LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

RYPAC PACKAGING MACHINERY v COAKLEY Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 16,069, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff: RYPAC PACKAGING MACHINERY, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00016069, Rypac, Coakley, Poges, Commissions, Officer, Sales, Counterclaim, Agreement, Intervening Defendants, Pac, Sales Representatives, Commission, Principals, Stipulation, Osborne, Offset, Packaging Machinery, Expenses, Daniel Coakley, Compete, Resigning, Delaware, Corporate Opportunity, Judgement, Resignation, Motion, Escrow, Employee, Joseph Poges, Subagents, Parties, Dispute, Del, Prior, Grospin, Contracts, Fees, Wage, Duties, Pay, Fiduciary Duty, Funds, Corporate Opportunities, Terminate, Paid , ContentID: 120239803

Case Documents
1 2001-11-15 PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO ENTER A FINAL JUDGMENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 127226
11 pages
PDF
2 2001-01-05 PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103235
5 pages
PDF
3 2000-11-03 DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103236
14 pages
PDF
4 2000-06-30 RESPONSE OF RYPAC PACKAGING AND J. POGES TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103237
6 pages
PDF
5 2000-05-26 MEMORANDUM OPINION (REVISED PAGES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100426
5 pages
PDF
6 2000-05-01 MEMORANDUM OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100427
38 pages
PDF
7 1999-08-30 P. OSBORNE R. WISCHHUSEN AND PENNDEL PACKAGINGS POST-TRIAL BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103697
3 pages
PDF
8 1999-08-30 DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFFS POST-TRIAL BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103238
51 pages
PDF
9 1999-03-01 INC. V. COAKLEY BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103239
11 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 9 documents , 144 pages
Price: $ 59.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO ENTER A FINAL JUDGMENT

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
RYPAC
COMMISSIONS
EXPENSES
MOTION
GROSPIN
ESCROW
DISPUTE
COURT
FUNDS
WAGE COLLECTION
AMOUNTS
POGES
PAY
FEES
COLLECTION ACT
RECOVER
COUNTERCLAIM
JUDGEMENT
PAID
STIPULATION
DEFENDANTS
MONEY
ATTORNEYS
ENTITLEMENT
EMPLOYEE
DEL
CONTROVERSY
EXCEPTIONS
REASONS
                                                                                    ..--.- . . . .
                                                                                   ORIGINAL

             IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

                        IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY


RYPAC PACKAGING
MACHINERY INCORPORATED,

                       Plaintiff and
                       Counterclaim Defendant,
                                                                                        i
       V.                                                                                    /
JOSEPH POGES,
                       Counterclaim-Defendant,     ;
       V.                                                 Civil Action No. 16069-NC  ' :
                                                   >
DANIEL COAKLEY and PACKAGE
AUTOMATION COMPANY,                                ;

                       Defendants and              ,'
                       Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.
                                                   ;
PAUL OSBORNE, ROBERT WISCHHUSEN
and PENNDEL PACKAGING, INC.,                       ;

                       Applicants for
                       Intervention                i

                   PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS'
                    MOTION TO ENTER A FINAL JUDGMENT

                Plaintiff Rypac Packaging Machinery Incorporated ("Rypac") and

Counterclaim Defendant Joseph Poges ("Mr. Poges") hereby respond to the Defendants

And Counterclaim Plaintiffs' Motion to Enter A Final Judgment (the "Motion") as

follows:



