27 pages
PDF
4 2000-07-14 LETTER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102801
10 pages
PDF
5 2000-07-14 LETTER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102800
11 pages
PDF
6 2000-07-12 LETTER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102802
11 pages
PDF
7 2000-06-26 ACCESS DIRECTORS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102803
19 pages
PDF
8 2000-05-11 HBO & COS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102804
20 pages
PDF
9 2000-04-17 ACCESS DIRECTORS COMBINED OPENING BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102805
35 pages
PDF
10 2000-04-06 LETTER OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103613
3 pages
PDF
11 2000-04-06 DEFENDANT HBOS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO CLASS CERTIFICATION AND IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102806
21 pages
PDF
12 2000-03-17 DEFENDANT HBOS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102807
11 pages
PDF
13 2000-02-25 LETTER OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100259
7 pages
PDF
14 2000-02-04 LETTER TO CHANCELLOR CHANDLER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102808
11 pages
PDF
15 1999-09-24 PLAINTIFFS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102810
27 pages
PDF
16 1999-09-24 PLAINTIFFS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102809
22 pages
PDF
17 1999-07-02 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 101860
15 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 17 documents , 274 pages
Price: $ 99.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . PLAINTIFFS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF OMOTION TO VACATE THE STAY

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PLAINTIFF
DERDIGER
HBOC
CALIFORNIA ACTION
TALLMAN
MOTION
NET INCOME
MERGER
VACATE
DELAWARE
PROXY STATEMENT
REVENUES
ACCESS STOCKHOLDERS
SUSMAN
DEFENDANTS
FIRST NATIONAL PLAZA
PROMPT JUSTICE
PRO FORMA
FALSE DISCLOSURE
CALIFORNIA LITIGATION
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
SUPPLEMENT
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
COMBINED PRO FORMA
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
HOWARD DERDIGER
NATURE
HEALTH CARE
HBOC OFFICERS
                                                                           ~~~~~~~~~~,
                                                                                                   

       IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

                           IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY


HOWARD DERDIGER, on behalf of himself  >
and all others similarly situated,
                                                       ;
                             Plaintiff,
       V.                                              ; C.A. No. 17276
                                                       >
JOSEPH P.  TALLMAN,  JOHN R. DURANT, )
M.D., KINNEY L. JOHNSON, RICHARD C.  )
MILLER, FRANK G. WASHINGTON and )
HBO &  COMPANY,                                        >                     _  `;
                                                       1                     i  1
                                                                                           - :
                              Defendants.              1                     :        '
                                                                              `_           I      :





                             PLAINTIFF'S OPENING BRIEF
             IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO VACATE THE STAY


                                             PRICKETT, JONES  &  ELLIOTT
                                             Ronald A. Brown, Jr.
                                             1310 King Street
                                             P.O. Box 1328
                                             Wilmington, Delaware 19899
                                             (302)  888-6500
                                             Attorneys for Plaintiff
OF COUNSEL:

SUSMAN  &  WATKINS
Arthur T. Susman
Charles R. Watkins
Two First National Plaza
Suite 600
Chicago, Illinois 60603
(312) 346-3466

Dated: December 20, 2001
SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • HOWARD DERDIGER, on behalf of himself> and all others similarly situated,
  • Plaintiff,
  • IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO VACATE THE STAY
  • Arthur T. Susman Charles R. Watkins
  • Two First National Plaza Suite 600 Chicago,
  • NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
  • The False Disclosure in Connection With the Merger.
  • The McKesson Acquisition of HBOC and the Supplement.
  • t h e False Disclosure to the Access Stockholders.
  • Recent Developments in the California Action..
  • The California Action is Not Capable of Doing Prompt Justice 12
  • The California Litigation is Not Capable of Doing Complete
  • Derdiger v. Tallman, 75 F.Supp.2d 322.

  • 2 . ORDER REFUSING MOTION TO CERTIFY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CLASS ACTION
    CALIFORNIA
    DERDIGER
    DELAWARE
    APPEALS
    PLAINTIFF
    INTERLOCUTORY
    DISTRICT COURT
    LAWSUIT
    DEL
    OPINION
    CERTIFY
    REVIEW
    CHANCERY
    MOTION
    HBOC
    FORUM
    SUPREME COURT
    CONSOLIDATE
    STANDARD
    SATISFY
    UNITED STATES
    LITIGATION
    STAYING
    REASON
    SUPR
    FACTS
    CONFLICTING
    WANE STANDARD
    
       IN THE C0UR.T OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                          IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    HOWARD DERDIGER, on behalf              )
    of him.self and all others similarly    )
    situate,d,                              >
    
                               Plaintiff,  )                            --     i..
                                                                               <  '
                                                                   r     -:    -  `"t
                                            >                                         -.
                    V.                      >          Civil Action No. 172'%:              1:
                                                                    - ,..       4
                                            >                       : .-
    JOSEPH P. TALLMAN, JOHN                 )
    R. DLJRANT,  M.D., KINNEY               >
    L. JOHNSON, RICHARD C.                  >
    MILLER, FRANK G.
    WASHINGTON and HBO &                    i
    COMPANY,                                >
    
                               Defendants. )
    
    
                           QJDER  REFUSING MOTION TO
                     CERTIFY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
                     -L
    
    
            1. Plaintiff Howard Derdiger moves pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules
    
    of the Supreme Court of Delaware for an order certifying an interlocutory
    
    appeal. He seeks to appeal this Court's July 20, 2000 ruling in which I
    
    stayed this purported class action in favor of a prior pending action in the
    
    United States District Court for the Northern District of California involving
    
    subst.antially the same parties and issues.
    
    
    
          2. Plaintiff, a former stockholder of Access Health, Inc., filed this
    
    lawsuit on July 2, 1999. He asserts claims arising out of accounting
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE C0UR.T OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • QJDER REFUSING MOTION TO
  • CERTIFY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
  • Plaintiff Howard Derdiger moves pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules
  • United States District Court for the Northern District of California involving
  • lawsuit on July 2, 1999.
  • these fifty or so separate actions into a single consolidated class action.
  • the same basic facts, HBOC and its parent, McKesson HBOC, Inc., sought
  • and to minimize the potential for conflicting rulings on factual and legal
  • HBOC tried to remove this case to the United States
  • Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act did not permit
  • The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed
  • Because HBOC could not consolidate this case with the
  • I issued an Opinion and Order
  • staying this lawsuit in favor of the earlier filed California class action on
  • Under Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Delaware,
  • that reason, I deny the application.
  • Eng g Co., Del.
  • Supr., 525 A.2d
  • court on forum ylon conveniens grounds.
  • a legal right nor otherwise satisfy the criteria of Rule
  • interlocutory review is necessary because decisions of the trial
  • regarding whether the Mc Wane standard applies in class actions.

