LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

WAGNER v SELINGER Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 16,740, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff: WAGNER, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00016740, Severance Agreement, Selinger, Graham Field, Dismiss, Facts, Complaint, Phillips, Agreement, Motion, Employment Agreement, Support, Demand, Pleading, Gfi, Plaintiff Concedes, Plaintiffs Assertion, Directors, Allege, Business Judgment, Separation Agreement, Obligations, Particularity, Del, Chancery Rule, Consulting Services, Allegation, Plaintiffs Reliance, Reasons, Opening, Waste, York, Non-compete Clause, Demand Futility, Allegations, Employees, Employment, Severance Agreement States, Chart , ContentID: 120239757

Case Documents
1 2000-01-28 MEMORANDUM OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100332
12 pages
PDF
2 1999-04-05 REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103054
8 pages
PDF
3 1999-04-05 REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103053
24 pages
PDF
4 1999-02-09 OPENING BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103055
4 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 4 documents , 48 pages
Price: $ 34.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . MEMORANDUM OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
AGREEMENT
GFI
SELINGER
SEPARATION AGREEMENT
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
FACTS
ALLEGE
DEFENDANTS
BUSINESS JUDGMENT
DEL
DEMAND
WASTE
REASONS
DIRECTORS
DISMISS
COMPLAINT
FAILS
SHAREHOLDER
APPROVING
MOTION
EXECUTIVES
EXCHANGE
ALLEGATIONS
YORK
CONFER
CLAUSE
SUFFICIENCY
TERMINATION
VALID EXERCISE
                                                            F  r  r,-  -,
                                                            (      i                           `[if
                                                                                          /
      IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE                                   '      r'f
              IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF NEW CASTLE

WILLIAM D. WAGNER,

              Plaintiff,

V.                                                ) C.A. No. 16740

IRWIN SELINGER, DAVID P.
DELANEY, RODNEY F. PRICE,
STEVEN D. LEVKOFF, and
LOUIS A. LUBRANO,

and

GRAHAM FIELD HEALTH PRODUCTS  )                                              --_
INC.,                                             >

              Nominal Defendant.                  1

                            Submitted: October 5, 1999
                            Decided: January  l&2000

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

Norman M. Monhait of Rosenthal Monhait Gross  & Goddess, Wilmington, Delaware;
OF COUNSEL: Glen  DeValerio and Michael G. Lange of Berman, Devalerio  & Pease
of Boston, Massachusetts; Frederic S. Fox, Laurence D. King and Janine R. Azriliant of
Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox of New York, New York. Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Alan J. Stone and Christopher F.  Carlton  of Morris, Nichols, Arsht  &  Tunnell,
Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Scott A. Edelman, Andrew E.  Tomback and
Mitchell Epner of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, New York, New York. Attorneys
for Defendants.

Andre G. Bouchard of Bouchard, Friedlander  &  MaloneyHuss, Wilmington, Delaware.
Attorney for Nominal Defendant.

STEELE, V.C.



      A shareholder plaintiff alleges that defendant Board of Directors

wasted corporate assets, and breached fiduciary duties of loyalty and care by
SNIPPETS:
  • Norman M. Monhait of Rosenthal Monhait Gross & Goddess, Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL:
  • Attorneys for Plaintiff.
  • A shareholder plaintiff alleges that defendant Board of Directors
  • approving a new separation agreement for the corporation's CEO.
  • Defendants move to dismiss this action arguing that 1) the complaint
  • clause in the corporate charter shields the Board from liability and,
  • plaintiff failed to either make a pre-suit demand on the Board or plead
  • Because plaintiff has not pleaded facts sufficient to support his waste
  • I defer to the Board's business judgment to enter into the new
  • Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.
  • The defendants are GFI's former CEO Irwin Selinger, the directors of GFI,'
  • and GFI as nominal defendant.
  • employment with GFI was subject to an Employment Agreement* set to
  • set to expire one year after termination of employment.
  • Plaintiff implies that these allegations led,
  • The standard for a motion to dismiss is well-settled under Delaware
  • ("a plaintiff must allege facts that, taken as true, establish each and every element of a
  • ' O'Reilly v. Tramworld Healthcare, Inc., Del.
  • Plaintiff fails
  • not be considered a valid exercise of business judgment,
  • See Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 (stating "the complaint shall also allege with particularity
  • The survival of plaintiffs entire case depends upon the sufficiency of his
  • consideration received by GFI in exchange for the additional benefits
  • confer benefits..
  • Supr., 539 A.2d 180, 185 n.4 (holding that complaint fails to raise a reasonable doubt that

  • 2 . REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    SELINGER
    PLAINTIFF
    DEFENDANTS
    EMPLOYMENT
    COMPLAINT
    CHART
    OBLIGATIONS
    DISMISS
    DEL
    PAYMENTS
    COURT
    DEFENDANT IRWIN
    YORK
    OPENING
    SUBSTANCE
    COMPL
    COMPETE
    PREMIUMS
    INSURANCE
    DELAWARE
    GRAHAM FIELD
    GRAHAM FIELD HEALTH
    MOTION
    IMPROPER
    REASONS
    SUPPORT
    DISTORTS
    ALLEGATIONS
    TORTURES
    
                    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                 IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    WILLIAM D. WAGNER,
    
                        Plaintiff,
    
             V.
    