        1.      The Motion contends that there "are now only three issues that remain to

resolved by the Court," (Motion fi 1) Rypac and Mr. Poges agree they have no other

issues to be resolved before a final judgment is entered.'
SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • RYPAC PACKAGING MACHINERY INCORPORATED,
  • DANIEL COAKLEY and PACKAGE
  • Counterclaim Defendant Joseph Poges hereby respond to the Defendants
  • And Counterclaim Plaintiffs' Motion to Enter A Final Judgment as
  • THE DISPOSITION OF THE ESCROW FUNDS
  • 2Rypac has acknowledged, through its counsel, that it did not fully comply with the Escrow
  • However its counsel has reviewed the status of all the commissions that were to be escrowed,
  • the amounts involved here are fairly small and the dispute on the expenses should be mediated.
  • 3Rypac has supplied Mr. Coakley with all the Rypac checks used to pay these expenses and the
  • statements in 1997 when they were paid and never objected to the amounts on those
  • received a commission from a sale by Andy Grospin, used that commission money to
  • pay itself back for the Grospin advances, and never told Mr. Coakley or Mr. Grospin
  • Stipulation Regarding Unpaid Commissions requires Mr.
  • THE ATTORNEYS FEE CLAIM
  • Mr. Coakley relies upon 19 Del.
  • Attorneys' Fees Motion.
  • Wage Collection Act, an employee is given certain rights when an employer wrongfully
  • it is a very small portion of this overall controversy and recovery of that amount would
  • Even if Mr. Coakley were entitled to recover something in this case,
  • given that Mr. Poges and Rypac agreed to the entitlement
  • And, while there are some exceptions to this general rule, even those exceptions
  • For the reasons stated,

  • 2 . PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COAKLEY
    COMMISSIONS
    MOTION
    MANUFACTURERS
    ESCROW
    PAID
    REIMBURSEMENT
    PAY
    GROSPIN
    EXPENSES
    DANIEL
    STIPULATION
    PAYMENTS
    RESPONSE
    ESCROW FUNDS
    COURT
    SUBAGENT
    PACKAGING
    POGES
    JUDGEMENT
    AMOUNTS
    DRAWS
    DEDUCTION
    EXHIBIT
    DISPUTE
    PLAINTIFF
    COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANT
    BALANCE
    OBJECTIONS
    
                   IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    RYPAC PACKAGING MACHINERY
    INCORPORATED,
    
                           Plaintiff and
                           Counterclaim-Defendant,
    
    and
    
    JOSEPH POGES,
    
                           Counterclaim-Defendant,
    
             V.                                                Civil Action No. 16069-NC
    
    DANIEL COAKLEY and PACKAGE
    AUTOMATION COMPANY,
    
                           Defendants and
                           Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.
    
    PAUL OSBORNE, ROBERT WISCHHUSEN
    and PENNDEL PACKAGING, INC.,
    
                           Applicants for
                           Intervention
    
                              PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS
                              MOTION TO ENTER A FINAL JUDGMENT
    
             On August 25, 2000, plaintiff, Rypac Packaging Machinery Incorporated ("Rypac") filed a
    
    Motion to Enter a Final Judgment (the "Motion") to implement the decision rendered by the
    
    Court in its May 1, 2000 Memorandum Opinion, Basically, the Motion sought to have the Court
    
    divide the funds still held in escrow in accordance with the Memorandum Opinion and the
    
    Stipulation Regarding Unpaid Commissions (the "Stipulation") the parties had agreed to before
    
    trial
    
    
    
           The Motion sought to divide the Escrow Funds into 3 categories. First, under the
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • RYPAC PACKAGING MACHINERY INCORPORATED,
  • Counterclaim-Defendant,
  • DANIEL COAKLEY and PACKAGE
  • On August 25, 2000, plaintiff, Rypac Packaging Machinery Incorporated filed a
  • Motion to Enter a Final Judgment to implement the decision rendered by the
  • Stipulation Regarding Unpaid Commissions the parties had agreed to before
  • The Motion sought to divide the Escrow Funds into 3 categories.
  • Stipulation certain expenses paid by Rypac were to be reimbursed from the Escrow Funds (the
  • "Expense Reimbursement").
  • pay manufacturers that had withheld payments to Rypac because those manufacturers, in turn,
  • not been paid amounts due them from Dan or Don Coakley (the "Manufacturer Payments").
  • Rypac sought to use Escrow Funds to pay the subagents who had earned commissions paid
  • into the Escrow or to pay Rypac the unclaimed funds that are the balance left in the
  • Coakley then took discovery on the Motion and on November 3, 2000, filed his Response
  • two objections to the Motion: the calculation of the Expense Reimbursement is wrong,
  • subagent, Andy Grospin, before October 1, 1997, and even if the Stipulation does cover
  • Grospin draws were for "Daniel Coakley's territory" and even he does not dispute those draws
  • were too general to allocate to Coakley or Poges alone.
  • `Attached as Exhibit "A" are Coakley's 1997 commission statements which shows these
  • One ofthe most frustrating aspects of this dispute is that Coakley refuses to do any real
  • the only deduction Rypac sought from Daniel Coakley was for the

