LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SANDERS v WANG Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 16,640, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: N THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE. OF DELAWAKK II U 1, Plaintiff: SANDERS, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00016640, Delaware, York, Plan, Joint Objectors, Settlement, Fees, Allocation, Garwin Bronzaft, Shares, Stock, Sanders, Award, Bickel, Wolf Haldenstein, Rome, Chimicles, Greenfield, Shareholders, Derivative Action, Wolf, Directors, Interpretation, Tikellis, Judgement, Complaint, Wang, Kesop, Expenses, Del, Fee, Paragraph, Stock Splits, Derivative Actions, Contract Claim, Sanjay Kumar, Provision, District, Contract, Artzt, Llp, Eastern District, Objection, Plain Language, Deny, Joint Objection , ContentID: 120239766

Case Documents
1 2001-09-18 MEMORANDUM OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 126795
21 pages
PDF
2 2001-08-22 LETTER OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 126796
5 pages
PDF
3 2001-05-24 LETTER OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114919
9 pages
PDF
4 2000-11-27 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF BLANK ROME AND GARWIN BRONZAFT IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF ALLOCATION OF ATTORNEYS FEES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103073
27 pages
PDF
5 2000-11-17 MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF JOINT OBJECTION TO PROPOSED ALLOCATION OF ATTORNEYS FEES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103075
32 pages
PDF
6 2000-11-17 REPLY TO MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO OBJECTIONS TO ALLOCATION OF PLAINTIFFS COUNSELS FEES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103074
9 pages
PDF
7 2000-11-06 JOINT OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED ALLOCATOIN OF ATTORNEYS FEES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103077
25 pages
PDF
8 2000-11-06 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MEMORANDUM REGARDING ALLOCATION OF FEES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103076
9 pages
PDF
9 2000-06-22 ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100348
8 pages
PDF
10 2000-06-15 PLAINTIFFS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103078
35 pages
PDF
11 1999-12-20 ORDER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100349
6 pages
PDF
12 1999-11-08 MEMORANDUM OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100350
29 pages
PDF
13 1999-04-30 SANDERS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103080
19 pages
PDF
14 1999-04-30 BICKELS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103079
20 pages
PDF
15 1999-04-23 DEFENDANTS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTIONS AND ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103081
31 pages
PDF
16 1999-03-26 DEFENDANTS OPENING BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103082
15 pages
PDF
17 1999-03-17 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102118
14 pages
PDF
18 1999-03-01 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102119
11 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 18 documents , 325 pages
Price: $ 104.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . MEMORANDUM OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
WOLF
COURT
TIKELLIS
CHIMICLES
YORK
PLAINTIFFS
COUNSEL
SETTLEMENT
DEFENDANTS
WOLF HALDENSTEIN
LITIGATION
SANDERS
FEES
LLP
ALLOCATION
WOLF HALDERSTEIN
GARWIN BRONZAFT
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
SUBSTANTIATE
SHAREHOLDERS
BILLING RECORDS
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
WILMINGTON
PROPOSED ALLOCATION
SUCCESSFUL
INVOLVEMENT
FRED TAYLOR ISQUITH
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN
                                                    ORIGINAL ,a&
         IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                           IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

LISA SANDERS,

            Plaintiff,

v.

CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY  KUMAR,
RUSSELL M. ARTZT,  WILLEM F.P. deVOGEL,
RICHARD A. GRASSO, IRVING GOLDSTEIN,
and SHIRLEY STRUM KENNY,

            Defendants,

and

COMPUTER ASSOCIATES  INTERNATIONAL
INC.,

            Nominal Defendant.

EDWARD BICKEL, derivatively on behalf of
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES  INTERNATIONAL
INC.,

            Plaintiff,

V.

CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY  KUMAR,
RUSSELL M. ARTZT,  WILLEM F.P. deVOGEL,
IRVlNG GOLSTEIN, and RICHARD A. GRASSO,

            Defendants,

and

COMPUTER ASSOCIATES
INTERNATIONAL,  INC.,

            Nominal Defendant.



                         Submitted: August 20, 200 1
                          Decided: September 18, 2001
SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • Defendants,
  • Grover C. Brown of Gordon, Fournaris & Mammarella, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Pamela S.
  • OF COUNSEL: Daniel W. Krasner, Fred Taylor Isquith and Adam Gonnelli of Wolf Haldenstein
  • This opinion resolves a dispute regarding attorneys' fees following the
  • 2000 Order of this Court which granted plaintiffs Motion
  • to the terms of the parties' settlement agreement.
  • in the litigation, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Hertz LLP and Chimicles &
  • Tikellis LLP, oppose the proposed allocation.
  • ln a letter opinion dated May 24, 2001, the Court denied Jerry Krim's application for
  • Sanders v. Wang, Del.
  • accordance with the terms of the Stipulation."' Blank Rome and Garwin Bronzaft
  • Wolf Haldenstein and Chimicles & Tikellis had only minimal involvement in the
  • - substantial involvement in pursuing the successful Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings in
  • This strategy, they claim, aided the plaintiffs in settlement negotiations;
  • Wolf Halderstein and Chimicles & Tikellis jointly contend that they worked
  • The billing records submitted
  • there is no evidence to substantiate the contention of Wolf

  • 2 . LETTER OPINION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COURT
    REQUEST
    MISREPRESENTATION
    SETTLEMENT
    RESPONSE
    KNOWING MISREPRESENTATION
    DEADLINE
    SANDERS
    WANG
    PAPERS
    TACTICAL ADVANTAGE
    FEES
    MATERIAL FACT
    MISSTATEMENT
    MONHAIT
    ALLEGATION
    LITIGATION
    EXPENSES
    REMEDY
    SANCTIONS
    PROCEEDING
    WILMINGTON
    COUNSEL
    REMARKS
    SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS
    TEXAS
    REQUEST ASKING
    AWAIT
    OUTSTANDING
    
                                          SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE
    
    M Y R O N   T.  S T E E L E                                                           S U P R E M E
                     JUSTICE                                                                      57 
                                                                                                   P.O.
                                                                                          D O V E R ,  
    
                                                                                         TELEPHONE:  
    
                Norman M. Monhait                              Alan J. Stone
                Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross                      Morris Nichols Arsht  & Tunnel1
                    & Goddess                                  120 1 N. Market Street
                P.O. Box 1070                                  Wilmington, DE 19899
                Wilmington, DE  19899- 1070
                                                               Gregory V. Varallo
                Grover C. Brown                                Richards Layton & Finger
                Gordon Fournaris  & Mammarella                 One Rodney Square
                1220 Market Street, Suite 700                  Wilmington, DE 1980 1
                Wilmington, DE 19899
                                                               Daniel W. Krasner
                Pamela S. Tikellis                             Wolf Haldenstein Adler
               Chimicles  & Tikellis                           Freeman & Her-z LLP
               One Rodney Square                               270 Madison Avenue
               Wilmington, DE 1980 1                           New York, NY 100 16
    
               James L. Holzman                                Harvey Greenfield
               Prickett Jones  & Elliott                       Suite 2001
                13 10 N. King Street                           60  East 42qd Street
               Wilmington, DE 19899                           New York, NY 10165
    
                                   Re:      Sanders v. Wang and  Bickel  v.  Wang
                                            Del. Ch., Civil Action No.  16640-NC
    
                                             Submitted: August  20,200l
                                              Decided: August  22,200l
    
    
    
         Sanders v. Wang (I  6640-NC)
         August  22,200l
         Page 2
    
    
         Counsel:
    
                   The Court scheduled a settlement hearing in this case for November  9,200O.
    