    IRWIN SELINGER, DAVID P.
    DELANEY, RODNEY F. PRICE,                  :
    STEVEN D. LEVKOFF, AND LOUIS               :           Civil Action No. 16740-NC
    A. LUBRANO
    
                        Defendants.
    
             and
    
    GRAHAM FIELD HEALTH PRODUCTS, :
    INC.,
    
                        Nominal Defendant. :
    
                                      REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
                     DEFENDANT IRWIN SELINGER'S MOTION TO DISMISS
    
                                                    MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
                                                    Alan J. Stone
                                                    Christopher F. Carlton
                                                    1201 N. Market Street
                                                    P.O. Box 1347
                                                    Wilmington, DE 19899-1347                -
                                                    (302) 658-9200
                                                       Attorneys for Defendant Irwin Selinger __
    
    OF COUNSEL:
    
    Janis M. Meyer
    DEWEY BALLANTINE LLP
    1301 Avenue of the Americas
    New York, New York 10019
    (212)259-8000
    
    April 5, 1999
    
    
    
                                                                                             i.
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • IRWIN SELINGER, DAVID P.
  • GRAHAM FIELD HEALTH PRODUCTS,: INC.,
  • New York, New York 10019
  • PLAINTIFF'S "TERMS OF THE SEVERANCE AGREEMENT"
  • THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT ALLEGE AN IMPROPER
  • Green v. Phillips, Del.
  • the Opening Brief and Reply Brief of defendants David P. Delaney, Rodney F. Price, Steven D.
  • Levkoff, Louis A. Lubrano and Graham Field Health Products, Inc.,, in
  • Support of their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (the "Opening Brief" and "Defendants' Reply
  • In his Answering Brief plaintiff has grossly distorted,
  • adequate consideration is not supported by the allegations of the Complaint itself.
  • CHART IS DISTORTED AND INACCURATE.
  • elevates form over substance and tortures the terms of the Severance Agreement.
  • If Selinger's employment had not ended,
  • For example, the Severance Agreement explicitly states that Selinger's obligations not to
  • Compare Compl.
  • insurance policy previously purchased for him by the Company," (Ans.
  • Mr. Selinger is obligated to reimburse the Company for all premiums since the inception
  • In addition to torturing the facts of this case, the Chart distorts the holding of
  • for the same reasons the Severance Agreement cannot be found to be
  • Defendant Irwin Selinger respectfully requests that the Complaint be

  • 3 . REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    SEVERANCE AGREEMENT
    SELINGER
    GRAHAM FIELD
    DEFENDANTS
    COURT
    PHILLIPS
    DISMISS
    LAW
    PLEADING
    FACTS
    MOTION
    SUPPORT
    PLAINTIFF CONCEDES
    PLAINTIFFS ASSERTION
    DEMAND
    EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
    COMPLAINT
    PARTICULARITY
    CHANCERY RULE
    CONSULTING SERVICES
    DIRECTORS
    OBLIGATIONS
    PLAINTIFFS RELIANCE
    ALLEGATION
    NON-COMPETE CLAUSE
    DEMAND FUTILITY
    BUSINESS JUDGMENT
    EMPLOYEES
    SEVERANCE AGREEMENT STATES
    
     ~.,     :.
                                                                                                      (
    
    
    
    
    
    
                    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE                                  
    
                                       IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    ------------------------------------------------------x
    
    WILLIAM D. WAGNER,
    
                                Plaintiff,
    
             V.
    
