LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES v CASTLE HILLS HOLDINGS Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 16,779, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: LEO E. STRINE, J R. COURT H OUSE, Plaintiff: MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00016779, Castle Hill, Midland, Midland Companies, Vii, Hut, Castle Hill Companies, Counterclaims, Agreement, Llc, Cnl, Restaurant Leases, Saverin, Breach, Complaint, Concentration Account Agreement, Contract, Counterclaim, Castle Hill Holdings, Lease Agreement, Motion, Ohio, Third Party, Delaware, Parties, Resolution Agreement, Dismiss, Third Party Beneficiaries, Jurisdiction, Leases, Midland Food Services, Indispensable Parties, Counterclaim Plaintiff Castle, Declaratory Relief, Viii, Movants , ContentID: 120239754

Case Documents
1 1999-08-12 OPINION (REVISED
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100327
6 pages
PDF
2 1999-08-10 LETTER OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100328
7 pages
PDF
3 1999-07-21 ORDER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103682
2 pages
PDF
4 1999-07-19 LETTER TO V.C. STRINE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103536
4 pages
PDF
5 1999-07-19 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF PLAINTIFFS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTOIN TO DISMISS COMPLAINT & IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103039
17 pages
PDF
6 1999-07-19 FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102109
20 pages
PDF
7 1999-07-16 MEMORANDUM OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100329
28 pages
PDF
8 1999-06-30 LETTER TO V.C. STRINE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103040
4 pages
PDF
9 1999-06-03 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF THE COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103041
16 pages
PDF
10 1999-05-06 COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103042
31 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 10 documents , 135 pages
Price: $ 64.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION (REVISED)

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
AGREEMENT
PLAINTIFF-CORPORATION
ESQUIRE
LEASE
CONCENTRATION ACCOUNT
COURT
BUILDING LEASE
COMPLAINT
DEL
CASTLE HILL
BREACH
BANGOR PUNTA
DOCTRINE
DEFENDANTS
CNL
ALLEGE
PARTNERSHIP
COMMON LAW
MOTION
FIDUCIARY DUTIES
LEEDS
DISMISSING
SUPR
REA
VICE CHANCELLOR
DELAWARE
LLC
PAY
CREDITORS
                                                          Pages 7,13,17,21,  and 29 have beerz

            IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

                        IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES, LLC,
MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES II, LLC,
and MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES III, LLC,                 >>
                    Plaintiffs,                     >> Civil Action No. 16779 '
      V.                                            >>
CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS V, LLC,                        1
CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS VI, LLC,                       )
CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS VII, LLC,
RONALD F.  SAVERIN, KEY                             ;                                    c  -1
TRUST COMPANY OF OHIO, NA,                          >                                    i  1%
JANET M.  SAVERIN, MAJESS, LLC,                     >
and DAJUST, LLC,                                    >
                    Defendants,                     >>
      V.                                            >>
AL HUT, INC., a Delaware corporation,               >>
                    Counterclaim Defendant.         >
                                            OPINION

                                   Date Submitted: July 8, 1999
                                   Date Decided: July 16, 1999
                              Date Revised: August 12, 1999

David J. Ferry, Jr., Esquire, of FERRY  & JOSEPH, Wilmington, DE; OF COUNSEL:
Gary M. Schildhom, Esquire, Douglas N. Candeub, Esquire, of ADELMAN LAVINE
GOLD AND LEVIN, Philadelphia, PA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Edward P. Welch, Esquire, Randolph K. Herndon, Esquire, Laura S. Clare, Esquire, of
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER  & FLOM, Wilmington, DE; OF COUNSEL:
Richard R. Kalikow, Esquire, Esther S. Trakinski, Esquire, of SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
MEAGHER  & FLOM, New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendants.


