LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

AGRANOFF v CITICORP VENTURE CAPITAL Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 16,795, County: New Castle County, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: N R THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff: AGRANOFF, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00016795, Ems, Miller, Warrant Shares, Price, Shares, Valuation, Cvc, Agreement, Callaway, Warrants, Paid, Del, Puglisi, Comparable Companies, Delaware, Premium, Ovens, Common Stock, Market, Multiple, Supreme Court, Minority, Air Canada, Purchase, Minority Discount, Stockholders, Purchase Price, Revenue Multiple, Agranoff, Directors, Operating, Control, Revenues, Report, Determination, Remand Order, Golden State, Control Premium, Hypothetical Purchase Price, Transactions, Shareholders Agreement, Stock , ContentID: 120239752

Case Documents
1 2001-05-15 MEMORANDUM OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114917
43 pages
PDF
2 2001-03-28 PLAINTIFFS POST-TRIAL REPLY BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115542
19 pages
PDF
3 2001-03-28 DEFENDANTS POST-TRIAL REPLY BRIEF ON REMAND
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115541
23 pages
PDF
4 2001-03-19 PLAINTIFFS POST TRIAL BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115544
35 pages
PDF
5 2001-03-19 DEFENDANTS POST-TRIAL OPENING BRIEF ON REMAND
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115543
43 pages
PDF
6 2000-09-07 PLAINTIFFS PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103033
18 pages
PDF
7 2000-09-07 DEFENDANTS PRE-TRIAL BRIEF ON REMAND
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103032
23 pages
PDF
8 2000-06 DETERMINATION OF FAIR VALUE OF EMS WARRANT SHARES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103031
20 pages
PDF
9 1999-04-16 FINAL ORDER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100323
3 pages
PDF
10 1999-04-09 MEMORANDUM OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100324
49 pages
PDF
11 1999-03-17 POST-TRIAL BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103034
73 pages
PDF
12 1999-03-01 POST TRIAL BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103035
56 pages
PDF
13 1999-03-01 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR INTERVENTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102106
5 pages
PDF
14 1999-03-01 2ND AMENDED ANSWER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102105
5 pages
PDF
15 1999-02-26 COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102107
8 pages
PDF
16 1999-02-10 LETTER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103533
3 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 16 documents , 426 pages
Price: $ 94.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . MEMORANDUM OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
EMS
WARRANTS
COURT
PRICE
SUPREME COURT
MILLER
REMAND ORDER
CONTROL
PLAINTIFFS
CVC
VALUATION
CONTROL PREMIUM
MINORITY
PURCHASE
PAID
COMPARABLE COMPANIES
MINORITY DISCOUNT
FAIR MARKET
APPRAISALUNIQUE
DEFENDANTS
FULLY DILUTED BASIS
MARKETABILITY DISCOUNT
TRANSACTIONS
ADJUSTMENT
VALUATION TECHNIQUES
MINORITY STOCKHOLDER
GOLDEN STATE
WILMINGTON
ATTORNEYS
      IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE S'TATE OF DELAWARE

                    IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY


STUART AGRANOFF, L. DAVID                  j
CALLAWAY, III AND EMS CORP.,               >

                  Plaintiffs,              i
                                           >     Civil Action No. 16795
      AND                                  )1
CITICORP VENTURE CAPITAL, LTD.

                  Intervenor-Plaintiff,

      V.

EDWARD M. MILLER and WILLIAM A.                                            `,
                                                                            `.

DE LORENZO,

                         Defendants.

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

                         Date Submitted: March 28, 2001
                           Date Decided: May 15,200 1


Joel E. Friedlander, Esquire of BOUCHARD, MARGULES  & FRIEDLANDER,
Wilmington, Delaware; Of Counsel: Stuart L. Shapiro, Esquire, of SHAPIRO
FORMAN & ALLEN, New York, New York, Attorney for Plaintiffs.

Martin P. Tully and Jon E. Abramczyk, Esquires of MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT
& TUNNELL, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Intervenor-Plaintiff.

Peter J. Walsh, Jr., and Michael A. Pittenger, Esquires, of POTTER ANDERSON &
CORROON, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendants.



STRINE,  Vke Chancellor



        This opinion addresses the remand order of the Supreme Court that

required this court to determine the price at which certain warrants held by
SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE S'TATE OF DELAWARE
  • Joel E. Friedlander, Esquire of BOUCHARD, MARGULES & FRIEDLANDER, Wilmington, Delaware; Of
  • Martin P. Tully and Jon E. Abramczyk, Esquires of MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL,
  • Peter J. Walsh, Jr., and Michael A. Pittenger, Esquires, of POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON,
  • Banker's Trust (the "Warrants" or "Warrant Shares") could have been
  • purchased by either plaintiff Citicorp Venture Capital, Ltd. or EMS
  • defendant Edward M. Miller as part of Miller's conspiracy with EMS
  • breaches of EMS's and CVC's contractual rights to purchase other EMS
  • The remand order requires this court to det.ermine the hypothetical
  • price at which EMS and CVC could have purchased the Warrants from BT.2
  • standard valuation techniques, recognizing that Miller's pattern of illicit
  • conclude that the fair market value of the BT Warrants as of,the valuation
  • mandate elf the Supreme Court and it wished me to come up with a fair value
  • 5 225 by plaintiffs L. David
  • Callaway, III, Smart Agranoff, and CVC against defendants Edward M.
  • who claimed to have bought majority control of EMS
  • EMS's equity on a fully diluted basis that assumed conversion of the BT
  • Golden State harbored some idea of making
  • was buying a control block and that was why he paid a higher price.
  • stuck as a minority stockholder holding 35% of EMS's equity - that is,
  • It appears that the Warrant Shares ~would not have commanded a control premium, however, if
  • principles that would be used in non-g 262 contexts, but on -the appraisalunique "fair value"
  • Order cannot be correct because correction for a minority discount requires
  • Shares using traditional valuation techniques.
  • Supr., 564 A.2d 1137, the Supreme Court held that this court was correct in refusing to apply
  • Marketplace transactions are dependent on many variables.
  • comparable companies method of valuation,
  • it was held that an adjustment of a comparable companies analysis to correct the implicit
  • and subtracting the 33% marketability discount the plaintiffs press upon

  • 2 . PLAINTIFFS POST-TRIAL REPLY BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PRICE
    EMS
    PAID
    VALUATION
    CVC
    AIR CANADA
    COURT
    SUPREME COURT
    PREMIUM
    FACTS
    HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS
    MULTIPLE
    DETERMINATION
    PURCHASE
    ACCEPTED VALUATION
    KEY DIFFERENCES
    PLAINTIFFS
    MINORITY DISCOUNT
    REVENUE MULTIPLE
    PRICE YIELDS
    PROFIT MARGIN
    COMPARABLE COMPANIES
    ACQUISITION PREMIUMS
    VALUATION METHODOLOGY
    AVERAGE PREMIUM
    ADJUSTMENT
    PRICE/SALES MULTIPLE
    SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
    FAIR MARKET
    
                 IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                             IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    STUART AGRANOFF, L. DAVID
    CALLAWAY, III, and EMS CORP.,                      >
                       Plaintiffs.                     t
          and                                          ;
    CITICORP VENTURE  CAPITAL, LTD.                    1          C.A. No. 16795
                       Intervenor-Plaintiff,           >
    
          V .                                          ;
    
    EDWARD M. MILLER and                               i
    WILLIAM A. D.E. LORENZO,
                                                       i
                       Defendants.
    