  • 3 . OPINION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFF
    CLASS ACTION
    DELAWARE
    HBOC
    DEFENDANTS
    COUNSEL
    CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION
    DERDIGER
    ACCESS DIRECTORS
    MERGER
    LEAD PLAINTIFF
    ACCESS STOCKHOLDERS
    MOTION
    FORMER ACCESS
    MCKESSON HBOC
    STOCK
    FLOM LLP
    PROXY STATEMENT
    FEDERAL COURT
    SECURITIES
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    SHAREHOLDERS
    STATE FUND
    LITIGATION
    CLASS REPRESENTATIVES
    WILMINGTON
    ARPS
    SLATE
    MEAGHER
    
                                                               /- F--,  7  I-%  r  r-  `1  ,p "
                                                                                :'
    
      IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE d; DELAWARE
    
                            IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    HOWARD DERDIGER, on behalf               )
    of himself and all others similarly      )
    situated,                                >>
                                 Plaintiff,  )
                                             >
                      V.                     >           Civil Action No. 17276
                                             >
    JOSEPH P. TALLMAN, JOHN-                 )
    R. DURANT, M.D., KINNEY                  >
    L. JOHNSON, RICHARD C.                   >
    MILLER, FRANK G.                                                                         :`,  :
                                             >
    WASHINGTON and HBO &                                                                ,
                                             >                                                         
                                                                                        ,-             
    COMPANY,                                 >                                                     -
                                             >
                                 Defendants. )
    
    
                                        OPINION
    
                               Date Submitted: July 14, 2000
                                Date Decided: July 20, 2000
    
    
    Ronald A. Brown, Jr., of PRICKETT, JONES  & ELLIOTT, Wilmington,
    Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Arthur T. Susman, Charles R. Watkins, and
    Robert J. Emanuel, of SUSMAN & WATKINS, Chicago, Illinois, Attorneys
    for Plaintiff.
    
    David C. McBride and Martin S. Lessner, of YOUNG,  CONAWAY,
    STARGATT  & TAYLOR, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL:
    James E. Nesland and Peter A. Gergely, of COOLEY  GODWARD  LLP,
    Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Defendants Joseph P.  Tallman, John R.
    Durant, M.D., Kinney L. Johnson, Richard C. Miller and Frank G.
    Washington.
    
    
    
    Anthony W. Clark, Paul J. Lockwood and Stephen D. Dargitz, of
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE d; DELAWARE
  • Defendants.
  • Ronald A. Brown, Jr., of PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Arthur
  • Anthony W. Clark, Paul J. Lockwood and Stephen D. Dargitz, of SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER &
  • Plaintiff Howard Derdiger, a former stockholder of Access Health,
  • Johnson, Richard C. Miller, and Frank G. Washington, are former Access
  • Before the Access/HBOC merger,
  • Defendant HBOC was and remains a Delaware corporation.
  • from the Access Directors, and one from HBOC.
  • Directors' breach of fiduciary duty to plaintiff and the class by knowingly
  • to Access shareholders.
  • HBOC opposes Derdiger's class certification motion and also
  • HBOC common stock (including those shares HBOC issued in the Access
  • called McKesson HBOC.
  • During the time Access stockholders considered the pending stock-for-stock merger with HBOC,
  • communicated to them in a November 6, 1999 proxy statement.
  • McKesson HBOC shareholders tiled the first of many securities fraud
  • California federal court on behalf of the former stockholders of Access
  • consolidated into the California Class Action.
  • In accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act7
  • appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
  • owned 73,796 Access shares, and the NY State Fund owned 165,200 Access
  • HBOC contends that because the earlier filed California Class Action
  • class representatives.

  • 4 . LETTER

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CLASS ACTION
    DEL
    DELAWARE
    CHANDLER
    MOTION
    PLAINTIFF
    HONORABLE WILLIAM
    CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION
    MCWANE
    HBOC
    DERDIGER
    COUNSEL
    ACCESS DIRECTORS
    SCHNELL
    CORN
    FEDERAL COURT
    LEAD PLAINTIFF
    PROXY STATEMENT
    DELAWARE LAW
    SECURITIES FRAUD
    JURISDICTION
    CONVENIENS
    ACCESS SHAREHOLDERS
    SILVERSTEIN
    FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIMS
    MCWANE STANDARD
    PRIOR FILED CLASS
    DEFENDANTS
    WITNESSES
    
          SKADDEN.,   ARPS,   S L A T E ,   MEAGHER   &   FLOM   L L P
                                     O N E   R O D N E Y   S O U A R E
    
                                           P O   B O X   6 3 6
    
                          \NILMINGTON.   D E L A W A R E   1 9 8 9 9 - 0 6 3 6
    
                                        T E L   ( 3 0 2 )   65~3000
                                        F A X   ( 3 0 2 )   651-3001
                                       http  Ilwww  skadden.com
    
    
    
    
    
                                                           July  14,200O
    
    
    Via  Fax & FedEx
    
    The Honorable William B. Chandler, III
    Court of Chancery
    Family Court Building
    The Circle
    Georgetown, Delaware 19947
    
                            Re:      Derdiger v.  Tallman, et al., Del. Ch.. C.A. No. 17276
                                                                                             \_
    :DCXII   Chancellor Chandler:                                                     -
    
                    In accordance with the Court's July  lo,2000  letter to counsel, this
    responds to Plaintiff's two supplemental letter briefs.
    
    1.      McWane Applies Here.
    
                    As HBOC' noted in its opening and reply briefs on the motion to stay,
    the two most recent decisions of this Court considering a motion to stay a class
    action in favor of a prior filed class action --- Corwin v. Silverman, Del. Ch., C.A. No.
    16347, Chandler, C. (June .30, 1999) and Schnell v. Porta Svs. Corn., Del. Ch., C.A.
    No. 12948,  Hartnett, V.C. (Apr. 12, 1994) .-applied the McWane standard and
    entered a stay.  Nevlxtheless,  Plaintiff repeatedly has stated that Jim Walter  Core. v.
    AUla,  Del. Ch.,  CA. No. 10974, Allen, C. (Jan. 12, 1990) and Silverstein v. Warner
    Communications,  Inc., Del. Ch.,  CA. Nos. 11285, 10671, Allen, C. (Feb. 4,  1991),
    are the "controlling cases" for not applying the McWane standard in class action
    cases. (Plaintiffs June  30,200O letter at 1) Yet, in his numerous references to those
    
    I       Capitalized terms have the  same meaning as in  HBOC's opening and reply briefs.
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • The Honorable William B. Chandler,
  • Court of Chancery Family Court Building The Circle Georgetown,
  • McWane Applies Here.
  • As HBOC' noted in its opening and reply briefs on the motion to stay, the two most recent
  • No. 12948, Hartnett, V.C..-applied the McWane standard and entered a stay.
  • Plaintiff repeatedly has stated that Jim Walter Core.
  • The policy behind Jim Walter and Silverstein supports the application of the McWane standard
  • The averstein opinion f%rther theorized that applying the forum non conveniens test before a
  • Nevertheless, as an aside in a footnote in that opinion, Vice Chancellor Lamb stated that
  • Now, under the PSLRA, a federal court must choose thle lead plaintiff and lead counsel at the
  • As noted in HBOC's opening and reply briefs, the California Court conducted a lengthy and
  • CIearly, because his lawyers determined that Mr. Derdiger, who owned 3% as many Access
  • In any event, this Court, in its most recent holdings on the issue Corwin and Schnell
  • Plaintiff continues to rely on his bse dixit assertion that the Access directors would not be
  • Plaintiff also argues that HBOC'a stay motion seeks to "barplaintiff from asserting Delaware
  • 10 11.6) cites four casles in which a federal court determined venue was proper for
  • - - Develonment Corn.
  • Once the Access directors -who are obviously not Plaintiffs real target - are out of the
  • The only factor that favors Plaintiff is that Delaware law applies, "The application of
  • The rlemaining relevant factors favor Califomia.5 For example, a significant factor is access