  • 3 . DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COAKLEY
    COMMISSIONS
    OFFSET
    COURT
    POGES
    STIPULATION
    DEFENDANTS
    COUNTERCLAIM
    DANIEL COAKLEY
    JUDGEMENT
    PLAINTIFF
    SUBAGENTS
    PARTIES
    EXPENSES
    PRIOR
    RYPAC PACKAGING
    SUBSTANTIAL OFFSET
    JOSEPH POGES
    PACKAGE AUTOMATION COMPANY
    CORPORATE EXPENSES
    INTERPRETATION
    ANDY GROSPIN
    TOTAL AMOUNT
    CASTLE COUNTY
    PAUL OSBORNE
    ROBERT
    APPLICANTS
    INTERVENTION
    PRACTICES
    
                   IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                 IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    RYPAC  P.ACKAGING  MACHINERY
    INCORPORATED,
    
                     Plaintiff and
                     Counterclaim-Defendant,
    
    and
    
    JOSEPH POGES,
    
                     Counterclaim-Defendant,
    
    V .                                                 C . A .   N o .   1606'3-NC  :-.-       :
    
    DANIEL COAKLEY and,
    PACKAGE AUTOMATION
    COMPANY,
    
                     Defendants and
                     Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,
    
    PAUL OSBORNE, ROBERT
    WSCHHIJSEN  and PENNDEiL
    PACKAGING, INC.,
    
                     Applicants for Intervention
    
    
                   DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE
                    TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENTER A FINAL JUDGMENT
    
            Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs' Daniel Coakley and Package Automation Company
    
    ("defendants") hereby respond to Plaintiffs motion to enter a final judgment as follows:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    LVC3069.WPD
    
    
    
            1.      Through its motion, plaintiff Rypac Packaging Machinery Incorporated ("Rypac")
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
  • JOSEPH POGES,
  • PAUL OSBORNE, ROBERT
  • Applicants for Intervention
  • DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE
  • TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENTER A FINAL JUDGMENT
  • Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs' Daniel Coakley and Package Automation Company
  • plaintiff Rypac Packaging Machinery Incorporated
  • seeks to have the Court enter a final judgment that would allow it to claim a substantial
  • Rypac seeks is contrary to the stipulation entered into by the parties at trial,
  • the practices of Rypac prior to October 1997,
  • to (commissions earned by Daniel Coakley and his subagents prior to their resignations from
  • Coakley and Andy Grospin respec:tively, in the amount of the total
  • commission minus expenses actually incurred relative to Daniel Coakley's
  • 1997" only modifies "the remaining corporate expenses" and not "expenses actually incurred
  • language is susceptible ofdifferent interpretation is there ambiguity.
  • Would it be fair to say it's the total amount you're seeking as
  • on his counterclaim for unpaid commissions against plaintiff/counterclaim defendants Rypac

  • 4 . RESPONSE OF RYPAC PACKAGING AND J. POGES TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    RYPAC
    FEES
    ATTORNEYS
    COMMISSIONS
    WAGE
    AMOUNT
    FEES MOTION
    FUNDS
    DISPUTE
    WAGE COLLECTION
    COURT
    COLLECTION ACT
    ENTITLEMENT
    ESCROW
    COUNTERCLAIM
    POGES
    RECOVER
    REASONS
    EMPLOYEE
    RYPAC PACKAGING MACHINERY
    DANIEL
    DEPOSIT
    EXCEPTION
    DEL
    CONTROVERSY
    STIPULATION
    ENTRIES
    EXHIBIT
    WITHHOLDING
    