    IRWIN SELINGER, DAVID  P.
    DELANEY, RODNEY F. PRICE,
    STEVEN D. LEVKOFF, AND LOUIS                               ;          Civil Action No. 16740 (NC)
    A. LUBRANO
    
                                Defendants.
             and
    
    GRAHAM FIELD HEALTH PRODUCTS, :
    INC.,
    
                      Nominal Defendant. :
    ------------------------------------------------------x
    
     REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DIRECTOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
    
                                                               MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
                                                               Alan J. Stone                           
                                                               Christopher F. Carlton
                                                               1201 N. Market Street
                                                               P.O. Box 1347
                                                               Wilmington, Delaware 19899
                                                               (302) 658-9200
    OF COUNSEL:                                                     Attorneys for Defendants David P.
                                                                    Rodney F. Price, Steven D.
    Scott A. Edelman                                                Louis A. Lubrano
    Andrew E. Tomback
    Mitchell Epner
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DIRECTOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
  • PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF CHANCERY RULE 23.1 BY PLEADING DEMAND FUTILITY
  • Plaintiff Concedes That He Has Not Alleged Particularized
  • Facts Suggesting That A Majority of the Board Was
  • Provides No Consideration To Graham Field Is Without
  • Plaintiffs Claim That Selinger Would Have
  • As A Matter Of Law,
  • Plaintiffs Reliance Upon Green v. Phillips
  • The Complaint Does Not Allege Facts Sufficient To
  • business judgment to approve the Severance Agreement with Irwin Selinger.'
  • Answering Brief argues that demand is excused in this case because "the Separation Agreement
  • the Company due to the termination of Selinger's Employment Agreement.
  • Defined terms are used as set forth in the Opening Brief in Support of Director Defendants'
  • corporation's board of directors may be excused as futile only if "under the particularized
  • it fails to allege waste with particularity.
  • plaintiffs assertion that he has satisfied the pleading standard here.
  • agreements to extend his non-competition clause and not to solicit employees are not easily
  • plaintiffs reliance on this characterization undercuts his entire analysis.
  • The Expansion of the Non-Compete Clause
  • a result of or involvea breach of his obligations hereunder."
  • enumeration of the reasons for Selinger's departure does not include an allegation that
  • providing consulting services for ten years, $500,000 per year for a covenant not to compete
  • Severance Agreement states that Selinger's obligations not to compete with or solicit

  • 4 . OPENING BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    SELINGER
    SUPPORT
    ALLEGE
    OPENING
    DISMISS
    AGREEMENT
    DEFENDANT
    DUTY
    CONTROLLING
    PLAINTIFF
    FACTS
    BREACH
    GRAHAM FIELD
    NEGOTIATES
    ALLEGATION
    DELAWARE
    IRWIN
    MOTION
    DIRECTORS
    CONTROLLING SHAREHOLDER
    SEPARATION AGREEMENT
    DAMAGES
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    CARE
    CERTIFICATE
    LAW
    UNDERSTANDING
    STOCKHOLDERS
    OFFICER
    
                    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                   IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    -----------------------------------------------------~
    WILLIAM D. WAGNER,
    
                           Plaintiff,
    
          V.
    
    IRWIN SELINGER, DAVID P.                                                                           
    DELANEY, RODNEY F. PRICE,                                                                          
    STEVEN D. LEVKOFF, AND LOUIS                              Civil Action No. 16740-NC I`-
    A. LUBRANO                                                                                         
                                                                                                    I'
                                                                                                       
    
    
                            Defendants.                                                                
    
                                                                                             i
    
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                       
    
             and                                                                        `Z,   /
                                                                                       (  i.I
                                                                                       -           .
                                                                                       _          .,   
                                                                                       -.
                                                                                                       
    GRAHAM FIELD HEALTH PRODUCTS, :                                                                 -vi.
    INC.,
    
                           Nominal Defendant. :
    
    
    
                          OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
                             IRWIN SELINGER'S MOTION TO DISMISS
    
    
                      The Complaint should be dismissed as to Mr. Selinger for the reasons set
    
    forth in the Opening Brief of defendants David P. Delaney, Rodney F. Price, Steven D.
    
    Levkoff and Louis A. Lubrano in Support of their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
  • IRWIN SELINGER'S MOTION TO DISMISS
  • Levkoff and Louis A. Lubrano in Support of their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
  • Selinger adopts the Opening Brief as if it were fully set forth herein.
  • Plaintiff has failed to
  • any claim for damages against Mr. Selinger for any alleged breach of his
  • fiduciary duty of care is barred by Article 10 of Graham Field Health Products,
  • Certificate of Incorporation which exculpates directors
  • There is no basis in law or in fact to support the conclusion that a director,
  • duty to the corporation when he negotiates his own severance agreement.
  • approved by an informed, disinterested majority, is the understanding that the interested
  • and its stockholders.
  • There is no allegation, nor can there be, that Mr. Selinger
  • controlled the board or that he was a controlling shareholder.
  • this case is that he used "his position and his long service as an officer and director of the
  • and a statement that is in any event belied by the facts alleged in the Complaint itself.
  • Nor does the Complaint allege that Mr.
  • Selinger voted on his Separation Agreement or had any other input into the board's decision
  •    |