  • 5 . LETTER

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CALIFORNIA
    COURT
    MOTION
    DEFENDANTS
    FORUM
    PERSONAL JURISDICTION
    CHANDLER
    DISMISS
    HONORABLE WILLIAM
    PLAINTIFF
    CONVENIENS
    DELAWARE
    APPLE COMPUTER
    HBOC
    WANE
    CONVENIENS STANDARD
    DELAWARE LAW
    SILVERSTEIN
    ADDRESSING
    YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT
    TAYLOR
    LLP
    ACCESS HEALTH
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    DUPLICATION
    WANE ANALYSIS
    ACCESS HEALTH SHAREHOLDERS
    DURA-PHARMACEUTICALS
    EXERCISE PERSONAL JURISDICTION
    
                       You~ci CONAWAY STARGATT~TAYLOR, LLP                                         &
                                                    ELEVENTH  FLOOR
                                            WILMINGTON  TRUST  CENTER
                                           1100  NORTH  MARKET  STREET
                                          WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801
    
                                                      P.O. Box 391
                                        WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899-0391
    
                                                       (302)  571d600
                                                 (800) 7.53-2234  (DE ONLY)
                                                    FAX: (302) 571-1253                    GEORGETOWN
                                                                                            I LO WEST
                                            W                                                   P.O.
                                             RITER'S  DIRECT  DIAL  NUMBER
                                                       (302) 57 l-6639
    
    
                                                 E-MAIL: dmcbride@ycst.com
    
    
    
                                                                    July  14,200O
    
    BY HAND DELIVERY
    
    The Honorable William B. Chandler, III
    Court of Clhancery
    One South Race Street
    Georgetown, DE 19947
    
                       Re:    Derdiger v. Tallman, et al.. C.A. No. 17276
    
    Dear Chancellor Chandler:
    
                       This letter is the response of the Access Director Defendants requested by the
    Court in the letter dated July 10,200O. In that letter, Your Honor asked the Defendants to
    address three matters: (i) whether McWane should apply in a pre-certification class action context
    (and address the decisions in Jim Walter Corporation, Silverstein and Dura-Pharmaceuticals),
    (ii) the forum non conveniens arguments made by Plaintiff in his supplemental letter brief filed
    on Wednesday, July 12,200O  and (ii) whether the California Court may exercise personal
    jurisdiction over the Access Directors. In addressing these three matters, it may be helpful to put
    our response in the context of the motion to dismiss filed by the Access Directors because (i) the
    Court need never reach the stay issue as to the Access Directors if their motion to dismiss is
    granted and (ii) the factors to be considered by the Court on the stay question will vary depending
    upon whether the Access Directors remain as Defendants in this action.
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • The Honorable William B. Chandler,
  • This letter is the response of the Access Director Defendants requested by the Court in the
  • In that letter, Your Honor asked the Defendants to address three matters: whether McWane
  • In addressing these three matters, it may be helpful to put our response in the context of
  • YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
  • In joining the motion for;a stay by HBOC, the Access Directors were not and are not asking
  • If the motion is granted on $ 102grounds, which is the narrowest ground advanced, the Access
  • The Access Directors do not ask for a stay of this action on the basis that the California
  • The parties have expedited much argument on the question of whether the stay is to be
  • As this Court explained in Apple Computer, despite the difference in emphasis, both Mc Wane
  • we turn to the three arguments made by Plaintiff which the Court asked Defendants to address.
  • With respect to Plaintiffs argument that the Jim Walter Corporation, Silverstein and g a later-filed action in favor of an earlier-filed action.
  • commenced, to avoid wasteful duplication of the time, effort and expense of the affected
  • There is no dispute that Delaware law governs the claim asserted against the Access Directors
  • On the question of whether the California Court would have personal jurisdiction over the
  • their acts do not afford a basis upon which the California court can exercise personal

  • 6 . LETTER

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DELAWARE
    FORUM
    DEFENDANTS
    PLAINTIFFS
    MOTION
    CHANDLER
    WILLIAM
    FEDERAL SECURITIES
    CALIFORNIA
    STATE LAW
    DISCLOSURE CLAIMS
    MCWANE
    DISMISS
    ARGUE
    CONVENIENS
    CONNECTION
    OVERWHELMINGLY INCONVENIENT
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    STOCKHOLDERS
    DELAWARE CORPORATION
    DIRECTORS
    HONORABLE WILLIAM
    WITNESSES
    INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
    POST OFFICE
    SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
    PERSONAL JURISDICTION
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    
                                                       PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT                       
                                                           13:lu KING STREET, Box 1328
                                                         WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899
    
    
    
    Writer's Direct Dial: (302) 888.6525
    Writer'r  `Trlecapy  Number: (302) 888.6333
    Writer's E-Mail Address:  IWBroam@prickett.com
                                                                    July 12, 2000
    
    
    
             )`IA FACSIMILE & FEDERDAL EXPRESS
                                                         - - -
    
              Ho norable William B. Chandler, III
             Court of Ch.ancery
             Family Court Building
             Post Office Box 581
             Georgetown, Delaware 19947
    
                         RE:          Derdiper v.Bllman,  et al.
                                      Del. Ch.,  C.,4  No.
                                                      -A-  17276
    
             Dear Chancellor Chandler:
    
                        This letter constitutes plaintiffs submission in accordance with the direction
             of the Court in the Court's July 10, 2000 letter to counsel.
    
                        A.          The Court Should Not Consider a Ground for the Motion to
                                    Stay That Was Not Asserted in the Defendants Briefs
    
                        The defendants chose to base their motion to stay entirely on  McWane.  The
             defendants never moved to stay or dismiss this case -- which was filed over one year
             ago (on July 2, 1999) -- on the ground of forum non
                                                                            _ _ _ _ _  conven&ns.
                                                                                      _ _ _          
             his April 20, 2000 brief demonstrating that McWane  did not apply and showing that
             the only theory on which a motion to stay this action could theoretically be
             predicated was forum
                                            _      _  non   !:onveniens,
                                                          -                 the defendants did not file
             mnvenienr;  motion or even attempt to argue in the alternative that they satisfied
             the forum non
                    _ _   - -  conveniens test. Under Chancery Court Rules 7(a) and 171(e)(6) the
             grounds for a motion are required to be set out with specificity in the motion and/or
             briefs in support of the motion. Accordingly, the Court should not consider any
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Ho norable William B. Chandler,
  • Family Court Building Post Office Box 581 Georgetown,
  • Dear Chancellor Chandler:
  • The defendants chose to base their motion to stay entirely on McWane.
  • The defendants never moved to stay or dismiss this case -- which was filed over one year ago
  • Honorable William B. Chandler Jul,y 12, 2000
  • the Ground of Forum Non Conveniens
  • Whether Delaware law applies;
  • This case involves cla.ssic Delaware state law breach of fiduciary duty claims in connection
  • Plaintiff seeks to vindicate the rights of stockholders of a Delaware corporation who were
  • The importance to Delaware of the ability and right to consider and resolve disclosure claims
  • SLUSA preempted state law class actions involving disclosure claims in connection with the
  • If this Court were to rule that it is overwhelmingly inconvenient for Delaware corporations
  • Congress did not do that because congress wanted state law bre.ach of fiduciary of disclosure
  • As the summary judgment briefing shows, the defendants are attempting to engraft a
  • The corporations involved in the merger at issue in this case were Delaware corporations and
  • The "proof in a case like this basically consists of document production and depositions.
  • The Availabili-ty of Compulsory Process for Witnesses
  • The fact that there is an action pending in Federal court in California which asserts
  • (Delaware was the only jurisdiction in which personal jurisdiction over all directors wa:;
  • However, the California pla;.ntiff filed a 103 page amended complaint in that action on