    
    
                         PLAINTIFFS' POST-TRIAL REPLY BRIEF
    
    
    
                                           MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSBT & TUNNELL
                                           Martin P. Tully
                                           Jon E. AbrJ,mczyk
                                                1201 N. Market Street
                                           P.O. Box 1347
                                           Wilmington, DE 19801
                                           (302) 658-9200
                                                  Attorneys for Plaintiff Citicorp Venture Capital, Ltd.
    
                                           BOUCHARD, MARGULES  & FRIEDLANDER, P.A.
                                           Joel E. Friedlander
                                           222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1102
                                           Wilmington, DE 19801
                                                (302) 573-3500
                                                   Attorneys for Plaintiffs L. David Callaway, III and
                                                   EMS Corp.
    March 28,200l
    
    
    
                                                                                             i.
    
                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • PLAINTIFFS' POST-TRIAL REPLY BRIEF
  • AIR CANADA COULD HAVE OBTAINED THE WARRANT SHARES.
  • The Supreme Court Did Not Mandate An Appraisal Of The
  • The Price That EMS, CVC or Air Canada Would Have
  • Paid For The Warrant Shares Is Not Governed By The
  • T:HE KEY DIFFERENCES IN THE EXPERT VALUATION CONCLUSIONS MUST BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF EMS,
  • The Only Credible Analysis Of The Hypothetical Purchase
  • Price Yields A Price Of $22.70.
  • An Accepted Valuation Methodology.
  • Puglisi's Hypothetical Questions Are Not Based On
  • The Facts Or Law Of The Case.
  • The Premium Used To Reverse The "Minority
  • adjustments are replaced with a reasonable multiple of sales and an appropriate premium to
  • reverse the minority discount, the indicated per share value is $42.97.
  • Supplemental Report specifically to address the price at which EMS,
  • when confronted with some of the errors in his comparable companies
  • Court's Order on remand requires a factual determination of the amount to be paid for the
  • valuation conclusions that Puglisi offered under both his "fair market value" approach and his
  • at 94) he resurrected his capitalization of operating leases approach to claim another
  • dismal profit margin in selecting his multiple of revenues.'
  • revenue multiple simply by examining mean and median.
  • "If the subject company's true return on sales is known, an estimate of reasonable
  • Lee analyze:d industry-specific contemporaneous acquisition premiums and multiples,
  • adjusted those premiums to eliminate the portion of the average premium attributable to

  • 3 . DEFENDANTS POST-TRIAL REPLY BRIEF ON REMAND

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    MILLER
    COURT
    EMS
    WARRANT SHARES
    MARKET
    PRICE
    CVC
    DEFENDANTS
    CALLAWAY
    GOLDEN STATE
    EVIDENCE
    VALUATION
    REVENUES
    MINORITY DISCOUNT
    DEL
    PURCHASE PRICE
    SUPREME COURT
    RECORD EVIDENCE
    TRANSACTION
    EDWARD
    WILLIAM
    LORENZO
    MANAGEMENT
    ADJUSTMENT
    PITTENGER
    NORTH MARKET STREET
    HERCULES PLAZA
    WILMINGTON
    ATTORNEYS
    
                       IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE        '  "  '  `..."`j
    
                                      IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    STUART AGRANlOFF,  L. DAVID
    CALLAWAY, III AND EMS CORP.,
    
                                    Plaintiffs,
    
                AND
    
    CITICORP  VENTURE  CAPITAL, LTD.,
    
                        Intervenor-Plaintiff,
    
                V.
    
    EDWARD M. MILLER and WILLIAM A.
    DE LORENZO,
    
                                    Defendants.
    
    
    
    
                       DEFENDANTS' POST-TRIAL REPLY BRIEF ON REMAND
                       __-
    
    
                                                   POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
    
                                                   Peter J. Walsh, Jr.
                                                   Michael A. Pittenger
                                                   Brian C Ralston
                                                   13 13 North Market Street
                                                   Hercules Plaza, 6" Floor
                                                   P.O. Box 951
                                                   Wilmington, DE 19899
                                                   (302) 984-6000
    
                                                   Attorneys for Defendants
                                                   EDWARD M. MILLER and
                                                   WILLIAM A. De LORENZO
    
    Dated: March  28,200l
    161454"3
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ' " ' `..."`j
  • STUART AGRANlOFF, L. DAVID CALLAWAY, III AND EMS CORP.,
  • Plaintiffs,
  • EDWARD M. MILLER and WILLIAM A. DE LORENZO,
  • DEFENDANTS' POST-TRIAL REPLY BRIEF ON REMAND
  • Michael A. Pittenger
  • 13 13 North Market Street
  • Hercules Plaza, 6" Floor
  • Wilmington, DE 19899
  • Attorneys for Defendants
  • MILLER'S RELINQUISHMENT OF THE WARRANT SHARES IS
  • LEE'S "HYPOTHETICAL OR EXPECTED PURCHASE PRICE" IS
  • ILLOGICAL AND UNSUPPORTED BY THE RECORD EVIDENCE.
  • DR. PUGLISI'S SUPPLEMENTAL FAIR MARKET ANALYSIS IS
  • VALUATION MODEL AND IS PARTICULARLY APPROPRIATE
  • Dr. Puglisi's Multiple Of Revenues Approach Is Theoretically And
  • Dr. Puglisi's 40% Adjustment To Reverse The Minority Discount Is
  • Del.

  • 4 . PLAINTIFFS POST TRIAL BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    WARRANT SHARES
    EMS
    PUGLISI
    MILLER
    PREMIUM
    MULTIPLE
    COURT
    COMPARABLE COMPANIES
    MINORITY
    VALUATION
    PURCHASE PRICE
    REVENUE MULTIPLE
    PAID
    CVC
    VALUATION METHODS
    HYPOTHETICAL PURCHASE PRICE
    PLAINTIFFS
    MINORITY DISCOUNT
    AIR CANADA
    SUPREME COURT
    TRANSACTIONS
    ADJUSTMENT
    COMMON STOCK
    RESTITUTION
    STOCKHOLDER
    GOLDEN STATE
    GOLDEN STATE GROUP
    GUIDELINE COMPANIES
    PROFIT MARGIN
    
                 IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF
    
    
    
    STUART AGRANOFF, L. DAVID
    CALLAWAY, III, and EMS CORP.,
    
                       Plaintiffs,
    
          and
    
    CITICORP VENTURE CAPITAL, LTD.                     i>         CA. No. 16795
                       Intervener-Plaintiff,
                                                       ;
          V.
    
