LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

QRS 10-12(TX) v CALCOMP TECHNOLOGY Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 17,133, CourtName: STEP E P. MAY 12, 1999 COURT HOUSE, Plaintiff: QRS 10-12 (TX), State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00017133, CourtCode: CC, Calcomp, Lease, Creditors, Relief, Esquire, Assets, Basic Rent, Injunction, Breach, Complaint, York Action, Verified Complaint, Del, Thomas, Preston, Esquire Jon, Motion, Paragraphs, Alleges, Coleman Affidavit, Fraudulent, Abramczyk, District, Voluntary Liquidation, Delaware, Exhibit, Pay Plaintiffs, Parties, Money, Liquidation, Proper, Adequate, Jurisdiction, Allegations, Facts, Satisfy, Argues, Equity, Dissolution, Pursuant, Payment, Amount, Sale, Calcomp Sold, Adequate Disclosure , ContentID: 120239729

Case Documents
1 1999-05-12 LETTER OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100283
9 pages
PDF
2 1999-04-30 COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 101962
9 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 2 documents , 18 pages
Price: $ 24.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . LETTER OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CALCOMP
ESQUIRE
CREDITORS
COURT
COMPLAINT
RELIEF
YORK ACTION
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
DEL
THOMAS
PRESTON
ESQUIRE JON
MOTION
INJUNCTION
ALLEGES
ABRAMCZYK
LEASE
BREACH
PARTIES
MONEY
LIQUIDATION
JURISDICTION
ALLEGATIONS
FACTS
SATISFY
ASSETS
ARGUES
EQUITY
DISSOLUTION
                                    C OURT O F  C H A N C E R Y
                                                OF THE
                                     S TATE O F  D E L A W A R E


 STEPnEt.  P.  LAM8                       May 12, 1999                         COURT  HOUSE
  VICE-CHANCELLOR                                                   W I L M I N G T O N . DELAWARE 








Thomas P. Preston, Esquire
Duane, Morris & Heckscher
1201 N. Market Street, #1500
P.O. Box 195
Wilmington, DE 19899

Jon E. Abramczyk, Esquire
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel1
1201 Market Street
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899-1347

        Re: QRS lO-l&f2$#~.  and QRS ll-S(TX), Inc. v.
                     CdComp #chnobrrv. Inc., CA. No. 17133

Gentlemen:

        This matter is before me on a motion for expedited proceedings leading to a

preliminary injunction hearing. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.

                                          Background

        Plaintiffs, QRS lo-12 (TX), Inc. and QRS 11-5 (TX), Inc. ("Plaintiffs"), and

defendant, CalComp Technology, Inc. ("CalComp"),  are parties to a lease agreement

relating to property in Austin, Texas. On or about March 3, 1999, Plaintiffs filed an

action for money damages in the United States District Court for the Southern District

of New York against CalComp, alleging various defaults under the lease resulting in


SNIPPETS:
  • Thomas P. Preston, Esquire
  • Jon E. Abramczyk, Esquire Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel1
  • preliminary injunction hearing.
  • For the following reasons, the motion is denied.
  • Plaintiffs, QRS lo-12, Inc. and QRS 11-5, Inc., and
  • defendant, CalComp Technology, Inc., are parties to a lease agreement
  • action for money damages in the United States District Court for the Southern District
  • Thomas P. Preston, Esquire Jon E. Abrarnczyk, Esquire
  • responded to the New York Action by moving to dismiss for lack of personal
  • Count II, "Breach of Lease").
  • the complaint filed in this Court alleges
  • voluntary liquidation or winding up of its affairs.
  • Of particular note are the allegations
  • paid and/or planned to satisfy debt obligations with respect to various CalComp
  • creditors," and that "CalComp's representatives did not specify which creditors would
  • The verified complaint also includes a claim for breach of fiduciary duty
  • provision such as 8 Del.
  • liquidating its assets and paying creditors inequitably,
  • CalComp argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant the
  • relief Plaintiffs seek, as this Court has consistently held that the power of injunction is
  • parties and the same issues," the Court's discretion "should be exercised freely in favor
  • To the extent the verified complaint in this action contains additional claims seeking
  • but in aid of some primary equity in the complaint.
  • context of a dissolution or receivership) that directors of insolvent corporations may