  • 7 . ACCESS DIRECTORS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFF
    MOTION
    COMPLAINT
    DEL
    DISMISS
    DISCLOSURE
    SUPPORT
    COURT
    STRICT LIABILITY
    LAW
    DAMAGES
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    MERGER
    FAITH
    SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION
    MISREPRESENTATION
    FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
    PROXY STATEMENT
    TRANSACTION
    DISCLOSURE VIOLATION
    COOLEY GODWARD LLP
    INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT
    DELAWARE SUPREME COURT
    MONETARY DAMAGES
    GROSS NEGLIGENCE
    EQUITABLE FRAUD
    SUPREME COURT
    DEFENDANTS
    THIRD PARTY
    
                  IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE                                    
    
                                 IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    HOWARD DERDIGER, on behalf of himself and )
    all others similarly situated,                  >
    
    Plaintiff,
    
            V.                                              C.A. No. 17276
    
    JOSEPH P. TALLMAN, JOHN R. DURANT,                                                     /
    M.D., KINNEY L. JOHNSON, RICHARD C.             )                          I-          i  _
    MILLER, FRANK G. WASHINGTON AND HBO)                                       , `         .
    & COMPANY,                                                                 /  ,             i  i
                                                                                                L  .
                                                    ;                          I                _`
    Defendants.                                     >                                           i -2
                                                                               _                . a
                                                                               /-- -`.(         .,^.-.
                                                                                                i-3
                        ACCESS DIRECTORS' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT Og'
                  MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
    
                                       YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
                                       David C. McBride
                                       Martin S. Lessner
                                       11 th Floor, Wilmington Trust Center
                                       1100 North Market Street
                                       Wilmington, DE 1980 1
                                       (302) 571-6600
    
                                       Attorneys for Defendants Joseph P. Tallman, John R.
                                       Durant, M.D., Kinney L. Johnson, Richard C. Miller and
                                       Frank G. Washington
    
    OF COUNSE:L:
    
    COOLEY GODWARD LLP
    J:ames E. Nesland
    Peter A. Gergely
    1200 17th Street, Suite 2 100
    Denver, Colorado 80202-5835
    (.303) 606-4800
    
    
    
    Dated: June 26,200O
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • ACCESS DIRECTORS' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT Og'
  • MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
  • COOLEY GODWARD LLP J:ames E. Nesland Peter A. Gergely 1200 17th Street, Suite 2 100 Denver,
  • Plaintiff Does Not Allege Facts Establishing
  • a Breach of Fiduciary Duty by the Access Directors.
  • A Strict Liability Standard is Draconian
  • Inference that the Access Directors Engaged in Bad Faith,
  • Intentional Misconduct or Knowingly Violated the Law
  • Frank v. Arnelle, Del.
  • In re Frederick's of Hollywood, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, IDel.

  • 8 . HBO & COS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COURT
    DEL
    MCWANE
    MOTION
    CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION
    DELAWARE
    DERDIGER
    PLAINTIFF
    PRIOR FILED ACTION
    CORN
    ACCESS STOCKHOLDERS
    HBOC
    SUPPORT
    SLIP
    STRONGLY FAVORS
    DEFENDANTS
    LEAD PLAINTIFF
    FORMER ACCESS
    AUTHORITIES
    OVERLAPPING CLASS ACTION
    MCWANE STANDARD
    ACCESS DIRECTORS
    FEDERAL COURT
    NYS FUND
    PSLRA
    DELAWARE LAW
    LITIGATION
    LEAD COUNSEL
    HBO
    
           IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                            IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    HOWARD DERDIGER, on behalf of himself
    and all others similarly situated,
    
                                    Plaintiff,               i>
                    v.
                                                             i
    JOSEPH P. TALLMAN, JOHN R. DURANT,                             CA. No. 17276
    M.D., KINNEY L. JOHNSON, RICHARD C.                      t
    MILLER, FRANK G. WASHINGTON and
    HBO  & COMPANY,                                          ;
    
                                    Defendants.
    
    
    
    
                  HBO & COMPANY'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT
                          OF ITS MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
                           IN FAVOR OF A PRIOR FILED ACTION
    
    
    
                                             SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
                                                  MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
                                             One Rodney Square
                                             P.O. Box 636
                                             Wilmington, Delaware 19899
                                             (302) 651-3000
                                             Attorneys for Defendant HBO & Company
    
    DATED: May  11,200O
    
    
    
                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
                                                                                                       
    
    TABLE OF CASES AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
    
    PRELIMINARY STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . 1
    
    ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    
    I.         THIS COURT HAS NOT RULED ON HBOC'S REQUEST FOR A STAY
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • HOWARD DERDIGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
  • OF THIS OVERLAPPING CLASS ACTION IN FAVOR OF THE CALI-CLASS ACTION
  • McWANE STRONGLY FAVORS A STAY.
  • TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES
  • Prime Sec. Distribs., Inc., Del.
  • Jim Walter Corn.
  • but mostly in California, HBOC and its parent company, McKesson HBOC, have
  • sought to consolidate this dispute into one forum, where, in the words of the California
  • filed action in federal court asserting claims under the federal securities laws.
  • capitalized terms have the meanings ascribed to them in Defendant HBO & Company's Brief In
  • Plaintiffs responding brief, entitled Plaintiffs Reply Brief In Support Of His Motion For
  • victory for the defendants and a loss for the former Access stockholders")
  • should lobby for their inclusion in the California Class Action.
  • thoroughly familiar with the underlying dispute - it has appointed a lead representative and
  • Mr. Derdiger's suit is a transparent effort to end-run the PSLRA.
  • foster further litigation regarding conflicting judgments or attempts at a double
  • The McWane standard is designed to avoid these very problems.
  • THIS COURT HAS NOT RULED ON HBOC'S .REQUEST FOR A STAY OF THIS OVERLAPPING CLASS ACTION IN
  • at 10; Schnell, slip op.
  • Court is capable of deciding issues of Delaware law.
  • "Without the former Access directors before it and without a breach of fiduciary duty
  • a more comprehensive prior filed action pending in another court.

