LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

CRIDEN v STEINBERG Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 17,082, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff: CRIDEN, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00017082, Stock Option, Stock Option Repricing, Allegations, Employee Stock Option, Repricing Decision, Demand, Directors, Del, Complaint, Facts, Transaction, Steinberg, Support, Repricing, Fiduciary Duty, Individual Investor, Amended Complaint, Delaware, Re-pricing, Motion, Failure, Dismiss, Allege, Particularized Facts, Shareholder, Disinterested Directors, Non-employee Stock Option, Business Judgment, Transactions, Exercise Price, Supr, Shareholders, Waste, Plan, Individual Investor Group , ContentID: 120239734

Case Documents
1 2000-03-23 MEMORANDUM OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100291
13 pages
PDF
2 1999-12-17 REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102932
21 pages
PDF
3 1999-09-24 OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102933
39 pages
PDF
4 1999-06-10 OPENING BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102934
39 pages
PDF
5 1999-03-31 COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102003
8 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 5 documents , 120 pages
Price: $ 39.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . MEMORANDUM OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PLAINTIFF
DIRECTORS
DEFENDANTS
PLAN
SHAREHOLDERS
CORPORATE WASTE
STOCK OPTION
FACTS
COMPLAINT
BREACH
FIDUCIARY DUTY
ALLEGATIONS
DEL
COURT
MOTION
ALLEGE
DISMISS
CHANCERY
LOYALTY
IIG
AUTHORITY
FAILURE
EMPLOYEE
TRANSACTION
DEMAND
BUSINESS
CONCLUSORY
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS
SUPPORT
      IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

                    IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

MICHELE S. CRIDEN,                          >>
            Plaintiff,                      >>
V.                                          ) C.A. No. 17082
                                            >
JONATHAN L. STEINBERG, BRUCE L. )
SOKOLOFF, PETER M. ZIEMBA and               )
S. CHRISTOPHER MEIGHER, III,                >

            Defendants.                     >>
INDIVIDUAL INVESTOR GROUP, INC. ,)>
            Nominal Defendant.              >

                           Submitted: February 17, 1999
                              Decided: March 23, 2000

                           MEMORANDUMOPINION

Pamela S. Tikellis and James C. Strum of Chimicles & Tikellis, Wilmington,
Delaware. Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Barry M. Klayman and Todd C. Schiltz of Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen,
Wilmington, Delaware. OF COUNSEL: Richard J. Morvillo, Luther Zeigler
and Kenneth F. Rossman of Crowell & Moring, Washington, D.C. Attorneys
for Individual Defendants.

Kenneth J. Nachbar of Morris, Nichols, Arsht  & Tunnell, Wilmington,
Delaware. Attorneys for Nominal Defendant.


STEELE, V.C.



      Plaintiff files this shareholder derivative action complaining that the board

of directors of Individual Investor Group, Inc. improperly re-priced stock options

issued under a shareholder approved plan. Plaintiff alleges that the re-pricing

constituted corporate waste and that the directors breached their fiduciary duty of

loyalty. Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff's claims for: (1) failure to make

pre-suit demand under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1; and, (2) failure to state a

SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • Plaintiff files this shareholder derivative action complaining that the board
  • of directors of Individual Investor Group,
  • issued under a shareholder approved plan.
  • Plaintiff alleges that the re-pricing
  • Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff's claims for: failure to make
  • demand under Rule 23.1.
  • Plaintiff's purported claims are for breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty
  • and corporate waste.
  • Plaintiff's allegations of corporate waste are merely
  • conclusory and lack any factual basis to survive a motion to dismiss.
  • members of IIG's board of directors'l and the nominal defendant is IIG itself.
  • by both employee and non-employee directors of IIG.
  • complaint on August 4, 1999.
  • ' Defendant, Jonathan L. Steinberg, is both the Chairman and CEO of IIG; the remaining
  • outside directors received no benefit from this transaction.
  • plaintiff eschews any need to plead particular facts demonstrating
  • that plaintiff offers no specific allegations of fact to support her claim and relies
  • After contending that the two stock option re-pricing decisions should be
  • defendants assert that since plaintiff's amended complaint fails to allege
  • `Lewis v. Austen, Del.
  • manner unintended or unexpected by the shareholders."
  • plaintiff conceded that the plan gave the directors the authority to re-price the options and
  • directors "authorizean exchange that is so one sided that no business person