    EDWARD M. MILLER and
    WILLIAM A. DE L.ORENZO,
    
                        Defendants.
    
    
    
                               PLAINTIFFS' POST-TRIAL BRIEF
    
    
    
                                           MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT 1% TUNNELL
                                           Martin P. Tully
                                           Jon E. Abramczyk
                                                1201 N. Market Street
                                           P.O. Box 1347
                                           Wilmington, DE 19801
                                                (302) 658-9200
                                                  Attorneys for Plaintiff Citicorp Venture Capital, Ltd.
    
                                                BOUCHARD, MARGIJLES  & FRIEDLANDER, P.A.
                                                Joel E. Friedlander
                                                222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 11132
                                                Wilmington, DE 1980 I
                                                (302) 573-3500
                                                   Attorneys for Plaintiffs L. David Callaway, III and
                                                   EMS Corp.
    March  19,200l
    
    
    
                                                                                               1.
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • CALLAWAY, III, and EMS CORP.,
  • PLAINTIFFS' POST-TRIAL BRIEF
  • Appraisal May Include A Premium To Reverse The
  • "HYPOTHETICAL PURCHASE PRICE" YIELDS A PRICE OF
  • EVE:N IF APPRAISAL VALUATION METHODS ARE APPLIED, THE VALUE OF THE WARRANT SHARES IS NO
  • Puglisi Overstated The Adjus'ment to Reverse the Minority
  • Common Stock Price Multiples and Market Price to
  • proper composition of the board of EMS Corp., has returned to this Court for the
  • calculation of the hypothetical purchase price for the Warrant Shares had defendant Edward M.
  • Miller not violated the rights of EMS, Citicorp Venture Capital and Air Canada.
  • equitable rule governing restitution for misappropriation by faithless hduciaries.
  • CVC or Air Canada, would have paid for the Warrant Shares, whichever is less.
  • Miller appealed, and on July 28, 1999, the Supreme Court affirmed the final
  • After two days of hearings and multiple expert reports,
  • The appraisal remedy has its origins in the power of a minority stockholder to block majority
  • Supr., 657 A.2d 254, 25% (describing appraisal as "a limited legislative remedy developed
  • comparable companies method, allow an adjustment to reverse the minority discount that may be
  • premium at the selected level by the proponent of the adjustment.
  • than one percent of the outstanding shares to acquire an absolute majority, and Golden State
  • Moreover, as the Court noted at trial, CVC had effective control of the EMS board and, had
  • companies, deriving financial ratios for the guideline companies, analyzing the relationship
  • Puglisi Miscalculated the Revenue Multiple
  • Express Messenger's management that the Company's profit margin would grow.

  • 5 . DEFENDANTS POST-TRIAL OPENING BRIEF ON REMAND

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    EMS
    MILLER
    COURT
    VALUATION
    MARKET
    CALLAWAY
    BUSINESS
    PRICE
    OPERATING
    MINORITY DISCOUNT
    CVC
    DEFENDANTS
    REPORT
    LEE
    CONTROL
    GOLDEN STATE
    FINANCIALS
    COMPARABLE COMPANIES
    PURCHASE PRICE
    APPROXIMATION
    DAVID CALLAWAY
    PLAINTIFFS
    DCF ANALYSIS
    COMMON STOCK
    SUPREME COURT
    TRANSACTIONS
    ACQUISITION
    DISCOUNT RATE
    MULTIPLIER
    
                    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF TH:E STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                  IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    STUART AGRANOFF, L. DAVID
    CALLAWAY, III AND EMS CORP.,
    
                                 Plaintiffs,
    
             AND
    
    CITICORP VENTURE CAPITAL, LTD.
    
                     Intervener-Plaintiff,         >
    
             V.                                    ;
    
    EDWARD M. MILLER and WILLIAM A.                1
    DE LORENZO,
                                                   ;
                                 Defendants.       >
    
    
    
    
             DEFENDAKTS POST-TRIAL OPENING BRIEF ON  REMkm
    
    
                                                POTTER ANDERSON  &  CORROON  LLP
    
                                                Peter J. Walsh, Jr.
                                                Michael A.. Pittenger
                                                13 13 North Market Street
                                                Hercules Plaza, 6'h Floor
                                                P.O. Box 05 1
                                                Wilmington, DE 19899
                                                (302) 984-,600O
    
                                                Attorneys for Defendants
                                                EDWARD M. MILLER an'd
                                                WILLIAM A. De LORENZO
    
    
    Dated: March  19,200l
    `ml36
    
    
    
                                                                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF TH:E STATE OF DELAWARE
  • STUART AGRANOFF, L. DAVID CALLAWAY, III AND EMS CORP.,
  • Plaintiffs,
  • EDWARD M. MILLER and WILLIAM A.
  • Attorneys for Defendants
  • STATEMENT OF FACTS PERTINENT TO VALUATION OF THE WARRANT SHARES
  • The Business And Operating History Of EMS.
  • Golden State Expresses An Interest In Acquiring The BT .Warrants.
  • THE VALUE OF THE WARRANT SHARES IS APPROXIMATELY $60 PER SHARE, WHETHER APPRAISED ON A FAIR
  • Dr. Puglisi's Comparable Companies Approach..
  • THE ISPMG REPORT IS UNRELIABLE AND SHOULD BE RE:JECTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
  • Lee's Arbitrary 5% Reversal of the Minority Discount.
  • Lee's Expected Purchase Price.

  • 6 . PLAINTIFFS PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    EMS
    PRICE
    MILLER
    COURT
    PAID
    CVC
    PURCHASE
    VALUATION
    REPORT
    REVENUES
    PLAINTIFFS
    COMPARABLE COMPANIES
    DISCOUNT
    DELAWARE
    THIRD PARTY
    CONTROL PREMIUM
    HYPOTHETICAL PURCHASE PRICE
    DEFENDANT
    SUPREME COURT
    AIR CANADA
    MINORITY DISCOUNT
    CASH FLOW METHOD
    DELAWARE APPRAISAL LAW
    NOL
    APPROXIMATES
    VALUATION AVERAGE
    CAVALIER OIL
    CORPORATE OPPORTUNITY
    MESSENGER
    
                 n\r THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                              IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    STUART AGRANOFF, L. DAVID
    CALLAWAY, III, and EMS CORP.,                     ;
    
                        Plaintiffs,                   i
    
          and                                         i
    
    CITICORP VENTURE CAPITAL, LTD.                    i1         C.A. No. 16795
                        Intervener-Plaintiff,
                                                      1
          V.
    
                                                      1
    EDWARD M. MILLER and
    WILLIAM A. DE LORENZO,
    
                        Defendants.
    
    
    
                         PLAINTIFFS'  Pm-TRIAL  MEMORANDUM
    
    
    
                                            MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT &  TLJNNELL
                                            Martin P. Tully
                                            Jon E. Abramczyk
                                            1201 N. Market Street
                                            P.O. Box 1347
                                            Wilmington, DE 19801
                                            (302) 658-9200
                                                 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
    
    September 7,ZOOO
    
    
    
                                                                                     1.
    