STFUNE, Vice Chancellor



Loans").  Id. lq 40-43. Pursuant to the Enterprise Loans, CSFB and other

lenders hold liens on the non-real estate assets of a Midland Company. Id. 1

44. Integral, apparently, to this financing was $71,400,000  worth of

financing provided by CSFB's  assignee, Franchise Mortgage Acceptance
SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES II, LLC,
  • CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS VII, LLC,
  • David J. Ferry, Jr., Esquire, of FERRY & JOSEPH, Wilmington, DE; OF COUNSEL: Gary M.
  • As part of the Ground and Building Lease transactions,
  • Payment, and Security Agreements.
  • "Concentration Account Agreement") was entered into between Midland I
  • formally agreed to and accepted by, among others, CNL, CSFB, and FMAC.
  • to CNL and other creditors in accordance with the Agreement's
  • After a hearing, this court denied that motion on January 14, 1999.
  • The complaint contains nine counts.
  • Saver-in breached his fiduciary duties of care and loyalty by causing the
  • Counts IV and V allege that the Leases and the Concentration Account
  • building owned by the partnership.
  • and the plaintiff-corporation executed a lease agreement for the building,
  • As a result, Mr. Leeds gave up his ownership interest in the plaintiffcorporation and
  • the corporation after a change of control is one for breach of contract,
  • Doctrine to bar common law and statutory claims in the Bangor Punta case.
  • See In re REA Express, Inc., Private Treble Damage Antitrust Litig.
  • (applying Delaware law and dismissing common law claims,
  • Likewise, in Courtland Manor, then Vice Chancellor
  • I hereby grant the moving defendants'
  • Co. v. Monarch Builders, Inc., Del.
  • Supr., 213 A.2d 899,902 (defendants could not defraud company since they "were the sole

  • 2 . LETTER OPINION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COUNTERCLAIMS
    OHIO
    MIDLAND
    COURT
    LITIGATION
    PARTIES
    JURISDICTION
    LAW
    CNL
    EXERCISE
    DISMISS
    MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES
    CASTLE HILLS HOLDINGS
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    FORUM
    DELAWARE
    PROCEEDS
    MOTION
    RESOLVE
    PRESENCE
    COUNTERCLAIMS RAISE
    CONTRACT
    MERITS
    CHANCERY COURT
    EVIDENCE
    SUPERIOR COURT
    CONTEST
    CHOSE
    PREFERENCE
    
                                            C O U R T   O F  C H A N C E R Y
                                                          OF THE
                                             S T A T E   O F  D E L A W A R E
    
    
    LEO  E.  STRINE,  J R.                                                               COURT  H OUSE
       "ICE-CHANCELLOR                                                           WILMINGTON , D ELAWARE
                                                   August 10, 1999
    
       David J. Ferry, Jr.
       Rick S. Miller
       Ferry & Joseph
        824 Market Street, Suite 904
       Wilmington, DE 19899
    
       Edward P. Welch
       Randolph K. Herndon
       Laura S. Clare
        Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
       One Rodney Square
       P.O. Box 636
       Wilmington, DE 19899
    
                  Re:         Midland Food Services v. Castle Hills Holdings,
                              C.A. No. 16779
    
       Dear Counsel:
    
                  In a memorandum opinion (the "Memorandum Opinion") issued on
    
       July 16, 1999, I found that the plaintiffs in this action, the Midland
    
       Companies (as defined in that opinion), were barred from suing the
    
        defendants under the Bangor Punta Doctrine. In this letter opinion, I
    
        address the motion filed by the Midland Companies to dismiss the
    
        counterclaims (the "Counterclaims") brought by the Castle Hill Companies
    
        (as defined in the Memorandum Opinion).
    
    
    
    Midland Food Services v. Castle Hills Holdings
    August 10, 1999
    Page 2
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • In a memorandum opinion issued on
  • July 16, 1999, I found that the plaintiffs in this action, the Midland
  • counterclaims brought by the Castle Hill Companies
  • claims in this litigation, I should continue to exercise jurisdiction over the, as
  • all parties concede, purely legal Counterclaims.
  • jurisdiction or not over the Counterclaims.
  • the Castle Hill Companies point out that this litigation
  • decisions by this court.
  • was the Midland Companies that initiated this litigation and chose this court
  • as the forum in which to fight out the battle between these
  • preference of the Midland Companies should not pluck at my equitable
  • Midland Food Services v. Castle Hills Holdings August lo,1999 Page 3
  • state's law applies to the Counterclaims.
  • the Counterclaims raise issues of commercial law
  • do commercial business with each other im Ohio and who expressly chose
  • I I choose not to express any view on the merits of the Counterclaims, except to say that it
  • Delaware is an exceedingly awkward jurisdiction in which to
  • Although the parties contest whether absent
  • are indispensable under Chancery Court
  • CNL and Key Trust absent their consent.
  • minimized by making clear that the contract was only invalid as between the
  • With respect to access to material evidence,
  • to the extent that this court proceeds to resolve the
  • proceed in Superior Court (there is no motion to stay this proceeding or to
  • dismiss for forum nun conveniens pending).