  • 2 . REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COMPLAINT
    REPRICING
    STOCK OPTION
    ALLEGATIONS
    MOTION
    FAILURE
    DISMISS
    EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION
    ALLEGE
    DEL
    TRANSACTIONS
    DEFENDANTS
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    WASTE
    FACTS
    DIRECTORS
    PLAINTIFF FAILS
    BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE
    DEMAND PURPOSES
    FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
    STEINBERG
    INFERENCES
    SHAREHOLDERS
    PARTICULARITY
    STOCK PRICE
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    STOCK OPTION PLAN
    PLEADING STANDARDS
    FIRST REPRICING
    
                                                                            ORMNAL
    
            IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE                               1  /
                               IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
                                                        >
    MICHELE S. CRIDEN,                                  >1
                              Plaintix                  1>
            V.                                          >>
    JONATHAN L. STEINBERG, BRUCE L.                     >                C. A. No. 17082
    SOKOLOFF, PETER M. ZIEMBA, and                      >
    S. CHRISTOPHER MEIGHER, III,                        >>
                              Defendants,               >>
    INDIVIDUAL INVESTOR GROUP, INC.                     1>
                              Nominal Defendant.        >)
    
                                  REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
                              DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
    
             Barry M. Klayman                           Kenneth J. Nachbar
             Todd C. Schiltz                            MORRIS, NICHOLS,
             WOLF, BLOCK, SCHORR AND                          ARSHT & TUNNELL
                   SOLIS-COHEN,  LLP                     1201 North Market Street
             920 King Street, Suite 300                 P.O. Box 1347
             Wilmington, DE 1980 l-33 19                 Wilmington, DE 19899-l 342
             (302) 777-5860                              (302) 575-7294
    
             Richard J. Morvillo                        Attorneys for Nominal Defendant
             KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART LLP
             1800 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W.
             2nd Floor
             Washington, DC 20036-  1800
             (202) 778-9000
    
             Attorneys for the Individual Defendants
    
    
    
    DSW:32658.1
    
    
    
                                                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    
    Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Attorneys for the Individual Defendants
  • Of The November 19 Employee Stock Option Repricing
  • Complaint Should Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff Fails To
  • Sufficiently Allege A Complete Failure Of Consideration
  • Ch., 453 A.2d 467, appeal denied, Del.
  • Shareholders Lit&z., Del.
  • the allegations in the Amended Complaint.
  • with the requisite particularity, Plaintiff fails to cite a single specific allegation in her
  • conclusory statements and allegations but is weak on specifics.
  • The heightened pleading standards imposed for claims like those brought by
  • Plaintiff attempts to take advantage of a fortuitous - and short-lived increase in stock
  • reality - one actually clear from the few facts Plaintiff does allege - is that the directors,
  • employee stock option repricing decision because,
  • support a claim of waste or breach of fiduciary duty.
  • Complaint provide no support for treating the two transactions at
  • November 19 and December 23 transactions as one for demand purposes solely because,
  • Motion to Dismiss at 9.
  • The fact that she was free to make this critical claim, and did not, should say more to the
  • by specific factual allegations.
  • Board with respect to the first repricing decision, Plaintiff had to make specific factual
  • Amended Complaint - that both the employees' and the directors' options had been
  • business judgment rule does not apply, Plaintiffs suggestion that the Court can draw
  • to discredit the outside directors for demand purposes, she claims Steinberg controlled the

  • 3 . OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    STOCK OPTION
    STOCK OPTION REPRICING
    ALLEGATIONS
    EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION
    REPRICING DECISION
    DEMAND
    DIRECTORS
    DEL
    TRANSACTION
    FACTS
    DEFENDANTS
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    COURT
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    SUPR
    STEINBERG
    PARTICULARIZED FACTS
    DISINTERESTED DIRECTORS
    PRESUIT DEMAND
    EXERCISE PRICE
    SHAREHOLDER
    REASONABLENESS
    NON-EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION
    BUSINESS JUDGMENT
    INDIVIDUAL INVESTOR
    ACCORDING
    UNDERWATER
    STOCK OPTION PLANS
    COMPENSATION
    
                    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE                               P
                                    IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
                                                           >
        MICHELE S. CRIDEN,                                 >>
                                  Plaint$                  >>
                    V.                                     >
                                                           >
        JONATHAN L. STEINBERG, BRUCE L.                    >
        SOKOLOFF, PETER M. ZIEMBA, and                     >               C. A. No. 17082
        S. CHRISTOPHER MEIGHER, III,                       >>
                                  Defendants,              1>
        INDIVIDUAL INVESTOR GROUP, INC.                    >                                  -:
                                                           >                               .  -
                                 Nominal  Defendunt.       >>
    