    
                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
                                                                                     m
    
    TAl3LE  OF CITATIONS
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • PLAINTIFFS' Pm-TRIAL MEMORANDUM
  • THE HYPOTHETICAL PURCHASE PRICE THAT EMS, CVC,
  • A THIRD PARTY WOULD HAVE PAID TO PURCHASE THE
  • Miller's Expert Report Improperly Rejected The
  • Miller's Expert's Comparable Companies Approach Is
  • h4ultiple Of Revenues And Then Gives It Sufficient
  • Weight To Pull His Valuation Average Of The
  • Cavalier Oil Corp. v. Hartnett,
  • Following an usual series of appeals to the Supreme Court,
  • Miller's willful violation of the rights of EMS Corp.,
  • As this Court found, and the Supreme Court affirmed, Miller wrongfully
  • Because Miller paid a control premium for the
  • Warrant Shares that EMS and CVC would not have paid, the price at which Miller must offer the
  • violate rights of first refusal belonging to EMS, CVC and Air Canada;
  • the Court could not "discern from the contract or from the corporate opportunity doctrine the
  • common sl:ock of Express Messenger Systems,
  • Between June 11 and November 2, 1998, defendant
  • Miller testified under oath in this Court, and the Delaware
  • under Delaware appraisal law customarily applied only in certain squeeze-out merger cases.
  • values derived under Delaware appraisal law do not include a discount for lack of
  • As will be shown at trial, the price that most closely approximates what a third
  • Discounted Cash Flow Method Of Valuation.
  • net operating loss ) to eliminate the minority discount inherent in public company
  • treatment of the value of the Ne:t Operating Loss Carryforward (the "NOL") accrued by Express

  • 7 . DEFENDANTS PRE-TRIAL BRIEF ON REMAND

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COURT
    EMS
    WARRANT SHARES
    MARKET
    PRICE
    DELAWARE
    KPMG REPORT
    PUGLISI
    AGRANOFF
    DEFENDANTS
    DAVID CALLAWAY
    MINORITY DISCOUNT
    DEL
    REVENUES
    PURCHASE PRICE
    SUPREME COURT
    CVC
    MILLER PAID
    COMPARABLE COMPANIES
    CORNPARABLES
    DCF
    DELAWARE LAW
    CASH FLOW
    DCF ANALYSIS
    WILLIAM
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    MULTIPLIER
    EBITDA
    COMMON STOCK
    
                      IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                     IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    STIJART AGRANOFF, L. DAVID
    CALLAWAY, III AND EMS CORP.,
    
                                   Plain.tiffs.       i
    
              ANCl                                    ;
                                                             Civil Action No. 16795
    CITICORP VENTURE CAPITAL, LTD.                    1
    
                       Intervenor-Plaintiff,
    
              V.
    
    
    EDWARD M. MILLER and WILLIAM A
    DE LORENZO,
    
                                   Defendants.
    
    
    
                            DEFENDANTS' PRE-TRIAL BRIEF ON  REMAm
    
                                                   POTTER ANDERSON  &  CORROON  LLP
    
                                                   Peter J. Walsh, Jr.
                                                   Michael A. Pittenger
                                                   13 13 North Market Street
                                                   Hercules Plaza, 61h Floor
                                                   P.O. Box 95 1
                                                   Wilmington, DE 19899
                                                   (302) 984-6000
    
                                                   Attorneys for Defendants
                                                   EDWARD M. MILLER and
                                                   WILLIAM A. De LORENZO
    
    
    Dated: September  7,200O
    124854
    
    
    
                                                                                           TABLE OF
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • STIJART AGRANOFF, L. DAVID CALLAWAY, III AND EMS CORP.,
  • EDWARD M. MILLER and WILLIAM A DE LORENZO,
  • DEFENDANTS' PRE-TRIAL BRIEF ON REMAm
  • 13 13 North Market Street
  • THE FAIR VALUE OF THE WARRANT SHARES IS IN EXCESS
  • Fair Value Under Delaware Law.
  • Dr. Puglisi Will Opine That The Fair Value Of The Warrant
  • Rejection Of The DCF Approach.
  • The KPMG Report.
  • The KPMG Cornparables Approach.
  • KPMG's Discounted Cash Flow Analysis.
  • KPMG's Expected Purchase Price.
  • Del.

  • 8 . DETERMINATION OF FAIR VALUE OF EMS WARRANT SHARES

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    EMS
    VALUATION
    OPERATING
    SHARES
    DETERMINATION
    CAPITALIZATION
    MILLER
    COMPARABLES
    EXHIBIT
    PEER GROUP
    OPINIONS
    FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
    LEASES
    MATTER
    WARRANT SHARES
    REVENUES
    MULTIPLE-OF-EARNINGS
    TRANSACTIONS
    EBIT
    CASH FLOW
    MULTIPLES-OF-EARNINGS
    EBITDA
    PEER GROUP MEMBERS
    FY98
    MANAGEMENT
    PROFITABILITY
    DEFENDANT EDWARD
    MINORITY DISCOUNT
    ENTERPRISE
    
    DETERMINATION OF THE FAIR VALUE OF EMS CORP. WARRAXT
                SHARES  AS OF NOVEMBER  3,199s
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                           Prepared by
    
    
                         Donald J. Puglisi
                        Managing Director
                       Puglisi  & Associates
                   850 Library Avenue, Suite 204
                     Newark, Delaware 197 11
                          302-738-6680
    
    
    
    
    
    
                            June 2000
    
    
    
                                                      Table ofcontents
    
    
                                                                                                       
    
    I.      INTRODUCTLON   .AND SUMMARY OF OPINIONS TO
            BE EXPRESSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    
    II.     Q U A L I F I C A T I O N S   O F   T H E   E X P E R T   W I T N E S S                    
    
