 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
LETTER OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MDR MOTION COURT SUCCESSOR LIQUIDATING TRUST SUFFER FAIR GROUND LITIGATION DELIBERATIVE INVESTIGATION SHAREHOLDERS GUNS PLAINTIFFS TRUSTEE BERNARD PLAN DISPUTE IRREPARABLE HARM PENSIONERS PROCEEDS CANS LIFE INSURANCE ENTITLEMENTS INTEND RESOLVE MOVANT BALANCING GRANTING LEGAL QUESTION |
C O U R T O F C H A N C E R Y
OF THE
S T A T E O F D E L A W A R E
DOVER , DE 19901
Elizabeth M. McGeever Grover C. Brown
Pricltett Jones Elliott Kristol Morris, James, Hitchens
& Schnee & Williams
P.O. Box 1328 P.O. Box 2306
Wilmington, DE 19899 Wilmington, DE 19899
Edmund D. Lyons
1 S26 Gilpin Avenue
Wilmington,DE 19806
Re: Guns, et al. v. MDR Liquid&g Corporation, et al.
C.A. No. 9630-NC
Submitted: July 6, 1999
Decided: August 17, 1999
Counsel:
This letter denies Plaintiffs' Motion for a Stay of the Court's Orders in
this case pending appeal. Supreme Court Rule 32(a) mandates that this
Court consider a Court of Chancery Rule 62 motion in the first instance even
after appeal.
1. Background
I adopt the recitation of the procedural background of the case set
forth in the Successor Trustee's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay
Pending Appeal filed June 1, 1999.
Guns v. MDR (#9630-NC)
August 17, 1999
Page 2
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO THE SUCCESSOR TRUSTEES AND THE DEFENDANTS RESPONSES TO MOTION TO STAY
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PLAINTIFFS BOND AMOUNT COURT DEFENDANTS FORMER STOCKHOLDERS JUDGEMENT SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE MOTION MONEY RESPONSES DAMAGES TRUST DISTRIBUTION SECURE SECURITY SATISFACTION FIXED DOLLAR DELAWARE REQUEST MARKET ASSETS FLETCHER LIABILITIES CONDEMNATION MONEY REFERENCES DISCRETION FACTS LIQUIDATING TRUST |
ORIGINAL
IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
LEO GANS and JAME;S
BERNARD,
Plaintiffs,
V. § C.A. No. 9630
MDR LIQUIDATING
CORPORATION, a dissolved
Delaware corporation, IHERBERT
M. LOBSENZ, TERRENCE F.
COEN, JOHN T. CUNNIFF,
TIMOTHY F. HEALY, MARK J.
MEAGHER, directors of MDR
Liquidating Corporation,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO THE SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE'S AND THE
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES TO MOTION TO STAY
Plaintiffs submit, this reply to the Successor Trustee's and the defendants'
responses to plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Pending Appeal.
A. REPLY TO SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE'S RESPONSE
The Successor Txstee does not oppose a stay of this Court's April 13, 1999
Letter Opinion and Order (the "Order"). He does, however, request that the Court
require plaintiffs to post a bond of at least $2 million. The request for such a high
bond should be denied for several reasons. First, the amount of the bond sought is
arbitrary. The Successor Trustee has not submitted any evidence showing $2
million in potential damages as a result of the short delay that accompanies the
appeal. Indeed, if the Successor Trustee believes that there is a "significant risk"
4206,1\89686vl
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