         At that hearing, Mr. Greenfield  suggested by certain remarks that he had not been
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Wilmington, DE 19899- 1070
  • Sanders v. Wang
  • Counsel:
  • The Court scheduled a settlement hearing in this case for November 9,200O.
  • Mr. Greenfield suggested by certain remarks that he had not been
  • sent or had not received papers necessary to allow him to participate fully in the
  • certain settlement documents until June 23,
  • After the allegation of a.
  • knowing misrepresentation was made, the Court, at Mr. Greenfield's request, set
  • December 12,200O as his deadline to respond.
  • Greenfield's response, Mr. Greenfield wrote requesting that the deadline be
  • litigation in Texas that week.
  • response was due on or before January 8,200 1, made a request asking this Court to
  • advise him whether he should submit his response by January 12, 2001 or await
  • this Court's decision regarding another outstanding issue of attorney's fees and
  • expenses.
  • Monhait application,
  • misrepresented a material fact to the Court, a finding that could potentially expose
  • his application the tactical advantage Mr. Greenfield gained by his misstatement
  • I suggest any appropriate remedy that could be imposed by this Court if the
  • While Rule 11 sanctions may be used to prevent Delaware attorneys
  • absent misconduct which taints a proceeding and obstructs the orderly

  • 3 . LETTER OPINION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    ATTORNEYS
    COURT
    SANDERS
    GREENFIELD
    SETTLEMENT
    DISTRICT
    WANG
    LITIGATION
    STOCK
    COUNSEL
    PLAINTIFFS
    SHAREHOLDERS
    COMPLAINT
    SUITS
    COMPENSATION
    EASTERN DISTRICT
    YORK
    DELAWARE
    COMMITTEE
    CHANCERY
    SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
    AWARD
    OPINION
    JERRY KRIM
    DIRECTORS
    SHARES
    DEL
    KESOP
    PERMIT
    
    :
    
    
    
    
    
                                             SUPREME  COURT  OF  DELAWARE
    
    
         M YRON   T.  STEELE                                                                SUPREME   C
                     J U S T I C E                                                                 57 T
                                                                                                   
                                                                                             DOVER, D
    
                                                                                           TELEPHONE:  
    
    
    
    
    
                  Nor-n-ran M. Monhait                            Alan J. Stone
                  Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross                       Morris Nichols Arsht  &  Tunne!l
                    & Goddess                                     1201 N. Market Street
                  P.O. Box 1070                                   Wilmington, DE 19899
                  Wilmington, DE  19899- 1070
                                                                  Gregory V. Varallo
                  Grover C. Brown                                 Richards Layton & Finger
                  Gordon Fournaris & Mammarella                   One Rodney Square
                  1220 Market Street, Suite 700                   Wilmington, DE 1980 1
                  Wilmington, DE 19899
                                                                  Daniel W. Krasner
                 Pamela S. Tikellis                               Wolf Waldenstein Adler Freeman
                 Chimicles  & Tikellis                              & Herz LLP
                 One Rodney Square                                270 Madison Avenue
                 Wilmington, DE 1980 1                            New York, NY 100 16
    
                 James L. Holzman                                 Harvey Greenfield
                 Prickett Jones  & Elliott                        Suite 200 I
                 13 10 N. King Street                             60 East  42nd Street
                 Wilmington, DE 19899                             New York, NY 10 165
    
                                      Re:     Sanders v. N/arrg  and Bickel  v. Wang
                                              Del.  Ch., Civil Action No.  16640-NC
    
                                                Submitted: November  28,200O
                                                   Decided: May 24,200l
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Sanders v. Wang (CA.
  • Counsel:
  • This letter opinion resolves a dispute regarding attorneys' fees following the
  • Computer Associates International, Inc. Jerry Krim, represented by Harvey
  • Greenfield, filed a later "copycat" shareholder derivative action in the United
  • States District Court for the Eastern District of New York involving Computer
  • all actions were consolidated with Sanders v.
  • settlement agreement in Sanders, Krim filed an application for attorney fees.
  • contribute in any meaningful way to the efforts of the plaintiffs to create a benefit
  • for the shareholders of Computer Associates or the corporation itself:
  • Computer Associates' Board of Directors adopted a Key Employee
  • Stock Option Plan which vested a compensation committee of the Board "with all
  • ' Computer Associates International, Inc., Devivative Litigation, Civil Action No. 98 CV 4961
  • Sanders v. Wang, Del.
  • Wang in the Delaware Court of Chancery.2 After this Court approved the
  • "to grant up to 6,000,OOO shares of Common Stock to the Participants" by granting
  • the KESOP did not explicitly permit the
  • copying the Sanders complaint filed in this Court, in the Eastern District of New
  • suits were consolidated before this Court.
  • All of the initial suits were consolidated, ultimately, in the Court of Chancery.
  • Counsel's proposed allocation did not award any

  • 4 . REPLY MEMORANDUM OF BLANK ROME AND GARWIN BRONZAFT IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF ALLOCATION OF ATTORNEYS FEES

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    ALLOCATION
    GARWIN BRONZAFT
    CONTRACT CLAIM
    ROME
    FEE
    OBJECTION
    SETTLEMENT
    SUPPORT
    DELAWARE ACTION
    MOTION
    COMPLAINT
    OPENING ALLOCATION
    INTERVENTION
    COURT
    WOLF HALDENSTEIN
    YORK ACTION
    DEFENDANTS
    ATTORNEYS
    PLAINTIFFS
    INVOLVEMENT
    ALLEGED FRAUD
    NEGOTIATIONS
    AFFIDAVIT
    JOINT OBJECTORS ARGUE
    STOCK PRICE
    GREENFIELD
    DERIVATIVE ACTION
    KESOP
    MEMORANDUM
    
                  IN THE COURT OF  CHANCEfRY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE                              /4  I
                                     IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    LISA SANDERS,
    
                                        Plaintiff,
    V.                                                                       i
                                                                             >
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY  K.UMAR,  RUSSELL
    M. ARTZT,  WILLEM F.P. de VOGEL,  RICHARD                                i
    A. GRASSO, IRVING GOLDSTEIN, and SHIRLEY                                 >    CA. No. 16640
    STRlJM KENNY,
                                                                             i
                                        Defendants,
    and
    
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
    
                                        Nominal Defendant.                   i
    _________1______1_____I_________________---------------------------"-
    EDWARD BICKEL, derivatively on behalf of                                 i
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,  )
    
                                        Plaintiff,
    V.                                                                       >
                                                                             1
    CHA.RL,ES B. WANG, SANJAY  KUMAR, RUSSELL                                )
    M. ARTZT,  WILLEM F.P. de VOGEL, IRVING
    GOL.DSTEIN,  and RICHARD A. GRASSO,
    
                                        Defendants,
    and
    
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC. )
                                                                             >
                                        Nominal  Dekndant.
    
    
    
            REPLY MEMORANDUM OF BLANK ROME AND  GARWIN BRONZAFT
           IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THEIR  ALLOCATLON   OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
           AND IN FURTHER RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO THE ALLOCATION
    
    
    
                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • REPLY MEMORANDUM OF BLANK ROME AND GARWIN BRONZAFT IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THEIR ALLOCATLON OF
  • Development Of The Contract Claim
  • The New York Action Contributed Only Nominally, If At All, To The
  • Joint Objectors Have: Not Shown How They Could Have
  • The Joint Objectors' Efforts In Connection With The Intervention
  • Motion In Delaware And With the Federal Action Did Not Contribute
  • T.HE OBJECTION OF HARVEY GREENFIELD.
  • Objectors' Reply at 4 ("The Court should allocate attorneys' fees based on each firm's
  • of the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement.
  • Opening Allocation Bf.
  • The objective evidence plainly shows that the Joint Objectors had little or no involvement
  • their initial complaint contains allegations contradicting the claim);
  • `Wolf Haldenstein did not even attend the argument.
  • Whle Wolf Haldenstein now says they did not send anyone to the argument because they did not
  • involvement is corroborated by the affidavit of defendants' counsel,
  • argue that they should get one-third of the fee
  • that their;supposed claim for rescission of all 20.25 million shares issued under the 1995
  • alleged fraud was revealed; thus, the Plan's beneficiaries were entitled to all of the
  • Joint Objectors argue that Blank Rome and Garwin l3ron::aft did not have the authority
  • development, prosecution and settlement of the Delaware action, productive
  • contain no entries whatsoever regarding the intense and complex negotiations leading up to the
  • the demand issue in that derivative action was not the complete impediment defendants claim.
  • if Computer Associates' stock price reached certain target levels.