    III.    MATERIALS CONSIDERED  IN FORMING EXPERT OPINIONS                                           
    
    I\      V A L U A T I O N   O F   E M S   C O R P .   C O M M O N   S T O C K                      
    
            A.        The Nature of EMS  Corp.`s and Express's  Busmess  .,...,                        
            8.        Express's Financial Performance and Position  _.  _.  _.  _.                     
            C.        Approaches to Determining the Fair Value of EMS Corp.
                      Common Stock .                                                       _.          
                       1.         Transactions in EMS Corp. and Express Common Stock,.                 
                      2.          Multiples-of-Revenue and Earnings Capitalization Models.             
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • DETERMINATION OF THE FAIR VALUE OF EMS CORP. WARRAXT
  • SHARES AS OF NOVEMBER 3,199s
  • Express's Financial Performance and Position _.
  • .4ppendix A. Valuation of EMS Corp. Common Stock with Capitalization of Operating
  • INTROD&TION AND SUMMARY OF OPINIONS TO BE EXPRESSED
  • I have been retainled by counsel to the Defendant Edward `VI. Miller to provide
  • euperr opinions in the matter of Stuart Acranoff.
  • Miller.
  • Purchased Shares and 57,591 Warrant Shares, where the former were obtained by
  • finance, the management of financial institutions, and the valuation and uses of financial
  • Express is an operating company whose common stock IS
  • on the basis of sector revenues to overall corporate revenues,
  • FY95:o 65.2% in FY98.
  • revenues, 519/o in gross profit, 6169/o for EBIT, and 229% in EBITD.4 versus the FY'l908
  • Profitability can also be measured relative to revenues.
  • Transactions iKEnS Corn.
  • multiples-of-revenue and earnings capitalization models.
  • hhere the latter include discounted cash flow and multiples-of-earnings
  • that document to estimates of free cash flow that can be utilized in a DCF model.
  • business of each of these companies is presented in Exhibit A of this report.
  • -to sales is below the minimum value generated by its peer group.
  • growth In EBIT of Exhibit B) and growth in EBITDA of Euhlblt
  • the appropriate measure of the value numerator in the mutiples-of-revenue and
  • ' It is also preferable to insclude as part of net debt the capitalized value of operating
  • I was not able to obtain the necessary operating lease data on each of the peer group members.
  • Delivery & Logistics, Dynamex, and the Fritz Companies, comparables that havse
  • they have built into them an inherent minority discount.
  • multiple-of-earnings a pproaches are applicable to the determination of the fair \ alue ot

  • 9 . FINAL ORDER

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    SHARES
    MILLER
    PURCHASE
    EDWARD
    TRUST
    VOTE
    PURPORTS
    STOCKHOLDERS
    WARRANT SHARES
    COURT
    PURPORTED CONSENT
    BANK TRUST
    NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
    AIR CANADA
    DIRECTORS
    MEMBER
    PROXIES
    POWER
    QUORUM PURPOSES
    CVC
    PRICES PAID
    ACCRUING
    LEGAL RATE
    DECLINE
    COMPETENT JURISDICTION
    OWNER
    SHAREHOLDERS
    AGREEMENT
    FBO JANET
    
                                                                                    \,--..,i  ?i  .,' 
                                                                               7 :`d{  k !kj 3 i `:& 
                                                                              C&
    
    
            IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                           IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    STUART AGRANOFF, L. DAVID                  )
    CALLAWAY, III, and EMS CORP.,              ))
                  Plaintiffs,                  1)
           and                                 1)
    CITICOIiP VENTURE CAPITAL, LTD., )1
                  Intervenor Plaintiff         11
           V.                                  ) Civil Action No. 16795  z  td
                                                                                                       
                                               1
    EDWARD M. MILLER and WILLIAM               )
    A. DE LORENZO,                             )1
                  Defendants.                  )
    
                                          FINAL ORDER
    
                  In this action brought pursuant to 8 Del. C. 8 225, for the reasons stated
    
    in this Court's post-trial memorandum opinion dated April 9, 1999;
    
                  IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this                   day of April, 1999, that:
    
                  1.      The purported consent of stockholders executed by Edward M.
    
    Miller on November 6, 1999 (J.E. 24) was ineffective;
    
                  2.      Defendants Edward M. Miller and William A. De Lorenzo were
    
    not validly elected as directors of EMS Corp. ("EMS");
    
                  3.      Plaintiffs Stuart Agranoff and L. David Callaway III and any
    
    other persons then in office were not validly removed as directors of EMS;
    
                  4.      The purported consent of the stockholders of Express Messenger
    
    Systems, Inc. ("Express"), dated November 17, 1998, and executed by Edward M.
    
    
    
    Miller in his purported capacity as Chairman of EMS (J.E. 27) was ineffective, as was
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • The purported consent of stockholders executed by Edward M.
  • Miller on November 6, 1999 (J.E.
  • other persons then in office were not validly removed as directors of EMS;
  • The purported consent of the stockholders of Express Messenger
  • any consent executed by Miller on behalf of EMS that purports to vote EMS' shares of
  • None of Edward M. Miller or any trust or entity in which any
  • "Miller"), or their proxies, shall have the right or power to vote any of the 48,670
  • shares of EMS purchased by US Bank Trust National Association SD (the "Purchased
  • counted for quorum purposes, unless and until the Purchased Shares are offered for
  • Canada, in accordance with Sections 4.6, 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 of the Shareholders
  • Agreement, dated as of August 14, 1987, as amended (J.E.
  • CVC or Air Canada in blocks at the prices paid by US Bank Trust
  • National Association SD plus interest accruing at the legal rate of interest since the date
  • of such purchases, and EMS, CVC and Air Canada decline to purchase such Purchased
  • of competent jurisdiction to be the owner of the Purchased Shares;
  • member of the family of Edward M. Miller has a beneficial interest,
  • FBO Janet R. Miller,, or their proxies, shall have the right or
  • Shares") in any vote of the stockholders of EMS, nor shall the Warrant Shares be

  • 10 . MEMORANDUM OPINION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    MILLER
    CALLAWAY
    DEL
    OVENS
    AGREEMENT
    AGRANOFF
    DELAWARE
    PLAINTIFFS
    DIRECTORS
    SHARES
    COURT
    MANAGEMENT HOLDERS
    FIRST REFUSAL RIGHTS
    DEFENDANT
    STOCKHOLDERS
    CVC
    AIR CANADA
    ATTORNEYS
    TESTIMONY
    AMENDMENT
    VOTING AGREEMENT
    SHAREHOLDERS
    RIGHTS OFFERING
    PROVISION
    OWNERSHIP
    NEGOTIATIONS
    CITICORP VENTURE
    WILMINGTON
    CHANCELLOR
    
            IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                           IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    STUART AGRANOFF, L. DAVID                   >
    CALLAWAY III, and EMS CORP.,                )
                                                >
                        Plaintiffs,             >>) Civil Action No. 16795
                                                >
    CITICORP VENTURE CAPITAL, LTD., )
                                                >
                        Intervenor-Plaintiff,  )
                                                >
            V.                                  >
                                                >
    EDWARD M. MILLER and                        >
    M'IlUAMA.  DE LOREN.0,                     )
    
                        Defendants.            )
    
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
    
                                Date Submitted: March 29, 1999
                                  Date Decided: April 9, 1999
    
    Joel E. Friedlander, Esquire, of BOUCHARD FRIEDLANDER & MALONEYHUSS,
    Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Stuart L. Shapiro, Esquire, of SHAPIRO
    FORMAN & ALLEN, New York, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
    
    Martin P. Tully, Esquire, Jon E.  Abramczyk,  Esquire, of MORRIS, NICHOLS,
    ARSHT & TUNNELL, Wilmington, Delaware; Attorney for Intervenor-Plaintiff.
    
    Robert K. Payson,  Esquire, Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Esquire, Michael A. Pittenger, Esquire,
    Brian C. Ralston, Esquire, of POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON, Wilmington,
    Delaware, Attorneys for Defendants.
    