                  IN THE COUl2T  OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    RYPAC PACKAGING MACHINERY
    INCORPORATED,
    
                           Plaintiff and
                           Counterclaim-Defendant,
    
    and
    JOSEPH POGES,                                      >
                           Counterclaim-Defendant,     ;`,
           V..                                                 Civil Action No.:  16.069-NC- _
                                                                               `C  ,,      .*
                                                                                           CI
    DANIEL. COAKLEY and PACKAGE                        i                                   .-._
    AUTOMATION COMPANY,
                                                       ;
                           Defendants and
                           Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.    ;
    
    PAUL OSBORNE, ROBERT WISCHHUSEN                    ;
    and PENNDEL PACKAGING, INC.,
                                                        i
                           Applicants for
                           Intervention
    
                         RESPONSE OF RYPAC PACKAGING MACHINERY
           INCORPORATED AND JOSEPH POGES TO DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIM-
           _ PLAINTIFF  DANIEL  COAKLEY'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES _
    
           Rypac Package Machinery Incorporated ("Rypac") and Joseph Poges ("Mr. Poges")
    
    hereby respond to the Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Daniel Coakley's Motion for Attorneys'
    
    Fees (the "Attorneys' Fees Motion"). For the reasons set forth below, the Attorneys' Fees Motion
    
    should be denied almost in its entirety.
    
    
    
                                                     I.
    
                       BACKGROUND TO THE ATTORNEYS' FEES MOTION
    
           1.      This is an action that arose out of the diversion by Daniel Coakley
    
    ("Mr. Coakley") of commission checks that were otherwise due to Rypac. When in November of
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • RESPONSE OF RYPAC PACKAGING MACHINERY INCORPORATED AND JOSEPH POGES TO
  • Rypac Package Machinery Incorporated and Joseph Poges
  • Fees.
  • For the reasons set forth below, the Attorneys' Fees Motion
  • This is an action that arose out of the diversion by Daniel Coakley
  • Some of those funds were ultimately to be
  • As this Court has already found, Mr. Coakley caused a manufacturer, Hi-Speed
  • deposit of `commission checks into an escrow held by this Court.
  • `There is one exception to this, in that the counterclaim did focus on whether Mr. Coakley
  • it is by no means clear that Mr. Coakley has established an entitlement to
  • Including the amounts diverted by Mr. Coakley to Hi-Speed or himself, the amount of the off
  • While that off set is still in dispute,
  • Mr. Coakley relies upon 19 Del.
  • !3ection 1113 is part of the Delaware Wage Payment and Collection Act,
  • In general, under the Wage Collection Act, an employee is
  • withholding concept is that the money in dispute is under the control of the employer and has
  • it is a very small portion of this overall controversy and recovery of that amount would
  • to the parties' stipulation, those funds have been placed in the control of this Court.
  • In addition, by signing the stipulation, Mr. Coakley consented to the deposit of the
  • Even if Mr. Coakley were entitled to recover something in this case,
  • 5Attached as Exhibit 1 is Exhibit A to the Attorneys Fee Motion with those entries bracketed

  • 5 . MEMORANDUM OPINION (REVISED PAGES)

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    RYPAC
    WAGE
    REASONABLE GROUNDS
    DANIEL COAKLEY
    OSBORNE
    COMMISSION
    DELAWARE
    COUNTERCLAIM
    WAGE ACT
    AGREEMENT
    RYPAC PACKAGING MACHINERY
    ESQUIRE
    DEL
    DISPUTE
    PAY
    PLAN
    LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
    STATUTORY
    COURT
    LLP
    WILMINGTON
    ATTORNEYS
    DEFENDANTS
    PURPOSES
    SUBAGENT AGREEMENT
    DETERMINATION
    CONSISTENT
    SUPER
    RETIREMENT
    