  • 5 . MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF JOINT OBJECTION TO PROPOSED ALLOCATION OF ATTORNEYS FEES

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    FEES
    DERIVATIVE ACTION
    ALLOCATION
    YORK
    LITIGATION
    DELAWARE
    GARWIN BRONZAFT
    JOINT OBJECTION
    ATTORNEYS
    FAIR ALLOCATION
    EASTERN DISTRICT
    PLAINTIFFS
    DEFENDANTS
    COUNSEL
    BICKEL
    SETTLEMENT
    WOLF HALDENSTEIN
    WOLFKHIMICLES
    COMPLAINT
    ULTIMATELY SUCCESSFUL
    INTERVENTION
    WOLF/CHIMICLES
    CHIMICLES
    AFFIDAVIT
    WOLFICHIMICLES
    WOLFCHIMICLES
    CONSOLIDATION
    KRASNER AFF
    STIPULATION
    
                          $N THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE. OF DELAWAkk ii u 1 ;:.`$A,e,;
                                               IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    ___________I______._______________I_____---~-~~-------------~-------~-
    
    LISA SANDERS,                                                             ,'
                                    Plaintiff,
    V.                                                                        ;       C.A. No. 16640
    
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY KIJMAR,                                           i
    RUSSEILL  M. ARTZT, WILLEM  F.P. deVOGEL,
    RICHARD A. GRASSO,  IRVING GOLDSTEIN,                                     ,'
    and SHIRLEY STRUM KENNY,
                                                                              ,'
                                     Defendants,
    and                                                                       i)
    COMPIJTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,)
    
                                     Nominal Defendant.                       ; MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER
    _________~_________________________I___----~----------------------"- > SUPPORT OF JOINT OBJECTION
    EDWARD BICKEL, derivatively on behalf of                                  > TO THE PROPOSED
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,) OF ATTORNEYS' FEES BY. BLANK
                                                                                    ROME AND GARWIN
                                     Plaintiff,                               i
    V.
    
                                                                              i
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY KUMAR, RUSSEL )
    M. ARTZT, WILLEM  F.P. de VOGEL, IRVING
    GOLDSTEIN, and RICHARD A. GRASSO,                                         ;
    
                                     Defendants,                              i
    and
                                                                               i
    COMPUTER. ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC. )1
                                     Nominal Defendant.
                                                                               ;
    ____________________--------------~.----~.----------------"-----"-"--     1        CA. No. 98 CV
    UNITECD  STATES DISTRICT COURT
    EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK                                               ;
    _______________________I________________I_______------,.--~-------.~--     1
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC. )
    DERIVATIVE LITIGATION
    _______________~_______________________---~-------------------------
    
    
    
                                                                            TA-BLE OF CONTENTS
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • _________~_________________________I___----~----------------------"-> SUPPORT OF JOINT
  • COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,) OF ATTORNEYS' FEES BY.
  • No. 98 CV 496 1 UNITECD STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
  • Ultimately Successful`?
  • To What Extent Was the Bickel Intervention the
  • What Was the Strength of the Federal Derivative Action
  • Relative to the Delaware Action?
  • Current Attempts By Defendants, Blank Rome or Garwin
  • Did WolfChimicles Expend Significant Efforts In The
  • Should WolfKhimicles Be Penalized for Agreeing
  • to Step Aside During Settlement Negotiations?
  • Should The Way in Which Wolf/Chimicles Was
  • RESPONSE OF WOLFICHIMICLES TO STATEMENTS MADE AT THE NOVEMEER 9 HEARING.
  • Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP and Chimicles &
  • Tikellis LLP ("Chimicles & Tikellis") (hereinafter sometimes referred to together as
  • the allocation of attorneys' fees awarded by the Court in this litigation.
  • extent Garwin, Bronzaft, Gerstein & Fisher LLP ("Garwin Bronzaft") (hereinafter sometimes
  • Blan!&arwin does not have the "authority" to determine what a fair allocation of attorneys'
  • Also submitted in connection with the fee allocation is the affidavit of David Nachman, an
  • Rather, 112 of the Stipulation of Settlement,
  • all plaintiffs' counsel for an aggregate award of attorneys' fees and to exercise the purely
  • If the terms of this Settlement are approved by the Chancery Court, Delaware Plaintiffs'

  • 6 . REPLY TO MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO OBJECTIONS TO ALLOCATION OF PLAINTIFFS COUNSELS FEES

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COURT
    COMPLAINT
    YORK
    FEES
    COUNSEL
    SETTLEMENT
    MONHAIT
    WOLF HALDENSTEIN
    DELAWARE
    FIRM
    ALLOCATION
    PLAINTIFFS
    LAW
    LITIGATION
    HARVEY GREENFIELD
    MONHAIT MEMO
    EXHIBIT
    TIME RECORDS
    ALLEGATIONS
    MEMORANDUM
    REQUESTS
    SUPPORT
    DISCOVERY
    CO-LEAD COUNSEL
    HERETO
    COPY-CAT COMPLAINT
    CLIENT
    STIPULATION
    GERSTEIN
    
                    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE: OF DELAWARE
                                      JN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    LISA SANDERS,
    
                                          Plaintiff,
    
             V.
    
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY KUMAR, RUSSELL )                                         Civil Action No.
    M. ARTZT, WILL,EM  F.P. de VOGEL, RICHARD                                  )
    A. GRASSO, IRVING GOLDSTEIN, and SHIRLEY                                   )
    STRUM KENNY,                                                               >
    
                                          Defendants,                          ;
    
    and                                                                        ;>
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
                                                                                             I
    
                                           Nominal Defendant.                  i
    ___________~_______----~.----------------------------------------------- >                         
    EDWARD BICKEL, derivatively on behalf of                                   )
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC., )                                                         
                                                                                                       
                                                                               >
                                          Plaintiff,                                                   
                                                                                                       
                                                                               i
              V.
    
                                                                               ;
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY KUMAR, RUSSELL )
    M. ARTZT, WILLEM  F.P. de VOGEL, IRVING
    GOLDSTEIN, and RICHARD A. GRASSO,                                          t
    
                                           Defendants,                         i
    
    and                                                                        ;>
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC., ))
                                           Nominal Defendant.
    -____________-___-----~_-----------------------------------------------
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
    ______________-_________________________--------------"----------------    >
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC. )                                        Civil Action No.
    DERIVATIVE LITIGATION                                                      >     98 CV 4961 (TCP)
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE: OF DELAWARE
  • REPLY TO MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO QBJECTIONS TO ALLOCATION OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSELS' FEES
  • COMES NOW Harvey Greenfield, head of the Law Firm of Harvey
  • Greenfield, counsel to plaintiff Jerry Krim herein, and hereby submits his reply to the
  • "Monhait Memo"), filed by Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess, P.A., and in support hereof
  • requests that the Court consider the following.
  • The Monhait Memo at page 32 makes much of the fact tha.t the New York Federal action
  • been in effect when Krim's complaint was filed is not relevant.
  • January 2000 to order discovery and assure that the derivative plaintiffs received the same
  • that Wolf Haldenstein was permitted by co-lead counsel to intervene,
  • annexed as Exhibit A hereto, at 83-84), while Greenfield was kept in the dark.
  • Th.e Monhait Memo feigns great offense at the idea that Krim's complaint should be a copy
  • facts to ascertain that the allegations in its complaints are viable and applicable to its
  • Thle copy-cat practice alluded to above is illustrated by the Sybase securities litigation
  • stipulation of settlement was provided to Wolf Haldenstein.
  • Another example of a copy-cat complaint involves the Tenneco litigation in the U.S.
  • and the Affidavit of Bruce Gerstein in support of same.
  • Even a cursory glance at the time records of the various firms (copies of which Greenfield
  • Exhibit B hereto, selected entries from time records of Wolf Haldenstein;