    
    STRINE, Vice Chancellor
    
    
    
           Plaintiffs L. David Callaway, III, Stuart Agranoff, and Citicorp Venture
    
    Capital, Ltd. ("CVC")  seek a determination pursuant to 8 Del. C. 0 225 that the
    
    November 6, 1998 removal of Callaway and Agranoff as directors of EMS Corp.
    
    ("EMS") by defendant Edward M. Miller was ineffective. In this post-trial
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • Joel E. Friedlander, Esquire, of BOUCHARD FRIEDLANDER & MALONEYHUSS, Wilmington, Delaware; OF
  • STRINE, Vice Chancellor
  • Plaintiffs L. David Callaway, III, Stuart Agranoff, and Citicorp Venture
  • 1998 removal of Callaway and Agranoff as directors of EMS Corp.
  • I find that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief they seek because Miller
  • -s in conspiracy with two faithless EMS fiduciaries and an EMS consultant - wrongfully
  • usurped corporate opportunities belonging to EMS and its stockholders.
  • Plaintiff CVC is an affiliate of Citibank, N.A. It is in the leveraged buyout
  • Express' other stockholder, Air Canada, which owned the other 38% of the
  • Defendant Miller is a venture capitalist with experience in the express
  • At all relevant times, John Ovens, Jr.
  • it resulted in an ownership structure of EMS which looked essentially as
  • had two other major equity holders: the former EMS management holders
  • including a stockholders agreement with two relevant
  • As part of that transaction, a new shareholders agreement dated August 14,
  • Callaway - - who was involved in the negotiations of the 1987 Agreement - explained the
  • The 1987 Agreement did not have a provision limiting its duration.
  • Amendment to the 1987 Agreement
  • The rights offering would have had this effect because it was
  • The test for a civil conspiracy is well articulated in the case of Nicolet, Inc. v. Nutt, Del.
  • any contention that the BT warrants were defined in the 1987 Agreement as "EMS Offered

  • 11 . POST-TRIAL BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    EMS
    MILLER
    WARRANTS
    SHARES
    COURT
    STOCKHOLDERS
    PLAINTIFFS
    DEL
    CALLAWAY
    STOCK
    PROCEEDING
    CVC
    DELAWARE
    SELLING STOCKHOLDERS
    LAW
    WRITTEN CONSENT
    AMENDING AGREEMENT
    TRANSFER RESTRICTIONS
    DEFENDANTS
    MANAGEMENT
    AIR CANADA
    DIRECTORS
    REASONABLENESS
    PROVISION
    COMMON STOCK
    PROPOSED FINDINGS
    SHAREHOLDERS
    DEPOSITION TESTIMONY
    PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
    
                            IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                                      IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    STUART AGRANOFF, L. DAVID                                 )
    CALLAWAY, III AND EMS CORP.,                              >>
                                        Plaintiffs,           >           Civil Action No. 16795
    
                             AND                              >1
    CITICORP VENTURE CAPITAL, LTD.                            >>
                                        Intervenor-Plaintiff, )
                                                              )
                      V.                                      >
                                                              >
    EDWARD M. MILLER and WILLIAM A.                           >
    DELORENZO,                                                >>
                                        Defendants.           i
    
    
                                    DEFENDANTS' POST-TRIAL BRIEF
    
    
    
                                                        POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
                                                        Robert K. Payson
                                                        Peter J. Walsh, Jr.
                                                        Michael A. Pittenger
                                                        Brian C. Ralston
                                                        13 13 North Market Street
                                                        Hercules Plaza, 6'h Floor
                                                        P.O. Box 951
                                                        Wilmington, DE 19899
    March 17, 1999                                      (302) 984-6000
    PA&C /363244Vl
                                                        Attorneys for Defendants
                                                        EDWARD M. MILLER and
                                                        WILLIAM A. DeLORENZO
    
    
    
                                                                                         TABLE OF
    
    
    
    
                                                                                      PAGE
    
    NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . 1
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.
  • PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT.
  • Plaintiffs.
  • Defendants.
  • The 1984 Stockholders' Agreement.
  • 1990 Amending Agreement.

  • 12 . POST TRIAL BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    AGREEMENT
    EMS
    OVENS
    SHARES
    DELAWARE
    PLAINTIFFS
    CALLAWAY
    COURT
    SIMPSON
    DEL
    RIGHTS
    CVC
    LAW
    SHAREHOLDERS AGREEMENT
    COUNSEL
    TRANSFER RESTRICTIONS
    STOCKHOLDERS
    AIR CANADA
    DIRECTORS
    AMENDMENT
    TESTIMONY
    APPLICABLE LAW
    TAKEOVER PLAN
    LEXIS
    DEPOSITION
    RIGHTS OFFERING
    DEFENDANTS
    MILLER ADMITS
    UNDERSTANDING
    
           IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                           IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    STUART AGRANOFF, L. DAVID                  >
    CALLAWAY, III, EMS CORP., and              )                                 r .-I
    CITICORP VENTURE CAPITAL, LTD., ))                                                             i
                  Plaintiffs,                  >                                                   . -
                                                                                                   c
                                               )
           V.                                  ) Civil Action No. 16795                   _`,'     `..!
                                               >                                          C'. ,        
    EDWARD M. MILLER and WILLIAM               )                                          1-e;  ,.,
    A. DE LORENZO,                             ))
                  Defendants.                  1
    
                                 PLAINTIFFS' POST-TRIAL BRIEF
    
    
    
                                               Joel Friedlander
                                               BOUCHARD FRIEDLANDER
                                                     & MALONEYHUSS
                                               222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1102
                                               Wilmington, DE 19801
                                               (302) 573-3500
                                               Attorneys for Plaintiffs Stuart Agranoff,
                                               L. David Callaway, III and EMS Corp.
    
    OF COUNSEL:
    
    Stuart L. Shapiro
    SHAPIRO FORMAN & ALLEN LLP
    380 Madison Avenue, 24th Floor
    New York, N.Y. 10017
    (212) 972-4900
    
    
    
                            Martin P. Tully
                            Jon E. Abramczyk
                            MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT
                              & TUNNELL
                            1201 N. Market Street
                            Wilmington, DE 19801
                            (302) 658-9200
                            Attorneys for Plaintiff Citicorp
                            Venture Capital, Ltd.
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • PLAINTIFFS' POST-TRIAL BRIEF
  • OF COUNSEL:
  • BECAUSE THE SHARES UNDERLYING MILLER'S CONSENT ARE
  • CVC, MILLER COULD NOT EXECUTE A VALID CONSENT TO
  • THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF EMS
  • THE RIGHTS OF FIRST REFUSAL IN THE 1987 AGREEMENT ARE
  • Air Canada Told Miller About the Transfer
  • Spencer's Knowledge of The Transfer Restrictions Is Imputed
  • Ovens and Simpson Misuse Corporate Information.
  • OF LAW
  • Inc., Del.
  • LEXIS 131.

