LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

KRIM v SUNRISE MEDICAL Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 18,438, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: 1N THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff: KRIM, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00018438, Delaware, California, Complaint, Sunrise, Facts, Forum, Fiduciary Duties, Del, Transaction, Dismiss, Pending, Superior, Supr, Stockholders, Directors, Hutchison, Liability, Special Committee, Castle County, Individual Defendants, Conveniens Analysis, Allegations, Murray, Incorporation, Financial Advisors, Ofthe, Investor Group, Proposed Transaction, Vestar Transaction, Fiduciary Duty, Officer, Breach, Shareholders, Executive Officer, Relief, Damages, Unfair, Common, Adjudications, Growth , ContentID: 120240065

Case Documents
1 2001-01-24 OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102270
26 pages
PDF
2 2000-10-18 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100773
7 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 2 documents , 33 pages
Price: $ 24.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT
DEFENDANTS
COURT
SUNRISE
FACTS
FORUM
DEL
FIDUCIARY DUTIES
DISMISS
PENDING
SUPERIOR
TRANSACTION
SUPR
DIRECTORS
HUTCHISON
LIABILITY
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
PLAINTIFF
CASTLE COUNTY
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
STOCKHOLDERS
CONVENIENS ANALYSIS
ALLEGATIONS
MURRAY
INCORPORATION
FINANCIAL ADVISORS
VESTAR TRANSACTION
FIDUCIARY DUTY
                  IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                             IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY


IN RE SUNRISE MEDICAL, INC.                   Consolidated C.A. No. 18438NC
SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION                  i



        OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS,
                       OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO STAY

 OF COUNSEL:                                 Jesse A. Finkelstein
                                             Peter B. Ladig
 Peter H. Benzian                            RICHARDS, LAYTON  & FINGER
 Allison C. Rosenstock                       One Rodney Square
 LATHAM & WATKINS                            Post Office Box 55 1
 701 B Street, Suite 2100                    Wilmington, Delaware 19899
 San Diego, CA 92101                         (302) 658-6541
 (619) 236-1234
                                             Attorneys for Defendants                  a
 Attorneys for Defendants                    SUNRISE MEDICAL INC., M&&F H?
 SUNRISE MEDICAL, INC., MURRAY H HUTCHISON, LEE A. AULT,  II@&Il'@  ...?wl
 HUTCHISON, LEE A.  AULT,  III, JOHN R WOODHULL, JOSEPH  STEML&,                                   
 WOODHULL, JOSEPH STEMLER,                   WILLIAM L. PIERPOINT and M&IA% N: `:
 WILLIAM L. PIERPOINT                        I3AMMES                        #-Y-l-.
                                                                            -.,             -73    
                                                                           -".              s
                                                                           &  :-  F-&              
                                                                           >


SNIPPETS:
 
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS,
  • SUNRISE MEDICAL, INC., MURRAY H HUTCHISON, LEE A. AULT, II@&Il'@ ...?wl
  • OF FACTS
  • THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM U P O N W H I C H R E L I E F
  • Defendants Breached Their Fiduciary Duties 7
  • A MIRROR IMAGE ACTION IS PENDING IN CALIFORNIA AND CALIFORNIA IS THE SUPERIOR FORUM IN WHICH
  • The Parties and Issues In The California and Delaware Actions Are
  • Del.
  • Supr., 198 A.2d 681, overruled in part bv Pepsico.
  • of Sunrise Medical Inc..
  • approving the transaction.
  • sweeping allegations, Conspicuously absent are facts suggesting that five of the six
  • a traditional forum non conveniens analysis also weighs heavily in favor of dismissing or
  • fiduciary duties owed to Sunrise's stockholders in approving the transaction.
  • New Castle County Court of Chancery.
  • The third action, Harbor F&nce Partners v. Hutchison, et
  • a special committee of Molly independent directors was
  • Sunrise announced the Vestar transaction to the public on October 17,200O.
  • Action "Plaintiff brings this action _.
  • of facts and rely on identical theories of liability.
  • The two firms that acted as the Special Committee's financial advisors
  • The present complaint contains no facts that would place the Individual Defendants' actions
  • plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty claim against the Individual
  • Sunrise's Amended Certificate Of Incorporation Immunizes The Individual