  • 3 . ORDER

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CASTLE HILL
    CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS
    SAVERIN
    DEFENDANTS
    MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES
    MOTIONS
    DELAWARE
    PLAINTIFFS
    HILL HOLDINGS VII
    RONALD
    JANET
    MAJESS
    DAJUST
    DISMISS
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    COURT
    CHANCERY
    CASTLE COUNTY
    TRUST COMPANY
    OHIO
    HUT
    DELAWARE CORPORATION
    COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT
    FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
    PREJUDICE
    PLA
    THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
    JUDGEMENT
    
           IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                            IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES, LLC,
    MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES II, LLC,
    and MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES III,
    LLC
    
                   Plaintiffs,
    
           V.                                           Civil A'ction  No. 16779NC
    
    CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS V, LLC,
    CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS VI, LLC,
    CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS VII, LLC,
    RONALD F.  :SAVERIN, KEY
    TRUST COMPANY OF OHIO, NA,
    JANET M. SAVERIN, MAJESS, LLC
    AND DAJUST, LLC,
    
             Defendants,
    
           V.
    
    
    AL HUT, INC., a Delaware corporation,
    
           Counterclaim Defendant.
    
                                            ORDER
    
                   Upon consideration of the motions to dismiss filed by Castle Hill
    
    Holdings V, LLC, Castle Hill Holdings VI, LLC, Castle Hill Holdings VII, LLC,
    
    Ronald F. Saverin, Janet M. Saverin, Majess, LLC and Dajust, LLC (collectively, the
    
    "Castle Hill Defendants"),
                   IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this<$/J.5+                     --`TY   /  ;,./!  19'39   that 
                                                              (lay of L..d 1 I"
                                                                          -1"                 '
    motions are granted. It is further ordered that:
    
           (9      the First Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice;
    
    
    
              (ii)       the pla t ff
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
  • MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES II, LLC,
  • CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS VI, LLC,
  • CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS VII, LLC, RONALD F.:SAVERIN, KEY TRUST COMPANY OF OHIO, NA, JANET M.
  • AL HUT, INC., a Delaware corporation,
  • Counterclaim Defendant.
  • Upon consideration of the motions to dismiss filed by Castle Hill
  • Holdings V, LLC, Castle Hill Holdings VI, LLC, Castle Hill Holdings VII, LLC,
  • "Castle Hill Defendants"),
  • (9 the First Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice;
  • the pla t ff
  • in i s' motion for leave to file a `Third Amended Complaint is
  • judgment is rendered in favor of the Castle Hill Defendants on all
  • claims asserted against them by the plaintiffs.

  • 4 . LETTER TO V.C. STRINE

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    LAW
    CASTLE HILL COMPANIES
    CASTLE HILL
    LEASES
    COUNTERCLAIMS
    AGREEMENT
    DEL
    MIDLAND COMPANIES
    BREACH
    SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP
    STRINE
    TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
    CASTLE HILL VII
    DELAWARE
    HONORABLE LEO
    CHANCELLOR
    COURT
    WILMINGTON TRUST
    FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
    MOTION
    CONTRACT
    RESOLVE
    CONCENTRATION ACCOUNT AGREEMENT
    SUPR
    SLIP
    BUSINESS
    COMPL
    SEEKING
    DEFENDANTS
    
                                                                                                       
          S K A D D E N ,   A R P S ,   S L A T E , M E A G H E R   &  F L O M   LLP.                  
                                       O N E   R O D N E Y   S Q U A R E                   
                                             P.0  BOX  6 3 6                                      
                                                                                                 
                         W I L M I N G T O N ,   D E L - A W A R E   1 9 8 9 9 - 0 6 3 6         
                                                                                                LOS
                                                                                                  
                                          TEL  (302)  651-3000                                    NEW 
                                                                                                 PP.LO
                                          FAX. (302) 651-3 0 0 I                               SAN 
                                                                                             
    
                                                                                                   
                                                                                                 B R U
                                                                                                 F R A
                                                                                                 HONG
                                                                                                   L O
                                                                                                   M O
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                 S I N
                                                                                                    S Y
                                                              July 19, 1999                         
                                                                                                  T O R
    
    
    
    
    
    BYHAND
    
    The Honorable Leo E. Strine, Jr.
    Vice Chancellor
    Court of Chancery
    Daniel L. Herrmann Courthouse
    1020 King Street
    Wilmington, DE 19801
    
                            Re:        Midland Food Services, LLC, et al. v. Castle Hill
                                       Holdings. V, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 16779NC
    
    Dear Vice Chancellor Strine:
    