  • 7 . JOINT OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED ALLOCATOIN OF ATTORNEYS FEES

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    GARWIN BRONZAFT
    COURT
    SETTLEMENT
    ROME
    FEES
    YORK
    SHARES
    SANDERS
    ALLOCATION
    WOLF HALDENSTEIN
    DISTRICT
    JUDGEMENT
    ATTORNEYS
    LAW
    FIRMS
    DEFENDANTS
    LITIGATION
    CONNECTION
    KRASNER AFF
    PROSECUTION
    COMMON STOCK
    LLP
    FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS
    JUDGE PLATT
    EASTERN DISTRICT
    CONSOLIDATION
    AFFIDAVITS
    GREENFIELD
    SUBSTANTIALL
    
    207197
    
                      IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                                           IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    LISA SANDERS,
    
                                   Plaintiff,
    
    V.
                                                                             ii
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY KUMAR, RUSSELL                                   ) Civil Action No. 16640
                                                                             ) Civil Action No. 16640 J
                                                                                                       
    M ARTZT, WILLEM F.P. deVOGEL, RICHARD A.                                 11
    GRASSO, IRVING GOLDSTEIN, and SHIRLEY                                    11
    STRUM KENNY,
                                                                                                       
                                   Defendants,
    
                                                                                                       
    
    
    
    
    
    COMPUT:ER  ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
    
                                   Nominal Defendant.                        ; JOINT OBJECTION TO THE
    ___________-_____--_________I___________-----------------------------    ) PROPOSED ALLOCATION OF
    EDWARD BICKEL, derivatively on behalf of                                 ) ATTORNEYS' FEES BY BLANK
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC., ) ROME AND GARWIN BRONZAFT
                                                                             1
                                   Plaintiff,
                                                                             i
    V.
                                                                             j'
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY KUMAR, RUSSEL M. )
    ARTZT, WILLEM F.P. de VOGEL, IRVING
    GOLDSTEIN, and RICHARD A. GRASSO,                                        ;
    
                                   Defendants,                               i
    
    and                                                                      i1
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.                                  )
    
                                   Nominal Defendant.                        i) Civil Actl.on No. 98 CV
    ___--____---____---_------------------------~-------------~----------
    b-NITED  STATES DISTRICT COURT                                           i
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • ___________-_____--_________I___________-----------------------------) PROPOSED ALLOCATION OF
  • COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,) ROME AND GARWIN BRONZAFT
  • By Order and Final Judgment entered on June 22, 2000, the Court, inter alia, awarded
  • attorneys' fees in connection with the prosecution an'd settlement of the above-captioned
  • and federal actions in the amount of 900,000 shares of the common stock of Computer Associates
  • The law firms of B'lank Rome Tenzer Greenblatt
  • Freeman & Herz LLP ("Wolf Haldenstein") and 40,000 shares to Chimicles & Tikellis LLP
  • As discussed below and in the affidavits of the attorneys
  • contributions to the prosecution and settlement of both the Delaware and federal derivative
  • District of New York before Judge Platt contributed only "nominally to settlement."
  • Indeed, defendants indicated that they would not settle,
  • Only in connection with the fee allocation did Garwin
  • Eastern District of New York.
  • Section 20A of the Exchange Act, and breach of Delaware state law liduciarv duties.
  • Associates' common stock, and other breaches of duty, in order to allow executives of the
  • On August 7,1998, Fred Isquith, a senior litigation partner of Wolf Haldenstein, was
  • From the institution of the federal proceedings to the l"Iling of the Federal Derivative
  • Chancery on behalf of Lisa Sanders, which duplicated some of the claims asserted earlier in
  • (& Krasner Aff.
  • Greenfield, an attorney who had filed a case well after consolidation of the four cases in
  • substantiall involvement and responsibility for the intervention into

  • 8 . RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MEMORANDUM REGARDING ALLOCATION OF FEES

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COUNSEL
    FEE
    COURT
    PLAINTIFFS
    ALLOCATION
    COMPLAINT
    FIRM
    DELAWARE PLAINTIFFS
    DISTRICT COURT
    REQUEST
    MEMORANDUM
    GERSTEIN
    UNGER
    YORK
    HARVEY GREENFIELD
    SETTLEMENT
    LITIGATION
    ASSERTION
    MAGISTRATE
    JERRY KRIM
    HERETO
    MORRIS
    DISMISSING
    DEFAMATORY
    EXPENSES
    AFFIDAVIT
    AWARD
    CONFER
    INFORMED GREENFIELD
    
                IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELA
                                       IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    LISA SANDERS,
    
                                           Plaintiff,
                                                                                ;
    V.
                                                                                ;
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY  KUMAR, RUSSELL )                                         Civil Action No.
    M. ARTZT, WILLEM  F.P. (de VOGEL, RICHARD                                   )
    A. GRASSO, IRVING GOLl>STEIN, and SHIRLEY                                   )
    STRUM KENNY >
                                                                                ;
                                           Defendants,
                                                                                ;
    and                                                                         ))
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,  )
    
                                           Nominal Defendant I                  ;
    _______________-____-----~.-------~-___________________________________
    EDWARD BICKEL, derivatkely on behalf of                                     ;
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATE3 INTERNATIONAL, INC.,  )
    
                                           Plaintiff,                           i)
     V.
                                                                                ;
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY KUMAR, RUSSELL )
    M. ARTZT, WILLEM  F.P. de VOGEL, IRVING                                                            
    GOLDSTEIN, and RICHAF!D A. GRASSO,                                          i                      
                                                                                >
                                           Defendants,
                                                                                ;
    and
                                                                                ;
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,  ))
                                           Nominal Defendant.
    ________________-___------------~~--------------------------~~.-------- i
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
    ___________-________-----~-------.~________-_____________----~~.--------     >
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.  )                                        Civil Action No.
    DERIVATIVE LITIGATION                                                             98 CV 4961 (TCP)
    ___-_-______________-----~___-___._~_-___________________----~~.--------
    
    
    
                        RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MEMORANDUM
                   REGARDING ALLOCATION OF FEES, AND MOTION FOR
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELA
  • COURT-DETEXMINED FEE ALLOCATION AND DAMAGES
  • COMES NOW Harvey Greenfield, head of the Law Firm of Harvey
  • Greenfield, counsel to plaintiff Jerry Krim herein, and hereby submits is response in
  • to the fee allocations set fiorth in the Memorandum In Re Computer Associates Derivative
  • Litigation Regarding Allocation of Fees, filed by Garwin, Bronzaft, Gerstein
  • annexed hereto as Elxhibit A is a biography of Greenfield and his
  • Delaware Plaintiffs' Counsel have made no allocation whatsoever
  • before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ("E.D.N.Y.
  • The complaint of plalintiff Jerry Krim was timely brought in the District Court in January
  • so it was forwarded to Irving Morris of the law firm Morris and Morris in
  • The assertion that Krim filed a state claim in federal court is incorrect.
  • Court and before a magistrate in the E.D.N.Y.
  • of dismissing the complaint in the E.D.N.Y.
  • Greenfield's application represents actual time and expenses incurred,
  • Counsel to suggest otherwise: iis defamatory.
  • lbut his request was rejected.
  • but chose instead to attack it collaterally after the Settlement hearing
  • Greenfield Affidavit and the comments by Greenfield at the hearing in the E.D.
  • Greenfield was in touch with Martin Unger of Blank Rome Tenzer Greenblatt, LLP, who said
  • he was going to confer with Bruce Gerstein as to the allocation of fees.
  • counsel to defendants informed Greenfield that he had
  • Delaware Plaintiffs' Counsel wanted to award Greenfield a fee similar to that proposed to