  • 2 . CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DEFENDANTS
    MEMBERS
    SUNRISE
    TRANSACTION
    OFTHE
    INVESTOR GROUP
    STOCKHOLDERS
    PROPOSED TRANSACTION
    OFFICER
    BREACH
    SHAREHOLDERS
    EXECUTIVE OFFICER
    FIDUCIARY DUTIES
    RELIEF
    DAMAGES
    UNFAIR
    COMMON
    COUNSEL
    BUSINESS
    ADJUDICATIONS
    GROWTH
    ASSETS
    HAMMES
    ACTS
    INTER ALIA
    PRIVATE
    PRICE
    COMMON STOCK
    SHARES
    
                  1N THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                                   IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    
                    Plaintiff,
    
           v.
    
    SUNRISE MEDICAL, INC., MURRAY
    H. HUTCHISON, LEE A. AULT, III,
    MICHAEL N. HAMMES, WILLIAM
    L. PIERPOINT, JOSEPH  STEiMLER,  and                    CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
    JOHN R. WOODHULL
    
                    Defendants.
    
    
           PlamtifT,  by his attorneys, allege upon personal knowledge as to their  own acts and upon
    
    information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:
    
                                        NATURE OF THE ACTION
    
            1.      Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action on behalf of all
    
    other than defendants, who own the securities of Sunrise Medical ("Sunrise" or the "Company") and
    
    who are similarly situated (the "Class"), for injunctive and other relief Plaintiff seeks injunctive
    
    rel.ief herein, inter alia, to enjoin the implementation of a transaction whereby Park Avenue Equity
    
    Partners, `Jestar Capital Partners, among others would buy the Company. Sunrise shareholders will
    
    receive $10.00 in cash per Sunrise share. Twenty-five to thirty senior executives of Sunrise,
    
    its  curreni:  President and Chief Executive Officer,  MIichael  N. Hammes, are part  ofthe
    
    seeking to purchase the Company, and will control approximately 10% of the resulting private
    
    company. Alternatively, in  thl: event that the proposed transaction is implemented, plaintiff
    
    recover damages caused by the breach of fiduciary duties owed by the defendants.
    
            2.      The offer is being advanced through unfair procedures and the consideration offered
    
    
    
    is an unfair price, and does not reasonably reflect the true stockholder value for the public
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • PlamtifT, by his attorneys, allege upon personal knowledge as to their own acts and upon
  • Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action on behalf of all persons,
  • other than defendants, who own the securities of Sunrise Medical and
  • Sunrise shareholders will
  • President and Chief Executive Officer, MIichael N. Hammes, are part ofthe investor group
  • event that the proposed transaction is implemented, plaintiff seeks to
  • recover damages caused by the breach of fiduciary duties owed by the defendants.
  • The offer is being advanced through unfair procedures and the consideration offered
  • of the Company's public stockholders.
  • shares outstanding, trades on .the New York Stock Exchange.
  • Executive Officer and a Dire'ctor ofthe Company.
  • fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care to plaintiff and the other members of the Class.
  • has approximately 22.45 million shares of common stock.
  • There are que:stions oflaw and fact common to the Class including, inter alia, whether:
  • counsel experienced in litigation ofthis nature.
  • would establish incompatible standards of conduct for defendants, or adjudications with
  • investor group that plans to take the Company private.
  • The Investor Group seeks to take advantage of Sunrise's future growth and capture
  • such value for itself to the detriment of the Company's public shareholders at a price which
  • account Sunrise's asset value:, liquidation value, its expected growth, the strength of its
  • of Sunrise's assets and businesses.
  • plaintiff prays for judgment and relief as follows:
  •    |