  • 9 . ACCESS DIRECTORS COMBINED OPENING BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COMPLAINT
    MOTION
    HBOC
    PLAINTIFF
    PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    DELAWARE
    COURT
    MCKESSON
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    DEL
    PROXY STATEMENT
    MERGER
    SUPPORT
    DISMISS
    ALLEGATIONS
    ACCESS SHAREHOLDERS
    DISCLOSURE
    ALLEGED OVERSTATEMENTS
    OPPOSITION
    FINANCIALS
    STOCKHOLDERS
    RESCISSION
    CERTIFICATE
    SUPPLEMENT
    INCORPORATION
    CONNECTION
    MISDISCLOSURE
    TRANSACTION
    GROSSLY NEGLIGENT
    
                                                                                       ORIGINAL
                  IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                 IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    HOWARD DERDIGER, on behalf of himself and  )
    all others similarly situated,
                                                              ;
                                                    Plaintiff,)
                                                              >
            V.                                                     CA. No. 17276         c-. :         
                                                              ;                          *-..
    JOSEPH P. TALLMAN, JOHN R. DURANT,                        )                                        
    M.D., KINNEY L. JOHNSON, RICHARD C.                       )                                        
    MILLER, FRANK G. WASHINGTON AND HBO)                                                               
    & COMPANY,                                                                                         
                                                              ;
                                               Defendants.)                                       ,^
    
                                                                                                  I
    
    
    
    
                      ACCESS DIRECTORS' COMBINED OPENING BRIEF IN
           SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CLASS ACTION
                   COMPLAINT AND ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
                  PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    
                                      YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
                                      David C. McBride
                                      Martin S. Lessner
                                      1 lth Floor, Wilmington Trust Center
                                      1100 North Market Street
                                      Wilmington, DE 19801
                                      (302) 571-6600
    
                                      Attorneys for Defendants Joseph P. Tallman,  John R. Durant,
                                      M.D., Kinney L. Johnson, Richard C!. Miller and Frank G.
                                      Washington
    OF COUNSEL:
    
    COOLEY GODWARD LLP
    James E. Nesland
    Peter A. Gergely
    1200 17th Street, Suite 2 100
    Denver, Colorado 80202-5835
    (303) 606-4800
                                                                               DATED: April  17,200O
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • ACCESS DIRECTORS' COMBINED OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CLASS
  • COMPLAINT AND ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
  • PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
  • Establishing A Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
  • Disclosure And Due Care Against The Access Directors
  • Rescission of the Merger of Access Into HBOC
  • Liability Should Be Denied Because Plaintiff Has
  • Failed To Prove The Alleged Overstatements
  • Apple Computer, Inc. v. Exponential Technology Inc., Del.
  • action claims on behalf ofthe stockholders of Access Health, Inc. relating to its
  • No allegations are made that any information about Access was inaccurate.
  • Plaintiff also moved to certify a class consisting of all Access shareholders
  • Based upon a stipulation filed by the parties with the Court,
  • HBOC also was seeking to sell itself to the McKesson Corporation
  • to and did also serve as the Proxy Statement in connection with the Access/HBOC merger.
  • The Supplement consisted of a Proxy
  • Directors were grossly negligent in delegating that responsibility.
  • exculpatory clause in Access' certificate of incorporation.

  • 10 . LETTER OPINION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFFS
    DISCOVERY
    COURT
    CLASS ACTION
    FEDERAL CLASS
    DERDIGER
    ACCESS HEALTH
    PENDING
    MOTION
    LITIGATION
    ALLEGES
    COMPEL
    FIRST REQUEST
    CALIFORNIA
    PRODUCTION
    DELAWARE
    SHAREHOLDER
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    HBOC
    JURISDICTION
    APPEALS
    EXPENSE
    COORDINATION
    GRANT PLAINTIFFS
    SCOPE
    FORESEE
    REQUIRING DEFENDANTS
    ASSEMBLE
    CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT
    
                                 COURT  OF  CKANC:ERY                                       )     /
                                         CF .Ihi                                       +$  J
                                                                                       /
                                 STATE  OF  DELAWARE
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Ronald A. Brown, Jr.                            David C. McBride
    Prickett, Jones & Elliott                       Young Conaway  Stargatt
    P.O. Box 1328                                        & Taylor, LLP
    Wilmington, DE 19899                            P.O. Box 391
                                                    ~v~;`i~i-~l~iig~oii,  DE  19899
    Anthony W. Clark
    Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
    P.O. Box 636
    Wilmington, DE 19899
    
                 Re:    Derdiger v. Tallman, et al.
                        Civil Action No. 17276
    
    Dear Counsel:
    
          Plaintiff Howard Derdiger is a former shareholder of Access Health!
    
    Inc., who alleges that the former Access Health directors breached their
    
    fiduciary duty of disclosure in connection with HBO  & Company's
    
    December 21,  1998, acquisition of Access Health. Plaintiff Derdiger also
    
    alleges that defendant HBOC aided and abetted the director defendants'
    
    misdisclosures. He further alleges that HBOC perpetrated an equitable fraud
    
    against Derdiger and the putative class that he represents.
    
          On February 25, in an earlier decision in this case, I  rejected
    
    defendant  HBOC's  argument that this Court either had no jurisdiction to
    
    
    
    proceed or should exercise its discretion to stay further proceedings, pending
    
    the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' decision on whether it has appellate
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • STATE OF DELAWARE
  • Plaintiff Howard Derdiger is a former shareholder of Access Health!
  • who alleges that the former Access Health directors breached their
  • fiduciary duty of disclosure in connection with HBO & Company's
  • alleges that defendant HBOC aided and abetted the director defendants'
  • He further alleges that HBOC perpetrated an equitable fraud
  • defendant HBOC's argument that this Court either had no jurisdiction to
  • the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' decision on whether it has appellate
  • claiming it is a needless burden and expense because such
  • discovery will be duplicative of discovery in certain related class action
  • litigation pending in California and various other state and federal courts.
  • this case or coordination with the federal litigation.
  • I grant plaintiffs motion to compel defendants to respond to the
  • production of numerous documents, it otherwise does not appear oppressive
  • or excessive in scope.
  • Court appear to be more advanced procedurally than the federal class claims
  • I foresee little inefficiency caused by requiring defendants to assemble and
  • would only add that it might be a considerable amount of time until the
  • federal class action claims reach the discovery stage.
  • I grant plaintiffs' motion to compel the
  • defendants to produce documents responsive to plaintiffs' first request for

  • 11 . DEFENDANT HBOS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO CLASS CERTIFICATION AND IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CALIFORNIA CLASS
    PRIOR
    CLASS CERTIFICATION
    MOTION
    HBOC
    PLAINTIFF
    DEFENDANTS
    FACTS
    FORMER ACCESS
    DEL
    SUPPORT
    SLIP
    ACCESS-HBOC MERGER
    DEFENDANT HBO
    DELAWARE
    LEAD PLAINTIFF
    OPPOSITION
    PRIOR PENDING
    STATE FUND
    MCKESSON HBOC
    FORMER ACCESS STOCKHOLDERS
    SECURITIES
    PRINCIPLES
    CONSOLIDATE
    COMPLAINT
    SECURITIES LAWS
    FORMER ACCESS DIRECTORS
    FORMER ACCESS SHAREHOLDERS
    LEAD COUNSEL
    
                                                                                       .--1       ,    
                                                                                       ,I  `-'
                                                                                                L  .'
             IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF  DELAW'kcE   :                                   
                                                                                                1 ,
                             IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY                                        c.-_
    HOWARD DERDIGER, on behalf of himself                :
    and all others similarly situated,                                                c--,,  /:
                                                                                      I--          __-
                                    Plaintiff,
    
                   V.                                                       l-z76 /ut_
    JOSEPH P. TALLMAN, JOHN R. DURANT,                   ;          Case No. 99+%?
    M.D., KINNEY L. JOHNSON, RICHARD C.                  :
    MILLER, FRANK G. WASHINGTON and
    HBO  & COMPANY,
    
                                   Defendants.
    