                                                      *Revisions are to Pages 40,41 and 42
    
           IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                         IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    RYPAC PACKAGING MACHINERY
    INCORPORATED,                                                                c< : -'
                                                                                 -.  *
                                                                                 :  :
                 Plaintiff and                                                   L. <
                 Counterclaim-Defendant,                                          r-3
                                                                                  C)
    and                                                                            17
                                                                                  -
                                                                                   .I
    JOSEPH POGES,                                                                  0
                                                                                    -
    
                 Counterclaim-Defendant,
    
           V.                                                Civil Action No. 16069
    
    DANIEL COAKLEY and PACKAGE
    AUTOMATION COMPANY,
    
                 Defendants and                        ..
                 Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,
    
    PAUL OSBORNE, ROBERT WISCHHUSEN
    and PENNDEL PACKAGING, INC.,                       ..
    
                 Applicants for Intervention.
    
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
    
                       Date Submitted:           November 19,1999
                       Date Decided:                   May 1,200O
                       Date Revised:                 May &.-2QQQ*
    
    Edward M. McNally, Esquire, of MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS & WILLIAMS
    LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant
    Rypac Packaging Machinery Incorporated and Joseph  I?oges
    
    
    
    Laurence V. Cronin and Michele C. Gott, Esquires, of SMITH, KATZENSTEIN
    & FURLOW LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Attorneys fbr Defendants and
    Counterclaim-Plaintiffs
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • RYPAC PACKAGING MACHINERY
  • Edward M. McNally, Esquire, of MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS & WILLIAMS LLP, Wilmington, Delaware;
  • Laurence V. Cronin and Michele C. Gott, Esquires, of SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & FURLOW LLP,
  • Those are the issues posed by the Wage .Act counterclaim.
  • The "Employee" Issue
  • criteria to guide that determination: whether the employer retained control
  • and whether other benefits consistent with a standard
  • The issue is whether Osborne, Wischhusen, and Daniel Coakley were Rypac
  • "`State of Delaware v. Planet Insurance Co.,
  • Super., 321 A.2d 128, 133.
  • employees under the Wage Act.
  • they did not sign the Subagent Agreement was that they objected to its noncompete clause, not
  • Osborne and Wischhusen would not be employees for purposes of the Wage Act
  • 15% of hds sales commission would be allocated to his retirement plan.
  • Reasonable Grounds to Dispute Payment
  • reasonable grounds to dispute its claimed obligation to pay those commissions.
  • tlhe employee's right to recover liquidated damages for improperly withheld
  • I find that Rypac is not liable for the statutory doubling penalty,rm because

  • 6 . MEMORANDUM OPINION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    RYPAC
    POGES
    INTERVENING DEFENDANTS
    OFFICER
    SALES
    PLAINTIFF
    COMMISSION
    PACKAGING MACHINERY
    COUNTERCLAIM
    AGREEMENT
    DELAWARE
    SALES REPRESENTATIVES
    PRINCIPALS
    CONTRACTS
    DUTIES
    CORPORATE OPPORTUNITIES
    JOSEPH POGES
    EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENT
    COMPETITION
    DANIEL COAKLEY
    WILMINGTON
    MANUFACTURER
    LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
    RESIGNATION
    PAC
    LLP
    BANK ACCOUNT
    REASONABLE GROUNDS
    EXPECTANCY
    
           IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE                                         
    
                         IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    RYPAC PACKAGING MACHINERY
    INCORPORATED,                                               3                     -
                                                                                      .
                                                                     :  `,            I        :
                                                                                      .        1
    
                 Plaintiff and                                       .                      ;'  .?
                 Counterclaim-Defendant,
    
    and                                                                   ,^ .- _"
    JOSEPH POGES,
    
                 Counterclaim-Defendant,
    
           V.                                               Civil Action No. 16069
    
    DANIEL COAKLEY and PACKAGE
    AUTOMATION COMPANY,
    
                 Defendants and
                 Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,
    
    PAUL OSBORNE, ROBERT WISCHHUSEN                    :
    and PENNDEL PACKAGING, INC.,
    
                 Applicants for Intervention.
    