  • 13 . ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR INTERVENTION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    AGREEMENT
    SHAREHOLDERS
    COURT
    COMPLAINT
    REFER
    ADMIT
    EMS
    PARAGRAPH
    LORENZO
    PLAINTIFF
    DEL
    MILLER
    RELIEF
    CVC
    DEFENDANTS DENY
    AUTHENTICITY
    MATTER
    LAW
    EQUITABLE DOCTRINE
    EDWARD
    WILLIAM
    INTERVENTION
    ATTORNEYS
    PURPORTS
    PROPER
    INFORMATION SUFFICIENT
    TRUTH
    RESIDENT
    PARTIES
    
                  IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                                 IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    STUART AGRANOFF, L. DAVID CALLAWAY  III,                       )
    AND EMS CORP.,                                                 >)
                                      Plaintiffs,                  )         Civil Action No. 16795
    
          V.
    
    EDWARD M. MILLER and WILLIAM A. DE
    LORENZO,
    
                                     Defendants.
    
    
                          ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR INTERVENTION
    
                    Defendants Edward M. Miller ("Miller") and William A. De Lorenzo ("De
    
    Lorenzo") (collectively the "Defendants"), by their undersigned attorneys, hereby respond to the
    
    Complaint In Intervention (the "Complaint") as follows:
    
                    1.     Denied, except admit that this action purports to be brought pursuant to
    
    Section 225 of the DGCL for a declaration as to the proper composition of the board of directors
    
    of EMS Corp. ("EMS") and for related relief.
    
                   2.      Defendants admit the first, second and third sentences of paragraph 2, and
    
    are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the accuracy or truth of the
    
    remainder of the allegations.
    
                    3.     Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
    
    belief as to the accuracy or truth of the allegations of paragraph 3.
    
                   4.      Denied, except admit that Miller is a Virginia resident.
    
                    5.     Denied. By way of further answer, De Lorenzo is a resident of New York.
    
    
    
                   6.      Denied, except admit that CVC and EMS are parties to  the  referenced
    
    1987 Shareholders Agreement, as amended (the "Shareholders Agreement"), and refer the Court
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • EDWARD M. MILLER and WILLIAM A. DE
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR INTERVENTION
  • Defendants Edward M. Miller and William A. De Lorenzo ("De
  • Lorenzo"), by their undersigned attorneys, hereby respond to the
  • except admit that this action purports to be brought pursuant to
  • Section 225 of the DGCL for a declaration as to the proper composition of the board of
  • of EMS Corp. and for related relief.
  • are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the accuracy or truth
  • belief as to the accuracy or truth of the allegations of paragraph 3.
  • De Lorenzo is a resident of New York.
  • except admit that CVC and EMS are parties to the referenced
  • 1987 Shareholders Agreement, as amended, and refer the Court
  • Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the
  • Complaint, except admit the authenticity of the November 6, 1998 Letter and refer the Court to
  • EMS lacks standing under 8 Del.
  • EMS is an improper plaintiff in this action because it was never authorized
  • was ineffective as a matter of law.
  • CVC is estopped from denying the expiration of the Agreement.
  • CVC's claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands.
  • CVC has failed to join indispensable parties to this action.

  • 14 . 2ND AMENDED ANSWER

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DEFENDANTS
    COURT
    PLAINTIFFS
    ADMIT
    COMPLAINT
    REFER
    MILLER
    LORENZO
    EMS
    PARAGRAPH
    DEFENDANTS DENY
    LAW
    DEL
    DELAWARE
    DEFENDANTS EDWARD
    WILLIAM
    ATTORNEYS
    PARTY
    AUTHENTICITY
    EXTEND
    RELIEF
    LACK STANDING
    MATTER
    EQUITABLE DOCTRINE
    HEREBY
    PURPORTS
    RESIDENT
    SPECIAL MEETING
    DELAWARE LAW PERMITS
    
                 IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                                IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    STUART AGRANOFF, L. DAVID CALLAWAY  III,                        )
    AND EMS CORP.,                                                  )
                                                                    >
                                      Plaintiffs,                   >    Civil Action No. 16795
    
          V.
    
    EDWARD M. MILLER and WILLIAM A. DE
    LORENZO,
    
                                     Defendants.
    
    
    
                   SECOND AMENDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS EDWARD
                            M. MILLER AND WILLIAM A. DE LORENZO
    
                   Defendants Edward M. Miller ("Miller") and William A. De Lorenzo ("De
    
    Lorenzo") (collectively the "Defendants"), by their undersigned attorneys, hereby respond to
    
    Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint (the "Complaint") as follows:
    
                   1.      Denied, except admit that this action purports to be brought pursuant to
    
    Section 225 of the DGCL for a declaration as to who comprises the validly elected officers and
    
    directors of EMS Corp. ("EMS").
    
                   2.      Denied.
    
                   3.     Defendants admit the first, second and third sentences of paragraph 3, and
    
    are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the accuracy or truth of the
    
    remainder of the allegations.
    
                   4.     Denied, except admit that Miller is a Virginia resident.
    
                   5.      Denied. By way of further answer, De Lorenzo is a resident of New York.
    
    
    
                   6.      Denied, except admit that EMS is a party to the referenced 1987
    
    Shareholders Agreement, as amended (the "Shareholders Agreement"), and refer the Court to the
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • SECOND AMENDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS EDWARD
  • M. MILLER AND WILLIAM A. DE LORENZO
  • Lorenzo"), by their undersigned attorneys, hereby respond to
  • Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint as follows:
  • except admit that this action purports to be brought pursuant to
  • De Lorenzo is a resident of New York.
  • except admit that EMS is a party to the referenced 1987
  • Shareholders Agreement, as amended, and refer the Court to the
  • Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the
  • Complaint, except admit the authenticity of the November 6, 1998 Letter and refer the Court to
  • Lieu Of Special Meeting, and refer the Court to such documents for their true and complete
  • Defendants deny that Delaware law permits the Shareholders Agreement to
  • The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
  • The Individual Plaintiffs lack standing to enforce the Shareholders
  • EMS lacks standing under 8 Del.
  • The purported effort to extend the term of the Shareholders Agreement
  • was ineffective as a matter of law.
  • Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands.

  • 15 . COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    STOCKHOLDERS
    MILLER
    STOCKHOLDERS AGREEMENT
    SHARES
    DIRECTORS
    PURCHASE
    WARRANTS
    CVC
    NON-SELLING STOCKHOLDERS
    CALLAWAY
    LAW
    SELLING
    DELAWARE
    STOCK
    CONTROL
    SALES
    COMPLAINT
    SHAREHOLDERS
    AGRANOFF
    LORENZO
    TRUST
    PLAINTIFF
    BUSINESS
    CHAIRMAN
    DEFENDANT
    PURPORTS
    VIOLATION
    HERBST
    SUBSEQUENT EMS
    
                   IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                                    IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY                                       
    STUART AGRANOFF, L. DAVID                     >                                                    
    CALLAWAY III, and EMS CORP.,                  >>                                                   
                    Plaintiffs,                                                                        
                                                  >                                          <  `-     
                  -AND-                           >                                          L- ,      
    CITICORP VENTURE CAPITAL, LTD.,               )                                                   -
                                                  >
                    Intervenor-Plaintiff,         >>           C.A. No. 16795
                    V.                            >
                                                  >
    EDWARD M. MILLER and                          >
    WILLIAM A. DE LORENZO,                        >>
                            Defendants.           >
    
                                   COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION
    
           Citicorp Venture Capital, Ltd.  ("CVC"),  for its complaint in intervention, upon
    
    knowledge as to itself and upon information and belief as to all other matters, states as follows:
    
            1.      This action seeks relief pursuant to Section 225 of the Delaware General
    
    Corporation Law as to the proper composition of the board of directors of plaintiff EMS Corp.
    