    
    
            DEFENDANT HBO & COMPANY'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
       CLASS CERTIFICATION AND IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STAY
    
    
    
                                                  SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
                                                   MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
                                                  One Rodney Square
                                                  P.O. Box 636
                                                  Wilmington, Delaware 19899
                                                  (302) 651-3000
                                                  Attorneys for Defendant HBO & Company
    
    DATED: April  6,200O
    
    
    
                                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    
    PRELIMINARY STATEMENT , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1
    
    NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS . . . . . .                                                        
    
    STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  .4
    
    ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • DEFENDANT HBO & COMPANY'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO CLASS CERTIFICATION AND IN SUPPORT OF ITS
  • STATEMENT OF FACTS.
  • UNDER PRINCIPLES OF COMITY, THE COURT SHOULD STAY
  • THIS CASE IN FAVOR OF THE PRIOR FILED CALIFORNIA CLASS
  • PLAINTIFF CANNOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF
  • Arnold v. Society for Savings Bancorp, Inc., Del.

  • 12 . DEFENDANT HBOS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CALIFORNIA
    CALIFORNIA LITIGATION
    PLAINTIFF
    DISCOVERY
    MCKESSON
    SHAREHOLDERS
    MOTION
    ALLEGES
    COMPLAINT
    MERGER
    STOCK
    SUPP
    COORDINATION
    COUNSEL
    COURT
    ASSERTS
    AMEND
    RESPONSE
    ALLEGATIONS
    DERDIGER
    COMPL
    ACCOUNTING
    DIRECTORS
    SECURITIES
    FINANCIAL INFORMATION
    PROCEEDS
    COMMON
    DOCUMENT REQUEST
    LITIG
    
           IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                           IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY                                 --  i
    HOWARD DERDIGER, on behalf of himself                 :
    and all others similarly situated,                                                  _ 1..
                                                                                        . -
                                   Plaintiff,                              :            -
                                                                                .-      I- ,;
    
                   V.
    
    
    JOSEPH P. TALLMAN, JOHN R. DURANT,                           CA. No. 17276
    M.D., KINNEY L. JOHNSON, RICHARD C.
    MILLER, FRANK G. WASHINGTON, and
    HBO  & COMPANY,
    
                                   Defendants.
    
    
    
                            DEFENDANT HBO  & COMPANY'S
                 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
    
    
                    This is defendant HBO & Company's ("HBOC")  response to plain-
    
    tiffs March 9, 2000 motion to compel (the "Motion").
    
    Background
    
                    1. This discovery dispute can only be appreciated in context, with
    
    an understanding of the allegations and claims asserted in this action and in related
    
    litigation pending throughout the country, but mostly centered in California. As
    
    explained below, because of the substantial overlap between this action and the
    
    
    
    related litigation in California, and the needless burden and expense that duplicative
    
    discovery here would impose on HBOC, certain of the document discovery plaintiff
    
    seeks should be held in abeyance until it can be coordinated with discovery in the
    
    California litigation.
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • This is defendant HBO & Company's response to plaintiffs March 9, 2000 motion to compel.
  • but mostly centered in California.
  • discovery here would impose on HBOC, certain of the document discovery plaintiff
  • company in which plaintiff Derdiger alleges he owned stock,
  • wholly owned subsidiary of HBOC.
  • The Access shareholders received HBOC stock
  • According to Mr. Derdiger's allegations (Amend.
  • Compl.
  • McKesson HBOC, Inc..
  • HBOC's shareholders, including Mr.
  • Derdiger, received McKesson HBOC stock for their HBOC shares.
  • I The amended complaint in this action is cited as "Amend.
  • on the HBOC accounting issues have been filed by former shareholders of HBOC
  • United States District Court for the Northern District of California,
  • approved lead counsel in the California Litigation.
  • those he seeks to represent here - owners of Access common stock entitled to vote
  • on the AccessiHBOC merger (Amend.
  • all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
  • The California Complaint asserts claims against HBOC's former
  • officers and directors, McKesson HBOC, Arthur Andersen LLP and Bear, Stearns 6i.
  • Mr. Derdiger and his counsel determined to
  • directors and HBOC as defendants and alleged that the HBOC financial information
  • That is precisely why the discovery in this case, if it .proceeds at a1L3 should
  • Coordination of discovery between the two actions will not
  • (See Document Request Nos.
  • Southeast Hotel Properties L.P. Investor Litig., 796 F. Supp.

  • 13 . LETTER OPINION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    REMAND
    APPEALS
    JURISDICTION
    DISTRICT
    HBOC
    PLAINTIFF
    MOTION
    STATE COURT
    LITIGATION
    DEFENDANT
    CERTIFICATION
    CHANCERY
    REVIEW
    PENDING
    CIRCUIT
    APPELLATE REVIEW
    THIRD CIRCUIT
    CIR
    LAW
    PRACTICE
    HOLDING
    PARTY
    APP
    REQUEST
    PARTIES
    ACCESS HEALTH
    ALLEGES
    PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    ARGUES
    
                                                                                            \     I    
                                                C OURT  OF   C HANCERY
                                                        OF- THE
                                                STATE  OF   D ELAWARE
    
    
    WILUAM  B. C HANDLER   III                                                     T HE   F AMILY  CO
           CHANCLLLOR                    Date Submitted: February  22,200O                  P.O.   BOX 
                                          Date Decided: February  25,200O         GEORGETOWN , D
    
    
    
                  Ronald A. Brown, Jr., Esquire
                  Prickett, Jonles & Elliott
                  P.O. Box 1328
                  Wilmington, DE 19801
    
                  Anthony W. Clark
                  Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
                  P.O. Box 636
                  Wilmington, DE 19899
    
                                  Re: Derdiger v. Tallman, et al.
                                        Civil Action No. 17276
    
                  Dear Counsel:
    
                           Plaint:iff Howard Derdiger brings this purported class action on behalf
    
                  of himself and all other similarly situated former shareholders of Access
    
                  Health, Inc. Plaintiff alleges that the former Access Health directors
    
                  breached their fiduciary duty of disclosure in connection with HBO  &
    
                  Company's ("HBOC") December 21, 1998 acquisition of Access Health.
    
                  Plaintiff also alleges that defendant HBOC aided and abetted the director
    
                  defendants' misdisclosures and further alleges that HBOC perpetrated an
    
                  equitable fraud against Derdiger and the putative class.
    