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
    
                       Date Submitted:,          November 19,1999
                       v
    
    Edward M. McNally, Esquire, of MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS & WILLIAMS
    LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant
    Rypac Packaging Machinery Incorporated and Joseph Poges
    
    
    
    Laurence V. Cronin and Michele C. Gott, Esquires, of SMITH, KATZENSTEIN
    & FURLOW  LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Attorneys for Defendants and
    Counterclaim-Plaintiffs
    
    Collins J. Seitz, Jr., Esquire, of CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & I-RITZ, LLP,
    Wilmington, Delaware, and Mark T. Mullen, Esquire, of COZEN AND
    O'CONNOR, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Attorneys for Intervening Defendants
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • RYPAC PACKAGING MACHINERY
  • JOSEPH POGES,
  • DANIEL COAKLEY and PACKAGE
  • Edward M. McNally, Esquire, of MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS & WILLIAMS LLP, Wilmington, Delaware;
  • In this action the plaintiff,
  • Rypac former director and officer, breached his fiduciary and contractual duties to
  • , two sales representatives who also had left Rypac, (collectively,
  • "Intervening Defendants") intervened in this action.'
  • except for their Delaware Wage Act claim for liquidated damages.
  • lOAlthough the Officer's Agreement provided that each officer would receive 80% of the gross
  • Poges' subagentzceived 90% of each gross commission that they earned with the remaining 10%
  • who then contracts with a sales representative at a company like Rypac
  • Under the industry practice, once an exclusive agreement is terminated, the
  • letter to certain principals,
  • That company later became PAC.
  • Events After Coakley's Resignation Announcement
  • deposit those checks in a bank account he had created in the name of Rypac,
  • The defendants counterclaim that Rypac wrongfully withheld commissions
  • Rypac's first claim is that Coakley usurped corporate opportunities
  • that duty by obtaining contracts from Rypac principals in competition with Rypac.
  • the corporation's interest or expectancy in the
  • diverting Rypac commission checks to himself, inducing a manufacturer not to
  • "reasonable grounds for dispute."87 The Wage Act claim is addressed in Part B,

  • 7 . P. OSBORNE R. WISCHHUSEN AND PENNDEL PACKAGINGS POST-TRIAL BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PACKAGING
    COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANT
    PAUL OSBORNE
    PENNDEL PACKAGING
    SUPER
    DANIEL COAKLEY
    PACKAGE AUTOMATION COMPANY
    DEFENDANTS
    APPLICANTS
    FACTS
    LAW
    RVPAC
    LABOR
    COMMONS
    GREEN GIANT
    BUILDERS
    VATTILAN
    SUPR
    GILBERT
    PASO
    MARCIN
    DARLING VALVE
    MANUFACTURING
    SUPP
    ATE
    CHRISTOPHER
    PLANET INSURANCE
    WEINBERGER
    RIO GRANDE INDUSTRIES
    
               IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                                  IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    RYPAC PACKAGING MACHINERY CIVIL ACTION
                 INCORPORATED, NO.  16069-NC
    
    
                 Plaintiff and
                 Counterclaim-Defendant
    
    and
    
    JOSEPH POGES,
    
                 Counterclaim-Defendant
    
                 V.
    
    DANIEL COAKLEY and,
    PACKAGE AUTOMATION COMPANY
    
                 Defendants and
                 Counterclaim-Plaintiffs
    
    PAUL OSBORNE,
    ROBERT WISCHHUSEN and
    PENNDEL PACKAGING, INC.
    