  • 9 . ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    SETTLEMENT
    SHAREHOLDERS
    COURT
    DERIVATIVE ACTION
    DIRECTORS
    AFFILIATES
    ATTORNEYS
    HEREBY
    ADMINISTRATORS
    PLAINTIFFS
    HEIRS
    SUCCESSORS
    BANKERS
    JUDGEMENT
    LAW
    DEFENDANTS
    PARTIES
    REPRESENTATIVES
    ASSERTION
    DISMISSES
    EXECUTORS
    OFFICERS
    SCHEDULING
    PROVIDERS
    PREJUDICE
    PARENTS
    SUBSIDIARIES
    LIMITED PARTNERS
    SHARES
    
               IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                              IN A.ND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY                                 "'  _  ,-`.\
                                                                                            I,
                                                                                      c-y;          .::
                                                                                      _-
                                                              X
    LISA SANDERS,                                                                     2:.            `-.
                                                                                                     i
                                                                                                     -_
                                                                                        - ,'
                                        Plaintiff,
    
                                 V.
    
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY KUMAR, RUSSEL M. :
    ARTZT,  WILLEM  F.P. de VOGEL, RICHARD A.                  :
    GRASSO, IRVING GOLDSTEIN, and SHIRLEY                      :
    STRUM KENNY,
    
                                        Defendant,
                                                               : CA No. 16640
    and
    
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,  i
    
                                        Nominal
                                        Defendant.
    
                                                               X
    EDWARD BICKEL, derivatively on behalf of
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC., :
    
                                        Plaintiff,
    
                                 v.
    
    CHARLES B. WANG,  SANJ.AY KUMAR, RUSSEL M. :
    ARTZT,  WILLEM  F.P. de VOGEL, IRVING
    GOLDSTEIN and RICHARD A.  GRASSO,
    
                                        Defendants,
    
    and
    
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC., :
    
    Nominal Defendant.
    
                                                               X
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • The Stipulation of Settlement dated March 3 1, 2000, providing
  • "Scheduling Order"), which Stipulation was joined and consented to by all parties to the
  • Court having determined that notice of the hearing was given in accordance with the Scheduling
  • and the attorneys for the respective parties having been heard in support of the Settlement
  • IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, thi&ay of June,
  • shareholders of Computer Associates, pursuant to and in the manner directed by the Scheduling
  • and due process of law, and it is further determined that all shareholders of Computer
  • are bound by the Order and Final Judgment herein.
  • The Court finds that plaintiffs and their counsel have adequately represented
  • assigns, present or former directors, officers, agents, employees, attorneys,
  • accountants, representatives, advisers, investment bankers, commercial
  • bankers, trustees, parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, general or limited
  • Derivative Action,
  • issue additional shares under the KESOP or cause the return of shares
  • subsidiaries), general or limited partners, partnerships, shareholders, heirs,
  • executors, personal representatives, estates, administrators, successors,
  • assignees and insurance providers,
  • compromised, settled, released and dismissed with prejudice.
  • Defendants, and their respective affiliates,
  • or by reason of the institution, maintenance, prosecution, assertion or
  • and nothing herein dismisses or releases any claim by or against

  • 10 . PLAINTIFFS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    FEES
    SETTLEMENT
    COURT
    DEFENDANTS
    YORK
    DELAWARE
    BICKEL
    AWARD
    ATTORNEYS
    EXPENSES
    DERIVATIVE ACTIONS
    SANDERS
    DEL
    SANJAY KUMAR
    WANG
    NOMINAL DEFENDANT
    EDWARD BICKEL
    IRVING GOLDSTEIN
    SHAREHOLDERS LITIG
    PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
    LLP
    LITIGATION
    KESOP
    LISA SANDERS
    STOCK DIVIDENDS
    CLASS ACTIONS
    DIRECTORS
    REIMBURSEMENT
    WILMINGTON
    
                    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                                      IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------~
    LISA SANDERS,
    
                                Plaintiff,
                                                                      : Civil Action No. 16640
             V.
    
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY KUMAR,                                    :
    RUSSELL M. ARTZT,  WILLEM F.P.
    de VOGEL, RICHARD A.  GRASSO,
    IRVING GOLDSTEIN and SHIRLEY STRUM                                I
    KENNY,
                                Defendants,
              -and-
    
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL,  1
    INC.,
                                Nominal Defendant. :
    -------------------------------------------------------------~
    EDWARD BICKEL, derivatively on
    behalf of COMPUTER ASSOCIATES
    INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
                                Plaintiff,
    
              V.
    
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY KUMAR,
    RUSSELL M. ARTZT,  WILLEM F.P.
    DE VOGEL, IRVING GOLDSTEIN, and
    RICHARD A. GRASSO,
    
                                Defendants,
              -and-
    
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL,  :
    INC.,
                                Nominal Defendant, :
    -------------------------------------------------------------~
    
             PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT,
             AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
    
    
    
    ROSENTHAL,  MONHAlT, GROSS  & GODDESS, P.A.
    Norman M. Monhait
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • Defendants, -and-COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, 1 INC.,
  • Nominal Defendant.
  • EDWARD BICKEL, derivatively on behalf of COMPUTER ASSOCIATES
  • PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND
  • Wilmington, Delaware 19899
  • BLANK ROME COMISKY & MCCAULEY LLP
  • New York, New York 10174
  • Attorneys for Plaintiff Lisa Sanders
  • Edward Bickel in the Del.aware Derivative Actions
  • Braunschweiger v. American Home Shield Corp., Del.
  • In Re Corporate Software Inc. Shareholders Litig.,
  • In Re Pepsico Securities Litigation,
  • In addition to challenging the grants of KESOP shares,
  • Computer Associates' independent directors,
  • behalf of Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Charles B. Wang, Sanjay Kumar, Russell
  • MY Artzt, Willem F.P. de Vogel, Irving Goldstein, Richard A. Grass0 and Shirley Strum Kenny
  • Artzt to reflect three stock dividends implemented after the adoption of the KESOP.
  • (the "Securities Class Actions")

  • 11 . ORDER

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DEFENDANTS
    DISPUTED SHARES
    COURT
    CERTIFICATES
    PLAINTIFF
    JUDGEMENT
    PURSUANT
    CANCELLING
    DELAWARE
    MOTION
    PLEADINGS
    KESOP
    WANG
    KUMAR
    ARTZT
    SUPREME COURT
    APPEALS
    VOID
    SANDERS
    DISMISS
    OPINION
    PARAGRAPH
    CERTIFICATES EVIDENCING
    DIRECTING
    ISSUANCE
    SUCCESSOR
    RUSSELL
    STOCK
    DESTRUCTION
    
                      IN THE COURT OF  CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                                             IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------~---~
    LISA SANDERS,
                                      Plaintiff,
    
               V. : Civil Action No. 16640
    
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY  KUMAR., :
    RUSSELL M. ARTZT,  WILLEM F.P.
    de VOGEL, RICHARD A. GRASSO,
    IRVING GOLDSTEIN and SHIRLEY STRUM                                              I
    KENNY,
                                      Defendants.
    
               and
    
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL :
    INC.,
    
                                     Nominal Defendant. :
    
    ----------------------------------------------------~---------~
    EDWARD BICKEL, derivatively on
    behalf of COMPUTER ASSOCIATES
    INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
    
                                      Plaintiff,
               V .
    