    
    
          On September 24, 1999, plaintiff filed opening briefs in support of
    
    motions for class certification and partial summary judgment. In lieu of
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • 1998 acquisition of Access Health.
  • Plaintiff also alleges that defendant HBOC aided and abetted the director
  • Federal District Court for the District of Delaware under the Securities
  • Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998,
  • On October 21, 1999, plaintiff filed a motion to remand this case to the
  • Court of Chancery on the basis of a savings clause in SLUSA,
  • to advance hlis motions for class certification and partial summary judgment
  • argues that because this action is still pending in the federal courts,
  • Court has no jurisdiction at this time.
  • When a federal district court remands a case to a state court,
  • Circuit Court of Appeals has applied the general rule that the district court
  • Third Circuit held, is the key jurisdictional event to divest the district court
  • Accordingly, plaintiff argues the "key
  • appellate review is appropriate, and because HBOC has in fact appealed the
  • HBOC cites Tram Penn Wax Corp. v. McCandless, 50 F.3d 217, 225 (3rd Cir.
  • Whether this is indeed an accurate statement of the law is not a question I ne:ed reach for
  • if the request is denied or is not practicable,
  • the party must request the stay from the circuit
  • R. App.
  • Drew v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Corn., 970 S.W.2d 152, 156 (Tex.
  • further state proceedings are not avoidable"); other citations holding same omitted.
  • have been wasteful of the parties' or the Court's resources as defendant has

  • 14 . LETTER TO CHANCELLOR CHANDLER

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    REMAND ORDER
    APPEALABILITY
    JURISDICTION
    DISTRICT COURT
    HBOC
    DEFENDANTS
    PLAINTIFFS
    HONORABLE WILLIAM
    CHANDLER
    MOTION
    LAW
    PREEMPTION
    JUDGE
    CIR
    PENDING
    PURPORTS
    PERMIT
    THIRD CIRCUIT
    LITIGATION
    GRANTING
    PURSUANT
    CHANCERY
    CERTIFICATION
    CORN
    DIVESTS
    CONTRAST
    ASSERTS
    APPELLATE
    HOLDING
    
                                                 PRICKETT,  JONES & ELLIOTT
                                                    1310 KINGSTREET,BOX~~~~
                                                  WI~IINGTON,   DELAWARE  19899
                                                         TEL:(302)888-6500
                                                         FAX:  (302) 658-8111
                                                       http://www.prickett.com
    
    Writer's Direct Dial: (302) 888-6525
    Writer's Telecopy Number: (302)  888-6333
    Writer's E-Mail Address: RABromaxickettmm
                                                          February  4,200O
    
             VIA FACSIMILE AND FEDERAL EXPRESS
    
             The Honorable William B. Chandler, III
              Court of Chancery
             Family Court Building
             Post Office Box 581
             Georgetown, Delaware 19947                                                                
    
                                    Re:  Derdiger v.  Tallman,  Del. Ch., C.A.  NO.  17276    :        
                                                                                              L        
             Dear Chancellor Chandler:                                                             -.
    
                         This letter responds to Mr. Clark's letter to Your Honor dated January 28,
    
             2000 in the above referenced action. Defendant HBO & Company ("HBOC")  argues
    
             that this Court should not enter the scheduling order we proposed because (1) this
    
             Court allegedly does not have jurisdiction over this case at this point, and (2) even if '
    
             the Court does have jurisdiction, the Court should enter a de facto stay of this case,
    
             as a matter of "comity," by doing nothing until an appeal that HBOC is pursuing in
    
             federal court is resolved. HBOC is wrong on both points.
    
             A.          This Court Has Jurisdiction
    
                        According to HBOC, "because this action is presently pending in the federal
    
             courts, this Court has no jurisdiction at this time." (Ltr. at 1). That is not correct.
    
             Judge  McKelvie  entered an order granting plaintiffs motion to remand this action
    
             back to this Court. The fact that HBOC purportedly commenced an appeal from the
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • The Honorable William B. Chandler,
  • Court of Chancery Family Court Building Post Office Box 581
  • Court allegedly does not have jurisdiction over this case at this point,
  • HBOC is wrong on both points.
  • "because this action is presently pending in the federal
  • Judge McKelvie entered an order granting plaintiffs motion to remand this action
  • remand order did not automatically stay that order.
  • Trans Penn Wax Corn.
  • Id.1 It is undisputed that the District Court mailed the remand order to
  • The law on this issue is clear, unanimous and directly contrary to HBOC's
  • The Third Circuit, noting the complex posture of the case, held that the District Court was
  • Here, in contrast, it is undisputed that the District Court transmitted the remand order to
  • (1st Cir.
  • at 409 (holding stay required when removal sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 5 1443);
  • of the order divests the Third.
  • The cases relied on by the defendants are not on point.
  • 517 U.S. 706 (holding appellate review was
  • shareholders who Mr. Derdiger purports to represent are fully protected by the
  • HBOC removed this action pursuant to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act,
  • SLUSA does not contain * any provision addressing the appealability vel non of remand orders.
  • preemption, 15 U.S.C. §78bb.
  • permit a federal court to decide if a particular claim is preempted or not.
  • which plaintiff asserts in the present case.
  • we filed a motion for class certification and opening brief in

  • 15 . PLAINTIFFS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFF
    ACCESS STOCKHOLDERS
    PROXY STATEMENT
    DEFENDANTS
    MERGER
    NET INCOME
    MOTION
    DELAWARE
    SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    COURT
    DISCLOSURE
    SUPPLEMENT
    REVENUES
    PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    DEL
    PARTICIPATION
    COMBINED PRO FORMA
    CONNECTION
    OVERSTATEMENTS
    INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
    HBO
    WILMINGTON
    SUSMAN CHARLES
    WATKINS ROBERT
    FIRST NATIONAL PLAZA
    AUTHORITIES
    SENIOR HBOC OFFICERS
    MERGER AGREEMENT
    
           IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                          IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    HOWARD DERDIGER, on behalf of himself               )
    and all others similarly situated,                  >>
                                Plaintiff,              >
           V.                                           ) C.A. No. 17276
                                                        >
    JOSEPH P. TALLMAN, JOHN R. DURANT,                  )
    M.D., KINNEY L. JOHNSON, RICHARD C.                 )
    MILLER, FRANK G. WASHINGTON and                     )
    HBO & COMPANY,                                      >>
                                Defendants.             >
    
    
                      PLAINTIFF'S OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT
                 OF HIS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    
    
    
                                               PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT
                                               Ronald A. Brown, Jr.
                                               1310 King Street
                                               P.O. Box 1328
                                               Wilmington, Delaware 19899
                                               (302) 888-6500
                                               Attorneys for Plaintiff
    OF COUNSEL:
    
    SUSIL'IAN  & W,4TKINS
    Arthur T. Susman
    Charles R. Watkins
    Robert J. Emanuel
    Two First National Plaza
    Suite 600
    Chicago, Illinois 60603
    (312) 346-3466
    
    Dated: September 24, 1999
    
    
    
                                                                                    TABL,E OF CONTENTS
    
                                                                                  Page
    
                                                                                    . .
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • HBO & COMPANY,
  • OF HIS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
  • Wilmington, Delaware 19899
  • Attorneys for Plaintiff OF COUNSEL:
  • SUSIL'IAN & W,4TKINS Arthur T. Susman Charles R. Watkins Robert J. Emanuel Two First National
  • TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.
  • The False Disclosure in Connection With the Merger.
  • The McKesson Acquisition of HBOC and the Supplement.
  • False Disclosure to the Access Stockholders.
  • THE COTJRT SHOULD GRANT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
  • The Individual Defendants Breached Their Fiduciary Duty of
  • The Proxy Statement and Supplement Contained False
  • HBOC Aided and Abetted the Individual Defendants' Breaches of
  • Participation," Have Been Irrefutably Established.
  • Arnold v. Societv for Savings Bancorp, Inc., Del.