                                        OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
                                  DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
    
             Barry  :M. Klayman                         Kenneth J. Nachbar
             Todd C. Schiltz                            MORRIS,NICHOLS,
             WOLF,BLOCK,SCHORRAND                        ARSHT&TUNNELL
                   SOLIS-COHEN,  LLP                    1201 North Market Street
             920 King Street, Suite 300                 P.O. Box 1347
             Wilmington, DE 19801-3319                  Wilmington, DE 19899-1342
             (302) 777-5860                             (302) 575-7294
    
             Richard J. Morvillo                        Attorneys for Nominal Defendant
             Luther Zeigler
             Kenneth F. Rossman
             CROWELL&MORING  LLP
             1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
             Washington, DC 20004-2595
             (202) 624-2655
    
             Attorneys for the Individual Defendants
    
    DSW:31429.1
    
    
    
                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    
    STATEMENT OF NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
    
    THE AMENDED COMPLAINT'S ALLEGATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Attorneys for the Individual Defendants
  • AMENDED COMPLAINT'S ALLEGATIONS
  • OPTION REPRICING DECISION MUST BE DISMISSED
  • The Claims Arising from the Employee Stock Option Repricing
  • Decision Must Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff Failed to Make
  • a Presuit Demand and Demand Is Not Excused.
  • Plaintiff does not allege particularized facts demonstrating
  • the three non-employee directors were not disinterested and
  • of Fiduciary Duty Arising from the Employee Stock Option Repricing
  • the Non-Employee Stock Option Repricing Decision Should be
  • Supr., 160 A.2d 731.
  • Bergstein v. Texas Int `I Co., Del.
  • Shareholder Litig., Del.

  • 4 . OPENING BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COURT
    DIRECTORS
    STOCK OPTION
    DEL
    SUPPORT
    STOCK OPTION REPRICING
    STEINBERG
    DEFENDANTS
    TRANSACTION
    REPRICING DECISION
    EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION
    DELAWARE
    ALLEGATIONS
    FACTS
    DEMAND
    INDIVIDUAL INVESTOR
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    COMPLAINT
    INDIVIDUAL INVESTOR GROUP
    PARTICULARIZED FACTS
    NON-EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION
    DISINTERESTED DIRECTORS
    BUSINESS JUDGMENT
    SHAREHOLDER
    MORING LLP
    NORTH MARKET STREET
    WILMINGTON
    ATTORNEYS
    EXERCISE PRICE
    
                                                                          ORIGINAL
    
         IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                            IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    
    MICHELE S. CRIDEN,
    
                           Pluintl$
    
         V.
    
    JONATHAN L. STEINBERG, BRUCE L.
    SOKOLOFF, PETER M. ZIEMBA, and                                   C. A. No. 17082
    S. CHRISTOPHER MEIGHER, III,
    
                           Defendants,
    
    INDIVIDUAL INVESTOR GROUP, INC.
    
                           Nominal Defendant.
    
    
    
                             OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
                            DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
    
    
         Barry M. Klayman                           Kenneth J. Nachbar
         Todd C. Schiltz                            MORRIS, NICHOLS,
         WOLF, BLOCK, SCHORR  AND                    ARSHT & TUNNELL
          SOLE-COHEN,  LLP                          1201 North Market Street
         920 King Street, Suite 300                 P.O. Box 1347
         Wilmington, DE 19801-3319                  Wilmington, DE 19899-1342
         (302) 777-5860                             (302) 575-7294
    
         Richard J. Morvillo                        Attorneys for Nominal Defendant
         Luther Zeigler
         Kenneth F. Rossman
         CROWELL & MORING LLP
         100 1 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20004-2595
         (202) 624-2655
    
         Attorneys for the Individual Defendants
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • INDIVIDUAL INVESTOR GROUP, INC.
  • DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
  • 1201 North Market Street 920 King Street,
  • Wilmington, DE 19899-1342 777-5860
  • Attorneys for Nominal Defendant Luther Zeigler Kenneth F. Rossman CROWELL & MORING LLP 100 1
  • Attorneys for the Individual Defendants
  • EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION REPRICING DECISION MUST
  • The Claims Arising from the Employee Stock Option
  • Repricing Decision Must Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff
  • Failed to Make a Presuit Demand and Demand Is Not
  • Plaintiff Does Not Allege Particularized Facts
  • Demonstrating the Three Non-Employee Directors
  • Other Than a Valid Exercise of Business Judgment.
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty Arising from the Employee Stock
  • The Factual Allegations in the Complaint Do Not
  • Support a Claim for Corporate Waste with Respect