                   I have enclosed a copy of the Castle Hill Companies' First Amended
    Counterclaims, the original of which was filed with the Register in Chancery today.
    We do not believe that a motion for leave to file the First Amended Counterclaims is
    required, since Plaintiffs have not yet filed their answer to these counterclaims. See
    Ch. Ct. R. 15(a).
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • The Honorable Leo E. Strine,
  • Vice Chancellor Court of Chancery
  • Dear Vice Chancellor Strine:
  • I have enclosed a copy of the Castle Hill Companies' First Amended Counterclaims, the
  • We do not believe that a motion for leave to file the First Amended Counterclaims is
  • In their First Amended Counterclaims, the Castle Hill Companies have, among other things,
  • the Castle Hill Companies have withdrawn their injunctive relief count and have added
  • they could not afford to pay rent, but rather because they believed that, by withholding
  • the Castle Hill Companies do not believe that these choice of law issues need to be decided
  • (Memorandum of Law of the Counterclaim Defendants in Support of their Motion to Dismiss
  • First, Ohio law applies to Counts I, III, and w (seeking relief with respect to the Leases)
  • Co. v. Lake, Del.
  • Supr., 594 A.2d 38, 41 ("Delaware courts apply the modern `most significant relationship'
  • No. 11841, slip op.
  • Ohio law applies to Count II (seeking a declaration that the Concentration Account Agreement
  • Annan v. Wilmington Trust Co.,
  • The Concentration Account Agreement was executed by Midland Food Services, LLC and Key Trust
  • (Compl., fil 1, 9)

  • 5 . SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF PLAINTIFFS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTOIN TO DISMISS COMPLAINT & IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CASTLE HILL
    PLAINTIFFS
    COUNTERCLAIM
    LAW
    LLC
    SAVERIN
    CONTRACT
    VII
    OHIO
    MOTION
    COMPLAINT
    MIDLAND COMPANIES
    LEASE AGREEMENTS
    CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS
    DEFENDANTS
    DISMISS
    MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES
    SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
    RESTATEMENT
    PRINCIPLES
    RESTAURANT LEASE AGREEMENT
    CONFLICTS
    ANTICIPATORY BREACH
    SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP
    REFORMATION
    TRANSACTION
    APF
    OPPOSITION
    ACCORDANCE
    
                                                              ORlGlNAL
    
           IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE                                   i'  -'
    
                           IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES, LLC,                                  CIVIL ACTION
    MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES II, LLC, and
    MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES III, LLC,
    
                          Plaintiffs,
                                                                 C.A. No. 16779 NC
                   V.
    
    CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS V, LLC,
    CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS VI, LLC,
    CA;STLE HILL HOLDINGS VII, LLC,
    RONALD F. SAVERIN,
    KEY TRUST COMPANY OF OHIO, NA,                       :
    JANET M. SAVERIN,
    MAJESS, LLC, DAJUST, LLC, and
    CNI; AMERICAN PROPERTIES
    FUND, INC., APF I PROPERTIES,
    API: II PROPERTIES, and APF III PROPERTIES, :
    
                           Defendants.
    
    
                   SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF PLAINTIFFS
                IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
            AND IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM
                                                                                 -     -
    
    
           Plaintiffs Midland Food Services, LLC, Midland Food Services II, and Midland
    
    Food Services III, LLC (collectively, "Plaintiffs" or the "Midland  Companies"j  hereby
    
    submit this Supplemental Memorandum with respect to the Motion to Dismiss the
    
    Conplaint, tiled by Castle Hill Holdings V, LLC, Castle Hill Holdings VI, LLC, and
    
    Castle Hill Holdings VII, LLC (collectively, the "Castle Hill Defendants") and the Motion
    
    to D:.smiss the Counterclaim, in accordance with the directive of this Court at the hearing
    
    on tke two motions that was held on July 8, 1999.
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES III, LLC,
  • CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS V, LLC,
  • JANET M. SAVERIN,
  • AMERICAN PROPERTIES FUND, INC., APF I PROPERTIES,
  • SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF PLAINTIFFS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AND IN
  • Castle Hill Holdings VII, LLC (collectively, the "Castle Hill Defendants") and the Motion
  • memoranda with respect to 1) the question whether Ohio law or Delaware law applies to
  • and 3) any other issues previously briefed as to which pertinent Ohio law
  • standing of the Midland Companies as a contracting party
  • l Count IV, against the Castle Hill Companies, is for reformation of the restaurant leases
  • It asserts that the Lease Agreements are valid and enforceable and that a controversy exists
  • breach of contract.
  • for anticipatory breach of Castle Hill VII's Lease Agreements.
  • governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Ohio."
  • Restatement Conflict of Laws 8 187.
  • properties originally covered under its Restaurant Lease Agreement are in Ohio;
  • The Delaware Supreme Court has adopted the "most significant relationship test"
  • has the most significant relationship to the transaction and the
  • parties under the principles stated in 5 6.
  • Restatement Conflicts Of Laws 5 188.