    ("EMS") and for related relief pursuant to the 1987 Stockholders Agreement described below.
    
           2.       Plaintiff EMS is a Delaware corporation with its principal  office in Burlingame,
    
    California. It is a holding company whose principal asset is its 62% ownership of Express
    
    Messenger Systems, Inc. ("Express"). Express is in the business of same day and overnight
    
    delivery service. EMS is contractually entitled to designate three of Express'  five directors.
    
    Until the actions complained of herein, plaintiffs Stuart Agranoff ("Agranoff') and L. David
    
    Callaway III ("Callaway") were two of the three duly elected directors of EMS, and  Callaway
    
    was also the President and Chief Executive Officer of EMS.  Callaway also served as EMS'
    
    
    
                                                        -l-
    
    
    
    designee on the board of directors of Express and the Chairman of Express until the actions
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Citicorp Venture Capital, Ltd., for its complaint in intervention, upon
  • This action seeks relief pursuant to Section 225 of the Delaware General
  • Corporation Law as to the proper composition of the board of directors of plaintiff EMS Corp.
  • Express is in the business of same day and overnight
  • Until the actions complained of herein, plaintiffs Stuart Agranoff and L. David
  • Callaway III were two of the three duly elected directors of EMS,
  • Plaintiff CVC is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in
  • together with certain shares owned by present or former CVC employees,
  • Defendant Edward M. Miller is a Virginia resident,
  • elected himself to the Board of EMS and as its Chairman, and to have taken control of Express.
  • Defendant William A. De Lorenzo is resident of an unknown
  • who claims that Miller elected him a member of EMS's Board of Directors.
  • EMS and CVC are parties to a stockholders agreement among all the EMS
  • Agreement grants EMS first, and then all non-selling stockholders next, rights
  • of first refusal with respect to any EMS shares or warrants to purchase shares offered for
  • EMS stock or warrant holders.
  • By requiring a selling stockholder to offer its shares first to EMS,
  • behalf of the Janet R. Miller Trust and his children's trusts.
  • and/or warrants to EMS or the non-selling stockholders, including CVC, in violation of the
  • By letter dated November 17, 1998, Jeffrey A. Herbst, a partner in the
  • Miller purports to
  • Shares are offered to EMS (the "Initial EMS Sales Notice").
  • Shareholders and Air Canada of such offer and provide such
  • A duplicate original of the Subsequent EMS Sales Notice,

  • 16 . LETTER

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFFS
    MOTION
    CVC
    ATTORNEYS
    FEES
    COURT
    INTERVENE
    HAND DELIVERY
    EMS
    STRINE
    CHANCELLOR
    STANDING
    NON-SELLING
    SHAREHOLDER
    MILLER
    CONTRACT
    ESQUIRE
    HONORABLE LEO
    AGRANOFF
    CALLAWAY
    ASSERTION
    DEL
    OBLIGATION
    COMPLAINT
    CONTROL
    FIDUCIARIES
    SEEKING
    FINANCING
    DEFICIENT
    
                                               B O U C H A R D   FRIEDLANDER   &   MALONEYHUSS
                                                               A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
                                                                     SUITE  I  IO2
                                                              222 D ELAWARE  A VENUE
                                                          WILMINGTON ,  DEUWARE   I980  I
                                                                 (302)  573-3500
                                                              FAX  (302)  573-350 I
    
    ANDRE  G. B OUCHARD                                                                           H O W
    J OEL  FRIEDLANDER                                                                               
    M ARY   M .   MALONEYHUSS
    C H R I S T O P H E R   E .   DUNNE*
    
    
    
                                                                             February 10, 1999
    
                  BY HAND DELIVERY
    
                  The Honorable Leo E. Strine, Jr.
                  Vice Chancellor
                  Court of Chancery
                  1020 North King Street
                  Wilmington, DE 19801
    
                                Re:         Agranoff et al. v. Miller et al., C.A. No. 16795
    
                  Dear Vice Chancellor Strine:
    
                                Plaintiffs Stuart Agranoff, L. David Callaway, III and EMS Corp. ("EMS")
                  support Citicorp Venture Capital's  ("CVC")  motion to intervene. Defendants asserted
                  in their pre-trial brief that they would be prejudiced if CVC were not bound by this
                  Court's decision In light of defendants' assertion of prejudice and this Court's
                  comments about CVC's  absence, CVC moved to intervene and offered to be bound. In
                  these circumstances, the motion should be granted.
    
                                Plaintiffs oppose defendants' motion to award them the attorneys' fees
                  incurred in briefing the issue of plaintiffs' standing. Any analysis of an
                  attorneys' fees must begin with the awareness that  "[a]s a general proposition, it is
                  settled law that litigants must bear their own attorneys' fees." Weinberger v. UOP,
                 Inc., Del. Ch., 517 A.2d 653, 654 (1986). Absent statutory authority, courts have the
                 power to allow attorneys' fees only in "particular situations, e.g., the willful
                  disobedience of a court order `.  . . as part of the fine to be levied on the
                  when the losing party has `acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for
                  reasons. D . . "I Slawik v. State, Del. Supr., 480 A.2d 636, 639 n.5 (1984) (citations
                  omitted). Defendants do not attempt to satisfy that standard.
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • BY HAND DELIVERY
  • The Honorable Leo E. Strine,
  • Court of Chancery
  • Dear Vice Chancellor Strine:
  • support Citicorp Venture Capital's motion to intervene.
  • Court's decision In light of defendants' assertion of prejudice and this Court's
  • comments about CVC's absence, CVC moved to intervene and offered to be bound.
  • Plaintiffs oppose defendants' motion to award them the attorneys' fees they
  • State, Del.
  • defendants suggest that plaintiffs had an obligation to plead in their Verified Complaint
  • Agranoff and Callaway, as claimed directors of EMS, had a statutory right to file the action
  • The fact that they had no access to the corporate treasury because of Miller's unlawful
  • Even if there had been a requirement that plaintiffs plead their arrangements for financing
  • I took control, therefore I alone have standing to assert EMS' claim that the transaction in
  • The Court further elaborated that defendants would not prevail on a fuller record if
  • Discovery and trial showed that plaintiffs were indeed acting in their capacity as
  • Miller, who had bought all the rest of the EMS shares, certainly knew that CVC was the
  • Defendants, who sought to deny plaintiffs standing on the ground they were seeking to pursue
  •    |