    
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY  KT_JMAR,                                               :
    RUSSELL M. ARTZT,  WILLEM F.P.
    de VOGEL, IRVING GOLDSTEIN
    and RICHARD A. GRASSO,
    
                                     Defendants.
    
               and
    
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL :
    INC.,
                                     Nominal Defendant. :
    
    
    
                                                !3RDER
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • RUSSELL M. ARTZT, WILLEM F.P. de VOGEL, IRVING GOLDSTEIN and RICHARD A. GRASSO,
  • To Dismiss Plaintiff Sanders' Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Lisa Sanders' Motion For Judgment
  • On The Pleadings, Defendants' Moti.on For Judgment On The Pleadings And/Or To Dismiss
  • The Court having issued its M8emorandum Opinion dated November 8,
  • Bickel's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted to the extent set forth in this
  • Judgment is entered for plaintiffs cancelling 9.5 million shares of the common stock of CA
  • to defendants Wang, Kumar and Artzt pursuant to the CA 1995 Key Employee Stock Ownership
  • KESOP to defendant Sanjay Kumar shall be cancelled and be null and void.
  • Each of these defendants shall forthwith return to CA for destruction the certificates
  • Pending the earlier of the issuance of the mandate of the Delaware Supreme
  • Court in connection with defendants' and Iplaintiff Bickel's appeals from the Opinion and this
  • directing the Participants to render an accounting, shall be, and hereby are, stayed.
  • (the "Kumar Disputed Shares")
  • 03 To the extent the Participants (or any successor in interest to the Disputed
  • Upon the issuance of the mandate of the Delaware Supreme Court in connection

  • 12 . MEMORANDUM OPINION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DEFENDANTS
    SHARES
    PLAN
    COURT
    YORK
    SHAREHOLDERS
    GRANT
    DELAWARE
    STOCK
    PROVISION
    SANDERS
    CONTRACT
    AWARD
    DIRECTORS
    JUDGEMENT
    KESOP
    INTERPRETATION
    AUTHORITY
    AUTHORIZE
    CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST
    STOCK SPLITS
    PLEADINGS
    WILMINGTON
    ATTORNEYS
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    COMPENSATION COMMITTEE
    EXCESS SHARES
    LISA SANDERS
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    
             IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                                     IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
     LISA SANDERS,
    
                       Plaintiff,
    
     V.
    
     CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY KUMAR,
    RUSSELL M. ARTZT,  WILLEM F.P.
    de VOGEL, RICHARD A. GRASSO,
    IRVING GOLDSTEIN  and SHIRLEY                                    >
    STRUM KENNY,                                                     >>
                       Defendants,                                  )>
    and                                                             )  C.A.  No. 16640
                                                                    >
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES                                             >
    INTERNATIONAL,  INC.,
    
                      Nominal Defendant.                           >
    __-___----------__------------------------------------
    EDWARD BICKEL, derivatively on                                 >
    behalf of COMPUTER ASSOCIATES                                  >
    INTERNATIONAL,  INC.,                                      >>
                      Plaintiff,                               1>
    V.                                                         >>
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY  KUMAR,                            >
    RUSSELL M. ARTZT,  WILLEM F.P.                            >
    de VOGEL, IRVING GOLDSTEIN, and                           >
    RICHARD A. GRASSO,                                        1>
                      Defendants,                             1>
    and                                                       >>
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES                                       >
    INTERNATIONAL,  INC.,                                     >>
                     Nominal Defendant.                       >
    
    
    
                               Submitted: August 4, 1999
                              Decided: November 8, 1999
    
                              MEMORANDUM OPINION
    
    Pamela S. Tikellis, James C. Strum and Robert J. Kriner of Chimicles & Tikellis,
    Wilmington, DE 19899. OF COUNSEL: Scott Fisher of Garwin, Bonzaft,
    Gerstein & Fisher, New York, New York. Attorneys for Plaintiff Edward Bickel.
    
    Norman M. Monhait of Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross  & Goddess, Wilmington,
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • Scott Fisher of Garwin, Bonzaft, Gerstein & Fisher, New York, New York.
  • Attorneys for Plaintiff Edward Bickel.
  • Norman M. Monhait of Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess, Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Attorneys for Plaintiff Lisa Sanders.
  • Attorneys for Defendants Charles B. Wang, Sanjay Kumar and Russell M. Artzt.
  • Can a board of directors rely upon its purported discretion to
  • Where an employee stock ownership plan contains a clear,
  • limitation on the total number of shares authorized, the board of directors may not
  • exceed this limit based upon a general provision that does nothing more than grant
  • waste of corporate assets and a breach of fiduciary duty.
  • Where the pleadings establish with certainty that a stock plan did
  • they undisputedly did award, is it appropriate that plaintiffs be granted judgment on the
  • constructive trust over persons receiving any benefit flowing from that award; damages
  • not authorize defendant directors to award the amount of shares that they actually
  • The plaintiffs, shareholders of Computer Associates International, Inc.
  • under the 1995 Key Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("KESOP" or the `plan").
  • The Plan is administered by the Compensation Committee of the
  • for stock splits or any other recapitalization transactions.
  • undisputed facts that the CA board exceeded its authority which alone warrants
  • Because plaintiffs disagree over how many excess shares were
  • The plaintiffs are entitled to a limited judgment on the contract interpretation
  • with this Memorandum Opinion.

  • 13 . SANDERS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAN
    PLAIN LANGUAGE
    ARTZT
    INTERPRETATION
    STOCK
    YORK
    SHARES
    PRICE
    PLAINTIFF
    LISA SANDERS
    STOCKHOLDERS
    SHAREHOLDERS
    VESTING PRICE
    AWARD
    DEFENDANTS WANG
    KUMAR
    AUTHORIZES
    COMMON STOCK
    PROVISION
    PROXY STATEMENT
    DIRECTORS
    WILMINGTON
    DELAWARE
    TENZER GREENBLATT LLP
    CHRYSLER BUILDING
    GEORGE
    LINCK
    ATTORNEYS
    STRAINED INTERPRETATION
    
                    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE            /o
                              IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY                     Ip0
    __-_--_-_---------_----.-----~-----           X
    LISA SANDERS,                                 :
                                                  :
                           Plaintiff,                  Civil Action No. 16640
             V .
    
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY KUMAR,                :
    RUSSELL M. ARTZT, WILLEM F.P.                 :
    de VOGEL, RICHARD A. GRASSO,
    IRVING GOLDSTEIN and SHIRLEY STRUM
    KENNY,                Defendants,             :
                                                  :
             -and-                                :
                                                  :
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL,            :
    INC.,
    
                          Nominal Defendant.      :
    
    --------------------------------------x            PLAINTIFF SANDERS'
                                                       REPLY BRIEF
    EDWARD BICKEL, derivatively on                     IN SUPPORT OF HER
    behalf of COMPUTER ASSOCIATES                      MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON
    INTERNATIONAL, INC.,                          :    THE PLEADINGS AND IN
                                                       OPPOSITION TO
                          Plaintiff,              :    DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
                                                       JUDGMENT ON THE
             V .                                       PLEADINGS AND TO DISMISS
    
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY KUMAR,                :
    RUSSELL M. ARTZT, WILLEM F.P.
    DE VOGEL, IRVING GOLDSTEIN, AND
    RICHARD A. GRASSO,
    
                          Defendants,             :
    
             -and-
    
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL,            :
    INC.,
    
                          Nominal Defendant.
    --------------------------------------x
    
    
    
                      Norman Monhait
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Wilmington, Delaware 19899
  • TENZER GREENBLATT LLP
  • The Chrysler Building
  • New York, New York 10174
  • GEORGE H. LINCK
  • Attorneys for Plaintiff
  • Defendants' Strained Interpretation of The
  • Plan Is Unreasonable In Any Event
  • The Plain Language of the 1995 Plan Is
  • The 1995 Plan, as approved by the CA stockholders,
  • authorized to grant up to 6,000,OOO shares of Common Stock" to
  • defendants Wang, Kumar and Artzt (1995 Plan, Section 3.1;
  • 1995 Plan a provision for stock splits will l'frustrate" its
  • participants a potentially unlimited number of shares so long as
  • at the expense of CA shareholders, not, as defendants claim,
  • announcement of the vesting windfall to defendants Wang, Kumar
  • range as much as 40% below the market price at that time,
  • either the 1995 Plan or the Proxy Statement describing the 1995
  • mentions nor l'intends't any such dollar based award (see pp. 5-6,
  • Section 4.3.1 provides for a $131 vesting price and Section 4.3.3 provides for a $75 vesting
  • Section 3.1 of the 1995 Plan authorizes the grant of
  • disclosed that there were 5 such directors,
  • plaintiff Lisa Sanders respectfully requests