  • 5 . COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    INDIVIDUAL INVESTOR
    RE-PRICING
    PRICE
    STOCK
    INVESTOR GROUP
    EXERCISE
    DIRECTORS
    PLAINTIFF
    STRIKE PRICE
    DEMAND
    STEINBERG
    COURT
    SOKOLOFF
    MARKET
    SHAREHOLDER
    PETER
    MATERIAL TIMES
    DEFENDANT JONATHAN
    LOSS
    LOSSES
    NOMINAL DEFENDANT
    ZIEMBA
    CHRISTOPHER MEIGHER
    COMMON STOCK
    BUSINESS
    ALLEGATIONS
    SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT
    INDEPENDENCE
    DUTY
    
               IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                             IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    ------------------------------------ X
    MICHELE S. CRIDEN,                       ::
         Plaintiff,                          ..     C.A. No.
                  .                          :
                  V.                         ..:
    JONATHAN L. STEINBERG,                   :
    BRUCE L. SOKOLOFF,                       :
    PETER M. ZIEMBA, AND                     :
    S. CHRISTOPHER MEIGHER, III              ::
         Defendants,                         :                          . .
                                             :
    INDIVIDUAL INVESTOR GROUP, INC.          ::
         Nominal Defendant.
    ----------------------------------- t
    
    
         Plaintiff, Michele S. Criden, by and through her undersigned
    attorneys,          sue defendants Jonathan L.      Steinberg,    Bruce L.
    Sokoloff, Peter M. Ziemba, S. Christopher Meigher, III, and
    Individual Investor Group, Inc., and allege, upon information and
    belief, as follows:
    
    
                                       PARTIES
         1.       Plaintiff, Michele S. Criden, owns, and has owned at
    all relevant times to this action, common stock of Nominal
    Defendant, Individual Investor Group, Inc.
         2.       Nominal Defendant, Individual Investor Group, Inc.,
    ("Individual Investor Group11  or llCompany18) is a Delaware
    Corporation with its principal place of business at 1633
    Broadway,          38th Floor, New York, New York 10019. Individual
    Investor Group is in the business of publishing magazines that
    
    
    
    provide market and financial information to individual investors.
    Its stock is publicly traded on the NASDAQ stock market.
         3.       At all material times, Defendant Jonathan L. Steinberg
    was and is Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of
    Individual Investor Group.
         4.       At all material times, Defendant Bruce L. Sokoloff was
    and is a director of Individual Investor Group.
         5.       At all material times, Defendant Peter M. Ziemba was
    and is a director of Individual Investor Group.
         6. At all material times,           Defendant S.        Christopher
    Meigher, III was and is a director of Individual Investor Group.
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Plaintiff, Michele S. Criden, by and through her undersigned
  • Plaintiff, Michele S. Criden, owns, and has owned at all relevant times to this action,
  • Nominal Defendant, Individual Investor Group, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation with its
  • Its stock is publicly traded on the NASDAQ stock market.
  • At all material times, Defendant Jonathan L. Steinberg was and is Chief Executive Officer and
  • Defendant Bruce L. Sokoloff was and is a director of Individual Investor Group.
  • Defendant Peter M. Ziemba was and is a director of Individual Investor Group.
  • SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
  • Steinberg to publish magazines which provide market and financial information to individual
  • earnings per share went from $.49 in 1995 to a loss per share of $.51 in 1996 and a $.77 loss
  • Not only has the Company suffered staggering losses, but any plan by its Board to turn the
  • Inc. to assist the Company in exploring strategic initiatives to enhance shareholder value.
  • Defendants Re-Price Their Options
  • Individual Investor Group raises a substantial amount of money from investors and employees
  • All these options included a strike price that was set at the fair market value of the
  • During the first nine months of 1998, the Company received $398,153 from the exercise of
  • The directors who approved the re-pricing include the defendants Jonathan L. Steinberg, Bruce
  • The re-pricing of the options was granted without any consideration flowing back to the
  • Demand upon the Board of Directors to pursue the claims set forth below was not made by
  • Even if certain directors did not directly benefit from the Board's decision to re-price the
  • (Breach of Fiduciary Duty Including Duty of Loyalty)
  • That the Court enjoin the defendants from exercising any of the options that were re-priced
  •    |