  • 2 . COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFFS
    LEASE
    BASIC RENT
    COURT
    ASSETS
    CREDITORS
    RELIEF
    PARAGRAPHS
    COLEMAN AFFIDAVIT
    FRAUDULENT
    BREACH
    DISTRICT
    VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION
    DELAWARE
    EXHIBIT
    PAY PLAINTIFFS
    INJUNCTION
    PROPER
    ADEQUATE
    PURSUANT
    PAYMENT
    AMOUNT
    SALE
    CALCOMP SOLD
    ADEQUATE DISCLOSURE
    TRANSACTIONS
    REFERENCE
    JUDGEMENT
    RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
    
                                                                     *-  r-"" c  n  "  "  "  ;"'       
                                                                    ;;           iv;
                                                                    i  ,  ;  ;  \  `i   / i  I  ,  - 
                             IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY
                            OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
    QRS lo-12 (TX), INC.                                                                .
    
                and                                                                     `.
                                                                                         --
    QRS 11-5 (TX), INC.,                                                                      1,
    
    
                       Plaintiffs,                                                            .     .
                                                CIVIL ACTION NO.              I:,,
    
                                           ;
    CALCOMP TECHNOLOGY, INC.                    VERIFIED COMPLAINT SEEKING
                       Defendant.               INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER
                                                EQUITABLE RELIEF
    
    
                Plaintiffs QRS lo-12 (TX), Inc. and QRS 11-5 (TX),
    Inc., by and through their Verified Complaint seeking Injunctive
    and other Equitable Relief against CalComp Technology,  Inc.
    ("CalCompt') , allege as follows:
    
           f                          THE PARTIES
    
                1.     Plaintiffs QRS lo-12 (TX), Inc. and QRS 11-5 (TX),
    Inc. (hereinafter collectively "Plaintiffs") are corporations
    organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, each
    with a principal address of 50 Rockefeller Plaza, 2"d Floor, New
    York, New York 10020.
    
                2.     Defendant CalComp is a corporation organized and
    existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a
    principal address of 2411 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim,
    California 92803.      On or about July 23, 1996, CalComp merged with
    Summagraphics Corporation and acquired all or certain of the
    assets and liabilities of Summagraphics Corporation, including a
    
    
    
    commercial lease by and between plaintiffs and Summagraphics.
    The merged entity shall be referred to herein as "CalComp".
    
                  3.      This Court has jurisdiction over this dispute
    because Defendant CalComp is a Delaware corporation and because
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Plaintiffs QRS lo-12, Inc. and QRS 11-5, Inc. are corporations organized and existing under
  • Defendant CalComp is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
  • This Court has jurisdiction over this dispute because Defendant CalComp is a Delaware
  • CALCOMP'S UNEQUIVOCAL BREACH OF THE LEASE
  • The Lease provides for monthly payment of "Basic Rent" by CalComp in the amount specified in
  • On April 16, 1999, CalComp moved to dismiss Plaintiff's federal action and/or transfer the
  • Plaintiffs now bring this action for immediate injunctive relief because CalComp, on
  • Coleman Affidavit, Exhibit A.
  • Since on or around January, 1999, CalComp has sold off various assets and divisions to
  • On or about January 20, 1999, CalComp sold its Input Technologies Division to GTCO
  • Plaintiffs, creditors of CalComp, have not receivea any proceeds from any of the
  • At the February 23, 1999 meeting, CalComp's representatives discussed CalComp's financial
  • CalComp has refused to pay Plaintiffs any amount in connection with CalComp's unequivocal
  • The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 33 are incorporated by reference herein with the same
  • By virtue of the foregoing allegations and the terms of the Lease, Plaintiffs have
  • Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law because CalComp will complete its voluntary
  • Plaintiffs further respectfully request that any and all proceeds previously obtained or
  • WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against CalComp, and
  • Under the Delaware Fraudulent Transfers Act, a conveyance is fraudulent as to a creditor
  • One or more of the above referenced transactions, or one more of various other transactions
  •    |