  • 6 . FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CASTLE HILL
    VII
    LEASE AGREEMENT
    HUT
    CNL
    LLC
    COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF CASTLE
    MIDLAND COMPANIES
    LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
    DELAWARE
    COURT
    CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS
    OHIO
    COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT
    LAWS
    ATTORNEYS
    TRUST COMPANY
    OBLIGATIONS
    MORTGAGES
    CONCENTRATION ACCOUNT AGREEMENT
    MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES
    GROUND LEASES
    LEASED PREMISES
    CNL NOTES
    MATERIAL BREACHES
    FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
    PROPERTY-RELATED EXPENSES
    REAL ESTATE TAXES
    ENFORCEABILITY
    
            IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                            IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES, LLC,
    MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES II, LLC,
    ;and MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES III,
    :LLc
    
                   Plaintiffs,
    
            V.                                     : Civil Action No. 16779NC
    
    CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS V, LLC,
    (CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS VI, LLC,
    (CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS VII, LLC,
    RONALD F. SAVERIN, KEY
    `TRUST COMPANY OF OHIO, NA,
    MAJESS, LLC AND DAJUST, LLC,
    
             Defendants,
    
            V.
    
    AL HUT, INC., a Delaware corporation,
    
            Counterclaim Defendant.
    
                            FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
    
                   Counterclaim plaintiffs Castle Hill Holdings V, LLC ("Castle Hill
    
    V"), Castle Hill Holdings VI, LLC ("Castle Hill VI") and Castle Hill Holdings VII,
    
    LLC ("Castle Hill VII"), by their attorneys, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom,
    
    LLP, allege upon knowledge with respect to themselves and their acts and upon
    
    information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:
    
    
    
                                         PARTIES
    
           1.      Counterclaim plaintiff Castle Hill V is a limited liability company
    
    organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of
    
    business at 400 South Woods Mill Road, Suite 120, Chesterfield, Missouri 63017.
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES II, LLC,
  • CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS V, LLC, (CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS VI, LLC,
  • V"), Castle Hill Holdings VI, LLC and Castle Hill Holdings VII,
  • LLC, by their attorneys, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom,
  • organized under the laws of the State of Delaware,
  • Counterclaim plaintiff Castle Hill VI is a limited liability company
  • Counterclaim defendant Midland I is a limited liability company
  • Counterclaim defendant Al Hut, Inc. is a corporation
  • In 1996 and 1997, an affiliate of CNL American Properties Fund, Inc.
  • Companies (the "CNL Ground Leases") and a different entity affiliated with CNL
  • promissory notes, each of which was secured by a Commercial Mortgage, Assignment of Rents and
  • and leased the Building located on that parcel to one of the Midland Companies
  • pursuant to a single 20-year master lease agreement.
  • VII's contractual obligations to make monthly payments to CNL under the CNL
  • Ohio to, among other things, terminate the CNL Ground Leases, evict Castle Hill VII
  • as insurance and real estate taxes, be undertaken by Midland II as additional obligations.
  • certain property-related expenses as required by the terms of the Midland II Lease
  • taxes related to the leased premises as required by the Midland II Lease Agreement.
  • As a result of Midland II's material breaches of the Midland II Lease
  • Midland I and Castle Hill V and Castle Hill VI, Midland I entered into a Concentration
  • determine the enforceability of the Concentration Account Agreement.
  • First Amended Counterclaims and Notice were served by hand this 19th day of July,

  • 7 . MEMORANDUM OPINION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CASTLE HILL
    SAVERIN
    HUT
    DEFENDANTS
    PLAINTIFFS
    COURT
    RESOLUTION AGREEMENT
    LLC
    LEASES
    COMPLAINT
    DELAWARE
    BANGOR PUNTA DOCTRINE
    RONALD SAVERIN
    BANGOR PUNTA
    MAJESS
    OWNERSHIP
    CSFB
    FMAC
    CNL
    BUILDING LEASES
    CREDITORS
    PIZZA HUT
    CONCENTRATION ACCOUNT
    CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    TRANSACTIONS
    THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
    CHANCERY COURT RULE
    COURTLAND MANOR
    
                IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAW~
    
                            IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES, LLC,                         >
    MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES II, LLC,                      1
    and MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES III, LLC,                 1
                        Plaintiffs,                     ,'> Civil Action No. 16779
          V.
                                                        ;
    CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS V, LLC,                        >
    CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS VI, LLC,
    CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS VII, LLC,                      t
    RONALD F. SAVERIN,  KEY                             >
    TRUST COMPANY OF OHIO, NA,
    JANET M. SAVERIN,  MAJESS, LLC,
    and DAJUST, LLC,                                                                               A,
                        Defendants,                                                                ."
                                                                                      ,. :
                                                                                      _ ,
    
                                                                                              .
    
    
          V.
    
    
    AL, HUT, lNC., a Delaware corporation,
    
                        Counterclaim Defendant.
    
                                       MEMORANDUM OPINION
    
                                       Date Submitted: July 8, 1999
                                       Date Decided: July 16, 1999
    
    David J. Ferry, Jr., Esquire, of FERRY & JOSEPH, Wilmington, DE; OF COUNSEL:
    Gary M. Schildhorn, Esquire, Douglas N. Candeub, Esquire, `of ADELMAN LAVINE
    GOLD AND LEVIN, Philadelphia, PA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
    
    Edward P. Welch, Esquire, Randolph IS. Herndon, Esquire, Laura S. Clare, Esquire, of
    SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, Wihnington,  DE; OF COUNSEL:
    Richard R. Kalikow, Esquire, Esther S. Trakinski, Esquire, of SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
    MEAGHER & FLOM, New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendants.
    
    
    STRINE, Vice Chancellor
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAW~
  • CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS VI, LLC,
  • TRUST COMPANY OF OHIO, NA, JANET M. SAVERIN, MAJESS, LLC,
  • defendants affiliated with Saverin.
  • The Midland Companies base all of their
  • Plaintiffs Midland Food Services, LLC, Midland Food
  • are Delaware limited liability companies1.
  • Pizza Hut restaurants in Ohio and West Virginia under franchise agreements
  • Defendants Castle Hill Holdings V, LLC, Castle Hill
  • created by defendant Ronald Saverin,
  • ownership interest in the Midland Companies to certain of those Companies'
  • IDefendants MAJESS, LLC and DAJUST, LLC
  • are otherwise controlled by CNL.
  • The Midland Companies have also failed to allege sufficient jurisdictional facts regarding
  • {$ 1 g-1.09, under which personal jurisdiction over Ronald Saverin might be proper, if the
  • In considering a motion to dismiss under Chancery Court Rule
  • this case turns on certain leases between the
  • Simultaneous with his negotiation of these transactions,
  • Company ("FMAC"), to Midland in the form of a note ("`me FMAC Senior
  • For the further protection of the creditors of Midland I,
  • "Concentration Account Agreement") was entered into between Midland I
  • formally agreed to and accepted by, among others, C!NL, CSFB, and FMAC.
  • Some involve Midland I Pizza Huts not leased from Castle Hill Companies pursuant to Ground
  • they dropped their objection to my consideration of the Resolution Agreement in deciding this
  • The Bangor Punta Doctrine Bars The Complaint
  • Courtland Manor involved a situation very similar to that which exists

  • 8 . LETTER TO V.C. STRINE

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COMPLAINT
    MOTION
    DEL
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    AGREEMENT
    FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
    THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
    REASONS
    AMEND
    PARTIES
    CNL
    COURT
    DEFENDANTS
    EXHIBIT
    DISMISS
    STRINE
    CHANCELLOR
    FUTILE
    AMENDMENT
    SLIP
    CONCENTRATION ACCOUNT
    FAILS
    PARTY
    LEASES
    CONTRACT
    CSFB
    HONORABLE LEO
    PROPOSED AMENDMENT
    SUPR
    
                SKADDEN,  A RPS , S LATE ,  MEAGHER   &  F LOM  LLP
                                             O N E   R O D N E Y   S Q U A R E
    
                                                    P.O.   B O X   6 3 6                               
                               W I L M I N G T O N ,   D E L A W A R E   1 9 8 9 9 - 0 6 3 6           
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                      
                                                T E L :   (302)  651-30(X)                             
                                                                                                       
                                                FAX:  (302)  651-300  I                              S
                                                                                                    W A
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                       
                                                                     June 30. 1999                     
                                                                                                       
    
    
    
    