                 Applicants for
                 1:ntervention
    
                        PAUL OSBORNE, ROBERT WISCHHUSEN AND
                       PENNDEL PACKAGING INC. `S POST-TRIAL BRIEF
    
                                             Collins J. Seitz, Jr., Esquire (2237)
                                             CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP
                                             1220 Market Street
                                             Wilmington, DE 19899
    DATE: August 30, 1999                    Attorneys for Intervening Defendants
                                             Paul Osborne, Robert Wischhusen and
                                             Penndel Packaging
    
                                             Mark T. Mullen, Esquire
                                             COZEN AND O'CONNOR
                                             1900 Market Street
                                             Philadelphia, PA 19103
                                             (215) 665-2091
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • RYPAC PACKAGING MACHINERY CIVIL ACTION
  • Counterclaim-Defendant
  • DANIEL COAKLEY and,
  • PACKAGE AUTOMATION COMPANY
  • PAUL OSBORNE, ROBERT WISCHHUSEN AND
  • PENNDEL PACKAGING INC. `S POST-TRIAL BRIEF
  • COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS
  • LAW AND ARGUMENT
  • Placed bv Them Before They Left Rvpac
  • Department of Labor Ex.
  • Rel. Commons v.
  • Green Giant Co., Del.
  • Super., 394 A.2d 753.
  • F&field Builders, Inc. v. Vattilan, Del.
  • Supr., 304 A.2d 58.
  • Gilbert v. El Paso Co.,
  • Marcin v. Darling Valve & Manufacturing Co., 259 F. Supp.
  • @ate Ex.
  • Rel. Christopher v. Planet Insurance Co.,
  • Weinberger v. Rio Grande Industries, Inc., Del.

  • 8 . DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFFS POST-TRIAL BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COAKLEY
    POGES
    BUSINESS
    OFFICER
    SALES
    DEFENDANTS
    PAC
    COURT
    COMMISSIONS
    OSBORNE
    COMPETE
    SALES REPRESENTATIVES
    AGREEMENT
    RESIGNING
    CORPORATE OPPORTUNITY
    COUNTERCLAIM
    PRINCIPALS
    RESIGNATION
    PLAINTIFF
    PACKAGING MACHINERY
    TERMINATE
    COMPETING
    EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENTS
    CONFIDENTIALITY
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    SUB-AGENTS
    CUSTOMERS
    RYPAC STOCK
    COMMISSION PROTECTION
    
           IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                         IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    RYPAC PACKAGING MACHINERY                 >
    INCORPORATED,                             >>
                 Plaintiff and                >
                 Counterclaim-Defendant       >>
    and                                       )>
    JOSEPH POGES,                             >>
                 Counterclaim-Defendant.      >>
    V.                                        >      C.A. No. 16069-NC
                                              >
    DANIEL COAKLEY and,                       >
    PACKAGE AUTOMATION                        )
    COMPANY,                                  >>
                 Defendants and               >
                 Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.     >>
    PAUL OSBORNE, ROBERT                      >
    WISCHHUSEN and PENNDEL                    >
    PACKAGING, INC.,                          >1
                 Applicants for Intervention >
    
                 DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFFS'
                                   POST-TRIAL BRIEF
    
    
                                       SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & FURLOW LLP
                                       Laurence V. Cronin
                                       Michele  C. Gott
                                       800 Delaware Avenue, P.O. Box 410
                                       Wilmington, DE 19899
                                       (302) 652-8400
                                       Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim-
    August 30, 1999                    Plaintiffs
    
    
    
                                              TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
                                                                                                       
    
    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    
    NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
    
    STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    
             A.        Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFFS'
  • Rypac and PAC Compete for Business.
  • RESIGNING HIS POSITIONS AS OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF RYPAC AND THEREAFTER COMPETING WITH RYPAC
  • Competing With Rypac After His October 1997 Resignation
  • Inconsistent with its Claim of Corporate Opportunity
  • RYPAC AND OR POGES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO WITHHOLD FROM COAKLEY COMMISSIONS EARNED ON SALES MADE
  • Business Organizations 4 4.36,.
  • Rypac Packaging Machinery Incorporated,
  • The counterclaim alleges that, following Coakley's resignation from Rypac,
  • and Poges attributable to sales made by Coakley and other sales representatives who had left
  • Paul Osborne, along with a company owned by Wischhusen, Penndel
  • Agreement and Officer's Agreements with Rypac.2 As discussed in more detail below,
  • their termination should either officer sell his Rypac stock to the other under a buy-back
  • and customers of Rypac while Coakley was its president and one of its directors".
  • referred to in the industry as principals