  • 14 . BICKELS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFF
    COURT
    PLAN
    SHARES
    STOCK SPLITS
    BICKEL
    SANDERS
    CONTRACT
    PROVISION
    PARTIES
    INTERPRETATION
    LANGUAGE
    JUDGEMENT
    AUTHORIZED SHARES
    MOTIONS
    COMMITTEE
    STOCK PRICE
    PLEADINGS
    AUTHORITIES
    BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE
    DOLLAR BENEFIT
    AGREEMENT
    REVERSE STOCK SPLIT
    WILLEM
    VOGEL
    IRVING GOLDSTEIN
    RICHARD
    GRASSO
    NOMINAL DEFENDANT
    
                      IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                                     IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    LISA SANDERS,
                                       Plaintiff,
             -against-
    
    CHARLES B WANG, SANJAY KUMAR,
    RUSSELL M. ARTZT, WILLEM F.P.
    DE VOGEL, IRVING GOLDSTEIN, and
    RICHARD A. GRASSO,
                                       Defendants,
             -and-
    
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES
    INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
                                       Nominal Defendant. :
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    EDWARD BICKEL, derivatively on behalf of                      :
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, :
    INC.,
    
                                       Plaintiff,
    
             -against-
    
    CHARLES B WANG, SANJAY KUMAR,                                 :
    RUSSELL M. ARTZT, WILLEM F.P.
    DE VOGEL, IRVING GOLDSTEIN, and
    RICHARD A. GRASSO,
                                       Defendants,
             -and-
    
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES
    INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
                                       Nominal Defendant. I
    
    
                      PLAINTIFF EDWARD BICKEL'S REPLY BRIEF IN FURTHER
               SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
    
    
    
                                                                                                  
    
    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii
    
    I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . .
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • LISA SANDERS,
  • Plaintiff, -against-CHARLES B WANG, SANJAY KUMAR, RUSSELL M. ARTZT, WILLEM F.P. DE VOGEL,
  • Defendants, -and-COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
  • Nominal Defendant.
  • ---------------------------------------------------------------EDWARD BICKEL, derivatively on
  • PLAINTIFF EDWARD BICKEL'S REPLY BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
  • TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.
  • The Committee Violated Clear And Unambiguous Provisions Of The Plan By
  • Increasing The Number Of Shares To Account For Stock Splits.
  • Defendants' Reverse Stock Split Hypothetical Does Not Justify Defendants'
  • Efforts To Amend The Plan Under The Guise Of Interpretation.

  • 15 . DEFENDANTS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTIONS AND ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFFS
    AWARD
    PLAN
    DEFENDANTS
    YORK
    COURT
    ECONOMIC TERMS
    APP
    DIV
    SHARES
    DIRECTORS
    INTERPRETATION
    SHAREHOLDERS
    STOCK SPLITS
    AMDUR
    COMPENSATION COMMITTEE
    LIABILITY
    AGREEMENT
    COMPLAINT
    CITATIONS
    STOCK OPTION
    PLEADINGS
    ZAUDERER
    ELLENHORN
    FRISCHER
    SHARP
    EXEMPT
    CROMWELL TOWERS REDEVELOPMENT
    DEBROSSARD
    
                   IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                             IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    LISA SANDERS,                               )
    
                         Plaintiff,             11
             V.                                 )
                                                )
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY KUMAR,              )
    RUSSELL M. ARTZT, WILLEM F.P.               1
    de VOGEL, RICHARD A. GRASSO,                1
    IRVING GOLDSTEIN and SHIRLEY STRUM )
    KENNY,                                      )
    
                         Defendants,            ;civil Action No. 16640
                                                )
             -and-                              ))
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, )
    INC.,                                       1
                         Nominal Defendant. )
    -----------_----------------------          )
    EDWARD BICKEL, derivatively on              ) DEFENDANTS' REPLY BRIEF
    behalf of COMPUTER ASSOCIATES               ) IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS'
    INTERNATIONAL, INC.,                        ) MOTIONS AND ANSWERING BRIEF
                                                ) IN OPPOSITION TO BOTH
                          Plaintiff,            ) PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS
                                                )
             V.                                 )
                                                1
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY KUMAR,              1
    RUSSELL M. ARTZT, WILLEM F.P.
    DE VOGEL, IRVING GOLDSTEIN, AND             1
    RICHARD A. GRASSO,                          )1
                          Defendants,           ))
             -and-                              ))
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, )
    INC.,                                       )
    
                          Nominal Defendant.
    
    
    
                                                                          2.
    
    
                                     MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
                                     Alan J. Stone
                                     Jessica Zeldin
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • New York, New York 10019
  • SOLOMON, ZAUDERER, ELLENHORN, FRISCHER & SHARP
  • The 1995 Plan's Economic Terms Were
  • The Stock Award Did Not Violate The
  • THE DIRECTORS ARE EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY BY
  • IN ALL EVENTS, PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT ENTITLED
  • App.
  • Div.
  • In re General Motors Class H Shareholders Litiq.,
  • TABLE OF CITATIONS
  • the 1995 Plan awarded only 6,000,OOO shares, while at the same
  • because of stock splits designed to benefit all of CA's
  • basis for concluding that the Compensation Committee is
  • Judgment on the Pleadings, etc. at 6 & n.4)
  • interpretation that upholds the economic terms of the 1995 Plan,
  • they argue that defendants and this Court must
  • (rejecting proposition that language contained in one agreement but omitted in another is
  • ; Cromwell Towers Redevelopment Co. v. City of Yonkers, 359 N.E.2d 333, 337 (N.Y.
  • ; deBrossard v. Van Norden, 495 N.Y.S.2d 369, 372 (N.Y.
  • provision of stock option plan where broader construction "was
  • Amdur v. Meyer, 224 N.Y.S.2d 440, 442 (N.Y.
  • Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint

  • 16 . DEFENDANTS OPENING BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    SHARES
    BICKEL
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    INTERPRETATION
    PLAINTIFF
    DEFENDANTS
    SANDERS
    DISMISS
    COMPENSATION COMMITTEE
    OPENING
    AUTHORITY
    SHAREHOLDERS
    JUDGEMENT
    ALLEGES
    DEMAND
    COURT
    YORK
    READING
    MOTION
    INTERVENTION
    PLEADINGS
    STOCK SPLITS
    DEL
    SUPPORT
    CONTRACT
    RATIONALE
    ADJUSTMENTS
    BREACH
    DUTY
    
                                                                               I
                                                        ,,l".'  "
    
                                                         : /              ,
    
    
                    THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                             IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    LISA SANDERS,
    
                         Plaintiff,          ))
             V .                             )     Civil Action No. 16640
                                             )
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY KUMAR,           )
    RUSSELL M. ARTZT, WILLEM F.P.
    de VOGEL, RICHARD A. GRASSO,             1
    IRVING GOLDSTEIN and SHIRLEY STRUM )
    KENNY,                                   ))
                         Defendants,         ))
             -and-                           ))
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, )
    INC.,                                    )
                         Nominal Defendant. )
    ---------------------------------- )           DEFENDANTS' OPENING BRIEF
    EDWARD BICKEL, derivatively on           )     IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
    behalf of COMPUTER ASSOCIATES            )     MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON
    INTERNATIONAL, INC.,                     )     THE PLEADINGS AND/OR
                                             )     MOTION TO DISMISS
                         Plaintiff,          )     PLAINTIFF BICKEL'S
                                             )     AMENDED COMPLAINT
             V .                             )
                                             )
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY KUMAR,           )
    RUSSELL M. ARTZT, WILLEM F.P.            )
    DE VOGEL, IRVING GOLDSTEIN, AND          )
    RICHARD A. GRASSO,                       ))
                         Defendants,         11
             -and-                           ))
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, )
    INC.,
                                             ;
                         Nominal Defendant. )
    