    BY HAND
    
    The Honorable Leo E. Strine. Jr
    Vice Chancellor
    Court of Chancery
    1020 King Street
    Wilmington, DE 19801
    
                               Re:         Midland Food Services, LLC, et al. v. Castle Hill
                                           Holdings, V, LLC, e_t-.d., C.A. No. 16779NC
    
    Dear Vice Chancellor Strine:
    
                       Over a month after Defendants filed their opening brief in support of their
    Motion to Disrniss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs requested leave to file
    a Third Amended Complaint in a futile attempt to cure the deficiencies in their First
    Amended Complaint. ' For the reasons explained below, Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to
    File a Third Amended Complaint (the "Motion to Amend") should be denied
    
                        Under well-settled Delaware law, "[a] court should deny leave to amend a
         complaint when the amendment would be futile due  to the insufficiency of the proposed
         amendment, " Glaser v Norris, Del. Ch., C.A. No. 9538, slip op. at 30, Chandler, V C.
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Vice Chancellor Court of Chancery
  • Dear Vice Chancellor Strine:
  • Over a month after Defendants filed their opening brief in support of their Motion to
  • Under well-settled Delaware law, "court should deny leave to amend a complaint when the
  • No. 9538, slip op.
  • Supr., 49X A.2d 1099 (Exhibit A)), see & Denckla v. Independence Found., Del.
  • The Honorable Leo E. Strine:
  • "It would waste the time of this Court and that of the parties to allow an amendment which
  • Plaintiffs' proposed amendments must be re-iected as futile for several reasons.
  • Notably, Plaintiffs have conceded that the only "significant" change made by Plaintiffs in
  • Plaintiffs presumably have added CNL in response to Defendants' claim that Count IV of
  • As discussed in our briefs seeking, dismissal of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, all of
  • Eastern Mem'l Consultants, Inc., Del Ch., 280 A.2d 745, 748 ("[`I1 n order to establish a
  • In addition to adding CNL as a party., the Third Amended Complaint also adds the conclusory

  • 9 . REPLY MEMORANDUM OF THE COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DEFENDANTS
    COURT
    CONCENTRATION ACCOUNT AGREEMENT
    THIRD PARTY
    COUNTERCLAIM
    THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
    BREACH
    CNL
    DISMISS
    COMPLAINT
    MOTION
    DECLARATORY RELIEF
    LLC
    HUT
    MOVANTS
    JURISDICTION
    VII
    CONTENTION
    RESOLUTION AGREEMENT
    CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS
    CNL AMERICAN
    APF
    ASSERTING BREACH
    MIDLAND COMPANIES
    PLAINTIFFS
    COURT GRANTS
    KEY TRUST
    CREDITOR BENEFICIARIES
    CASTLE HILL COMPANY
    
          IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                           IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES, LLC,                                  CIVIL ACTION                 : , ,~)
    MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES II, LLC, and                      :                        ~l!,~~ :
                                                                                     ..,,>'
    MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES III, LLC,                                                  :.,,.        I .-
                           Plaintiffs,                           C-A. No. 16779 NC;-;:`.          ' I:
                 V.                                                                                -I---
                                                                                     : * .         -37
                                                                                     /I:. -1
                                                                                      .-
    CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS V, LLC,                                                                   - "
                                                                                      L)
    CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS VI, LLC,
    CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS VII, LLC,
    RONALD F. SAVERIN,
    KEY TRUST COMPANY OF OHIO, NA,                          ;
    JANET M. SAVERIN,
    MAJESS, LLC, DAJUST, LLC, and
    CNL AMERICAN PROPERTIES
    FUND, INC., APF I PROPERTIES,
    APF II PROPERTIES, and APF III PROPERTIES, i
                           Defendants,
                 V.
    
    AL HUT, INC.,
                           Third Party Defendant.           :
    
           REPLY MEMORANDUM OF THE COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS
           IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS
                       OF THE CASTLE HILL COMPANY DEFENDANTS
    
                                          David J. Ferry, Jr., Esquire
                                          Rick S. Miller, Esquire
                                          FERRY & JOSEPH, P.A.
                                          824 Market Street, Suite 904
                                          Wilmington, DE 19899
                                                 - and -
                                          Gary M. Schildhorn, Esquire
                                          Douglas N. Candeub, Esquire
                                          ADELMAN LAVINE GOLD AND LEVIN,
                                          A Professional Corporation
                                          Two Penn Center Plaza, Suite 1900
                                          Philadelphia, PA 19 102
    