  • 9 . INC. V. COAKLEY BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    RYPAC
    FIDUCIARIES
    LAW
    AGREEMENT
    DISLOYALTY
    TERMINATION
    RESIGN
    SALES
    DEL
    BREACH
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    VIOLATING
    POGES
    SUPR
    COAKLEY ARGUES
    STOCK
    RESPONSE
    DISGORGEMENT
    CUSTOMERS
    PURCHASE
    COMMISSIONS
    ESQ
    MOTION
    PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    SCOTT CORN
    DECISIONAL LAW
    BUSINESS
    FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP
    
                                                                                                      
                 IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE                                    
    
                                IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    RYPAC PACKAGING MACHINERY
    INCORPORATED,
    
                           Plaintiff and                )
                           Counterclaim-Defendant,      )                                     "i?
                                                                                              c ..3
                                                        )                                     . .
    and                                                 )                                     CL3
                                                        )                         .            La
    JOSEPH POGES,                                       ))
                           Counterclaim-Defendant,      )>
           V.                                           1        Civil Action No. 16069-NC
                                                        )
    DANIEL COAKLEY and PACKAGE                          >
    AUTOMATION COMPANY,                                 >>
                           Defendants and               >
                           Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.     >>
    PAUL OSBORNE, ROBERT WISCHHUSEN                     1
    and PENNDEL PACKAGING, INC.,                        ))
                           Applicants for               )
                           Intervention                 )
                      PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS
                      MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    
                                                 MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS & WILLIAMS
                                                 Edward M. McNally (#614)
                                                 222 Delaware Avenue - lO* Fl.
                                                 P.O. Box 2306
                                                 Wilmington, DE 19899
                                                 302/888-6800
                                                 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-
                                                 Defendants
                                                 Rypac Packaging Machinery Incorporated and
                                                 Joseph Poges
    
    Dated: March 1, 199
    
    
    
                                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
                                                                     Page
    
    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES                                               ii
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
  • A DIRECTOR MAY NOT RESIGN TO TAKE FOR HIMSELF CORPORATE OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE ACTIVELY BEING
  • A Reply To The Argument Rypac Cannot Prove It
  • Would Have Made The Sales
  • A Reply To The Argument The Law Requires The
  • Breach Of Duty To Start Before Resignation
  • A DISLOYAL FIDUCIARY DOES NOT EARN HIS SALARY DURING HIS DISLOYALTY
  • A Reply To The Arguments Coakley Is Entitled To
  • Citron v. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corn., Del.
  • Supr., 425 A.2d 957.
  • violating his fiduciary duty.
  • breaches his fiduciary duty if he
  • termination of the fiduciary relationship or were founded on
  • information acquired during the fiduciary relationship.
  • relied on the terms of the Officer's Agreement Coakley signed which prohibited such
  • In response, Coakley makes 3 arguments: the sales he made right after he
  • decisional law actually holds that to be actionable the breach of duty must have started
  • Coakley knew what specific customers were inquiring about what specific machines they
  • Mr. Poges had initiated, in the New Jersey sales territory that Rypac had assigned
  • the law cannot be what Coakley argues here.
  • any director would be free to resign his position and take a business
  • Agreement calls for -- an election to buy the stock followed by the termination "upon purchase
  • 21t bears repeating that Rypac seeks only to recover those commissions made on sales that
  • to prevent fiduciaries from running the risk of disloyalty by attaching serious consequences
  • next day receive the payoff for his disloyalty, all without disgorgement.
  • Its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, were delivered to the following attorneys of record,
  • Collins J. Seitz, Jr., Esq.
  •    |