    
    
                                     MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
                                     Alan J. Stone
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • New York, New York 10019
  • PLAINTIFF BICKEL'S AMENDED COMPLAINT SHOULD
  • The 1995 Plan Only Reinforces His
  • Arbitrary Interpretation And Does Not
  • Decision To Issue The Shares Was Not
  • In re General Motors Class H Shareholders Litiq., Del.
  • On September 15, 1998, plaintiff Lisa Sanders filed
  • Bickel filed a Complaint in Intervention.
  • February 23 joint motion for judgment on the pleadings and/or to
  • On March 2, 1999, defendants jointly filed their Opening Brief
  • to Dismiss Plaintiff Sanders' Amended Complaint ("Opening Brief"
  • the Bickel Amended Complaint alleges
  • brief in support of those motions.
  • shareholders authorized the Compensation Committee to
  • reading of the Plan, which would reduce by at least one half the
  • law or New York contract law.
  • Committee the authority to interpret and administer the Plan,
  • calling for stock split adjustments to maintain the economic
  • And they offer no explanation or rationale why anyone
  • intervening stock splits.
  • of Chancery Rule 23.1 and Aronson v. Lewis to establish demand
  • is excused because the Participants breached their duty of
  • claim for breach of duty or establish that demand is excused by

  • 17 . ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    KESOP
    DENY
    DIRECTORS
    COURT
    ADMIT
    STOCK
    PLAN
    RESPECTFULLY REFER
    PLAINTIFF
    DEFENDANTS
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    COMMITTEE
    SHARES
    SHAREHOLDERS
    VOGEL
    AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    PURSUANT
    LAW
    OFFICER
    COMMON STOCK
    MEMBER
    AWARD
    PROXY
    GRASSO
    IRVING GOLDSTEIN
    YORK
    COMPENSATION
    RESPONSIVE PLEADING
    CERTIFICATE
    
                    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                              IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    LISA SANDERS,
    
                           Plaintiff,
    
             V .                                  Civil Action No. 16640
    
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY KUMAR,
    RUSSELL M. ARTZT, WILLEM F.P.
    de VOGEL, RICHARD A. GRASSO,
    IRVING GOLDSTEIN and SHIRLEY STRUM
    KENNY,
    
                           Defendants,
    
             -and-
    
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL,
    INC.,
                      Nominal Defendant.          ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS
    ----------------------------------            WILLEM F.P. DE VOGEL,
    EDWARD BICKEL, derivatively on                 IRVING GOLDSTEIN,
    behalf of COMPUTER ASSOCIATES                 RICHARD A. GRASSO, AND
    INTERNATIONAL, INC.,                          COMPUTER ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                  TO PLAINTIFF BICKEL'S
                           Plaintiff,             AMENDED COMPLAINT
                                                   IN INTERVENTION
             V .
    
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY KUMAR,
    RUSSELL M. ARTZT, WILLEM F.P.
    DE VOGEL, IRVING GOLDSTEIN, AND
    RICHARD A. GRASSO,
    
                           Defendants,
    
             -and-
    
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL,
    INC.,
    
                           Nominal Defendant.
    
    
    
                   Defendants Willem F.P. de Vogel, Irving Goldstein,
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • IRVING GOLDSTEIN and SHIRLEY STRUM
  • Defendants,
  • CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY KUMAR, RUSSELL M. ARTZT, WILLEM F.P. DE VOGEL, IRVING GOLDSTEIN, AND
  • Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form
  • paragraph 2, except admit that plaintiff purports to bring this
  • public offering of common stock in December 1981;
  • common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the
  • Committee (the "Compensation Committee"), comprised of Messrs.
  • and administer CA's 1995 Key Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the
  • and respectfully refer the Court to the 1995
  • KESOP for its contents.
  • Officer of CA; is the Chairman of CA's Board of Directors;
  • recipient of an award of shares of CA's common stock issued
  • pursuant to the 1995 KESOP;
  • is a member of CA's Board of
  • shareholders; and do not respond to the conclusions of law set
  • as to which no responsive pleading is
  • except do not respond to the conclusions of law set
  • July 6, 1995 (the "1995 Proxy"), CA asked its shareholders to
  • the Amended Complaint; and respectfully refer the Court to the
  • SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
  • A copy of the Certificate of Amendment of CA's

  • 18 . ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PARAGRAPH
    DENY
    ADMIT
    DIRECTORS
    STOCK
    COURT
    PLAINTIFF
    DEFENDANTS
    RESPECTFULLY REFER
    MEMBER
    COMMITTEE
    ARTZT
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    WANG
    KUMAR
    INTERVENTION
    SHARES
    PURSUANT
    COMPENSATION
    COMMON STOCK
    SHAREHOLDERS
    PROXY STATEMENT
    VOGEL
    GOLDSTEIN
    LAW SET
    OFFICER
    RESPONSIVE PLEADING
    REASONS
    CERTIFY
    
                             IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------x                                1:
    LISA SANDERS,                                                        : Civil Action No. 16640
    
                             Plaintiff
    
             - against -
    
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY KUMAR,
    RUSSELL M. ARTZT, WILLEM F.P. DE
    VOGEL, RICHARD A. GRASSO, IRVING
    GOLDSTEIN and SHIRLEY STRUM KENNY,
    
                             Defendants,
    
             -and-
    
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL,                                   :
    INC.,
    
                             Nominal Defendant.
    
    
    EDWARD BICKEL, derivatively on behalf of                             :
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL,                                   :
    INC.,
    
                             Plaintiff,
    
             - against -
    
    CHARLES B. WANG, SANJAY KUMAR,                                       :
    RUSSELL M. ARTZT, WILLEM F.P. DE
    VOGEL, IRVING GOLDSTEIN, and RICHARD                                 I
    A. GRASSO,
    
                             Defendants,
    
             -and-
    
    COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL,                                   :
    INC.,
    
                             Nominal Defendant.
    ___---___-__________------------------------------------- --w-x
    
                ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS WANG, KUMAR AND ARTZT TO PLAINTIFF
                             BICKEL'S AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • Plaintiff
  • GOLDSTEIN and SHIRLEY STRUM KENNY,
  • Defendants,
  • - against -RUSSELL M. ARTZT,
  • ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS WANG, KUMAR AND ARTZT TO PLAINTIFF
  • Artzt, by their undersigned attorneys, answer the Amended Complaint in Intervention
  • Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 2, except admit that plaintiff
  • that CA compIeted its initial public offering of common stock in December 1981;
  • seven-member Board of Directors is made up of defendants Wang, Kumar, Artzt, de Vogel,
  • CA's Board of Directors has several committees, including the Stock Option and Compensation
  • Committee, comprised of Messrs.
  • Ownership Plan; and respectfully refer the Court to the 1995 Plan for its
  • award of shares of CA's common stock pursuant to the 1995 Plan.
  • is President and Chief Operating Officer of CA; is a member of CA's Executive
  • complied with all of their fiduciary duties to CA and its shareholders; and do not plead to
  • conclusions of law set forth in paragraph 7, as to which no responsive pleading is required.
  • proxy statement dated July 6, 1995 CA asked its shareholders to
  • reasons why such efforts would have been futile, which would excuse demand, as required by
  • I, James L. Holzman, hereby certify that on March 17, 1999 I caused to be
  •    |