    Dated: June 3, 1999                   Attornevs for Plaintiffs and Third Partv Defendant
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS VI, LLC,
  • CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS VII, LLC, RONALD F. SAVERIN,
  • CNL AMERICAN PROPERTIES FUND, INC., APF I PROPERTIES,
  • REPLY MEMORANDUM OF THE COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS
  • OF THE CASTLE HILL COMPANY DEFENDANTS
  • DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT,
  • COGNIZABLE AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE
  • ASSERTING BREACH OF THE RESOLUTION AGREEMENT BY AL HUT,
  • Midland Companies, the "Movants") hereby reply to the Response filed by Defendants
  • LLC and Dajust, LLC, as well as Saverin's principal financing partner, CNL American
  • Properties Fund, Inc., and Key Trust Company of Ohio, N.A., as
  • Majess and Dajust - have collectively opposed the relief sought by the Plaintiffs,
  • THE CASTLE HILL DEFENDANTS HAVE FAILED TO REBUT THE MOVANTS' CONTENTION THAT IF THIS COURT
  • THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT, IT WILL LACK JURISDICTION OVER THE
  • THIS COURT MAY IN ITS DISCRETION DECLINE JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANTS' DECLARATORY RELIEF
  • THE CASTLE HILL DEFENDANTS ARE NOT LEGALLY COGNIZABLE AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE
  • performance in one of three ways: as donee beneficiaries, as creditor beneficiaries and as
  • THE CASTLE HILL DEFENDANTS' ARGUMENTS FOR THEIR CLAIM ASSERTING BREACH OF THE RESOLUTION

  • 10 . COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CASTLE HILL COMPANIES
    COUNTERCLAIMS
    MIDLAND
    AGREEMENT
    PLAINTIFFS
    RESTAURANT LEASES
    COURT
    VII
    HUT
    CONTRACT
    DEFENDANTS
    BREACH
    PARTIES
    CNL
    INDISPENSABLE PARTIES
    VIII
    THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES
    LLC
    CONCENTRATION ACCOUNT AGREEMENT
    CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS
    TRUST COMPANY
    REFORMATION
    TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
    COMPLAINT
    JURISDICTION
    MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES
    PLAINTIFFS ARGUE
    AFRICAN UNION FIRST
    HILL COMPANIES ALLEGE
    
            IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                           IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES, LLC,
    MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES II, LLC
    and MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES III,
    LLC,
    
                    Plaintiffs,
    
            V.                                 : Civil Action No. 16779NC  i`  '    .
    
    CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS V, LLC,
    CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS VI, LLC,
    CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS VII, LLC,
    RONALD  F.  SAVERIN, KEY
    TRUST COMPANY OF OHIO, NA,
    JANET M. SAVERIN, MAJESS, LLC
    AND DAJUST, LLC,
    
                    Defendants,
    
            V.
    
    
    AL HUT, INC., a Delaware corporation,
    
                    Counterclaim Defendant.
    
                         COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF
                  IN OPPOSITION TO COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS'
                       MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS
    
                                        SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER
                                          & FLOM LLP
                                        One Rodney Square
                                        P.O. Box 636
                                        Wilmington, Delaware 19899
                                        (302) 65 l-3000
                                        Attorneys for Defendants
    
    DATED: May 6, 1999
    
    
    
                                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
                                                                                                       
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES II, LLC
  • CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS VI, LLC,
  • COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF
  • IN OPPOSITION TO COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS'
  • COUNT VIII STATES A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT.
  • Castle Hill Companies By Suing The Castle Hill Companies
  • For Reformation Of The Restaurant Leases
  • NO INDISPENSABLE PARTIES ARE MISSING FROM COUNT II.
  • CASTLE HILL VII HAS STATED A CLAIM FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS
  • JURISDICTION OVER THE COUNTERCLAIMS EVEN AFTER
  • Church v. Conference of African Union First Colored Methodist Protestant Church,
  • The Midland Companies' and Al Hut have filed a motion to dismiss
  • Restaurant Leases between the Midland Companies and the Castle Hill Companies,
  • courts and commentators agree that a claim for tortious interference is
  • agreements with their lender, a division of CNL.
  • Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings ascribed to them
  • Castle Hill Companies allege that the Midland Companies and Al Hut tortiously
  • have no right to seek a declaration that the Concentration Account Agreement is
  • at issue here with Key Trust Company of Ohio,
  • Castle Hill VI are not "third-party beneficiaries" of the Concentration Account
  • Plaintiffs argue, in response, that the Castle Hill
  •    |