  • 16 . PLAINTIFFS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COURT
    DELAWARE
    CERTIFICATION
    HBOC
    DEL
    CLASS ACTION
    CHANCERY
    COUNSEL
    MERGER
    ACCESS STOCKHOLDERS
    CHANCERY COURT RULE
    NET INCOME
    PROXY STATEMENT
    DEFENDANTS
    SUPPORT
    MOTION
    SUSMAN CHARLES
    WATKINS ARTHUR
    COMMON STOCK
    FALSE DISCLOSURE
    WILMINGTON
    FIRST NATIONAL PLAZA
    AUTHORITIES
    CLASS REPRESENTATIVES
    PRO FORMA
    EQUITABLE RELIEF
    FINANCIAL INFORMATION
    COMBINED PRO FORMA
    NATIONAL PLAZA SUITE
    
          IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                           IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    HOWARD DERDIGER, on behalf of himself )
    and all others similarly situated,                  >
    
                                Plaintiff,              >
           V .                                          ) C.A. No. 17276
                                                        >
    JOSEPH P. TALLMAN, JOHN R. DURANT, )
    M.D., KINNEY L. JOHNSON, RICHARD C.                 )
    MILLER, FRANK G. WASHINGTON and )
    HBO & COMPANY,                                      >>
                                Defendants.             >
    
    
    
                                PLAINTIFF'S OPENING BRIEF
                  IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
    
    
                                               PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT
                                               Ronald A. Brown, Jr.
                                               1310 King Street
                                               P.O. Box 1328
                                               Wilmington, Delaware 19899
                                               (302) 888-6500
                                               Attorneys for Plaintiff
    OF COUNSEL:
    
    SUSMAN & WATKINS
    Arthur T. Susman
    Charles R. Watkins
    Robert J. Emanuel
    Two First National Plaza
    Suite 600
    Chicago, Illinois 60603
    (312) 346-3466
    
    Dated: September 24, 1999
    
    
    
                                                                                           TABLE OF
    
                                                                                                       
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • Defendants.
  • IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
  • Wilmington, Delaware 19899
  • Attorneys for Plaintiff OF COUNSEL:
  • SUSMAN & WATKINS Arthur T. Susman Charles R. Watkins Robert J. Emanuel Two First National
  • TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.
  • HBOC.
  • The False Disclosure in Connection With the Merger.
  • The False Disclosure to the Access Stockholders.
  • CHANCERY COURT RULE 23 AND SHOULD BE CERTIFIED AS A
  • CLASS ACTION.

  • 17 . CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    MERGER
    PLAINTIFF
    PROXY STATEMENT
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    ACCESS STOCKHOLDERS
    DEFENDANTS
    FIDUCIARY DUTIES
    SUPPLEMENT
    DELAWARE
    BREACHES
    OVERSTATEMENTS
    CHANCERY
    CONNECTION
    HEALTH
    ACCESS DIRECTORS
    DISCLOSURE
    DISSEMINATION
    COMMON STOCK
    FINANCIAL INFORMATION
    WRONGDOING
    DIRECT ROLE
    MCKESSON HBOC
    CHANCERY COURT RULE
    MERGER AGREEMENT
    PRO FORMA
    SENIOR HBO OFFICERS
    INDIVIDUAL MEMBER
    VARYING ADJUDICATIONS
    MATERIALLY INCORRECT
    
          IN THE ICOURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                          IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    HOWARD DEIRIDI'GER, on behalf of himself         >
    and all others similarly situated,               >>
                               Plaintiff.
          V.
    
    JOSEPH P. TAIl,LMAN , JOHN R. DURANT, >
    M.D., KINNEY L. JOHNSON, RICHARD C.              >
    MILLER, FRANK G. WASHINGTON and                  >
    HBO & COMPA.NY,                                  >
                                                     >
                               Defendants.           >                            .- _
    
    
    
                               CL.ASS ACTION COMPLAINT
    
          1.     Plaintiff, Howard Derdiger, a former stockholder of Access Health, Inc.
    
    ("Access"),  bri-ngs this action on behalf of himsetf and all other similarly situated
    
    former stockholders of Access, excluding defendants and their affiliates.             The
    
    iridividual defendants breached the fiduciary duties they owed to plaintiff and Access'
    
    other stockholders in connection with the stock-fo:,:-stock rnerger between Access and
    
    HBO  & Company  ("HBO") in December, 1998  (Yylerger") pursuant to which Access
    
    was acquired by HOBO. HBO aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty.
    
    
    
              2.          As set out in detail below, the proxy statement dated November 6, 1998
    
    ("Proxy Statement") as well as a supplement to the Proxy Statement dated November
    
    27, 1998 (the "Supplement") disseminated by the defendants to Access' stockholders in
    
    connection with the Merger were materially false and materially misleading because,
    
    inter alia they misrepresented and substantially overstated
    -    -          ->                                                     HBO's revenues. As a
    
    result of this wrongdoing, the Access stockholders have suffered hundreds of millions
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE ICOURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • Plaintiff, Howard Derdiger, a former stockholder of Access Health, Inc.
  • iridividual defendants breached the fiduciary duties they owed to plaintiff and Access'
  • HBO & Company in December, 1998 pursuant to which Access
  • HBO aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty.
  • as well as a supplement to the Proxy Statement dated November
  • connection with the Merger were materially false and materially misleading because,
  • Access were converted into shares of HBO in the Merger.
  • publicly traded company whose shares of common stock were traded on the NASDAQ
  • McKesson/HBO entity was renamed McKesson HBOC,
  • referred to herein as the Access Directors.
  • Chancery Court Rule 23, since the prosecution of separate actions by individual
  • members of th.e Class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications
  • adjudications with respect to individual member of the Class which would as a
  • Access stockholders of record on October 19, 1998, including plaintiff and the other
  • duty of disclosure, derived from their duties of care and loyalty, to each Access
  • determined that the Merger Agreement and the Merger were in the best
  • historical and pro forma financial data was mater:ially incorrect.
  • the Proxy St,atement were materially incorrect.
  • The forgoing financial information was h.ighly material to Access
  • Prior to the dissemination of tlhe PI*oxy Statement,
  • also had a critic,31 and direct role in the creation of those disclosure documents.
  • th.e overstatements in HBO's revenues, the McKesson HBOC shares have been
  • of fiduciary duty of disclosure and HBO's aiding and abetting of that wrongdoing.
  • information was a known and deliberate scheme by senior HBO officers and their
  •    |