LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

TREINEN v SPECIAL DEVICES Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 18,265, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff: TREINEN, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00018265, Sd1, Fees, Expenses, Reasonableness, Invoices, Thomas, Law Firms, Vinke, Cuthbert, Sdi, Officer, Motion, Indemnification, Invoice, Admits, Connection, Allegations, Lehman Action, Avers, Ofthe, Speaks, Pursuant, John, Payment, Grand Jury Investigation, Undertaking, Facts, Incorporation, Letter Speaks, Plaintiff Thomas, Assess, Denies, Reimbursement, Requiring, Mcdermott, Counterclaims, Vice President, Order Requiring, Separate Law Firms, Paragraph, Referenced Letter Speaks, Merger, Prosecuting , ContentID: 120240190

Case Documents
1 2001-05-22 PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL FINAL ORDER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115435
21 pages
PDF
2 2001-05-14 DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A PARTIAL FINAL ORDER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115436
16 pages
PDF
3 2001-02-23 OPPOSITION OF SPECIAL DEVICES TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115437
4 pages
PDF
4 2001-01-15 MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115438
10 pages
PDF
5 2000-09-27 ANSWER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100935
9 pages
PDF
6 2000-08-29 COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100936
28 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 6 documents , 88 pages
Price: $ 44.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL FINAL ORDER

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SD1
INVOICES
EXPENSES
REASONABLENESS
LAW FIRMS
COURT
FEES
THOMAS
CUTHBERT
MOTION
COUNSEL
JOHN
FACTS
DEFENDANTS
REQUIRING
ORDER REQUIRING
LEHMAN ACTION
CONNECTION
OBJECTING
ATTORNEYS
DAB
OBJECTION
LITIGATION
COUNTERCLAIMS
SEPARATE COUNSEL
GENERIC STATEMENTS
DETAILED STATEMENTS
SDI
EXISTENCE
            IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE  OF DELAWARE

                          IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY


 THOMAS F. TREINEN, THOMAS J.
 TREINEN, JOHN M. CUTHBERT,
 and JOHN T. VINKE,
                                          1
                          Plaintiffs,                 Civil Action No. 18265
                                          ;
           V.                             1

 SPECIAL DEVICES INCORPORATED,            i

                          Defendant.



                   PLAINTIFFS' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
                   MOTION FOR A PARTIAL FINAL ORDER REQUIRING
                     THE ADVANCEMENT OF CERTAIN EXPENSES





                                           Allen M. Terrell, Jr.
                                           Peter B. Ladig
                                           Dominick T. Gattuso
                                           Richards, L,ayton  & Finger, P.A.
                                           One Rodney Square
                                           I?. 0. Box  551
                                           Wilmington, DE 19899
                                           (302) 658-6541
                                           Attorneys  fbr Plaintiffs


Dated: May 22,200l



I


SNIPPETS:
 
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • THOMAS F. TREINEN, THOMAS J. TREINEN, JOHN M. CUTHBERT,
  • and JOHN T. VINKE,
  • MOTION FOR A PARTIAL FINAL ORDER REQUIRING
  • THE ADVANCEMENT OF CERTAIN EXPENSES
  • SD1 CANNOT CONTEST THE ADEQUACY OF THE INVOICES
  • THE EXISTENCE OF POTENTIAL CONFLlCTS OF INTEREST
  • REASONABLENESS OF PLAINTIFFS' DECISION TO RETAIN
  • FROM OBJECTING TO THE NUMBER OF LAW FIRMS
  • THOMAS F. TREINEN AND JOHN M. CUTHBERT ARE
  • ASSERTED IN THE LEHMAN ACTION AND FOR COST
  • On April 25, 2001, plaintiffs filed this motion for a final order requiring the
  • _,I' "DAB _.`I Capitalized terms not defined herein have the same meaning as in the Fee
  • Plaintiffs for their attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements in connection with this Motion.
  • Plaintiffs' counsel submitted monthly invoices containing generic statements of the services
  • waived any objection to the reasonableness of the number of firms retained by Plaintiffs by
  • The fa'llowing facts are largely undisputed:
  • Because Dyer Ellis simultaneously represented SD1 and J.F. Lehman, SDI's controlling
  • on a monthly basis," and "maintain detailed statements of the services rendered, so that they
  • THE EXISTENCE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN THE CIVIL LITIGATION EVIDENCES THE
  • Since SD1 has agreed to the reasonableness of Plaintiffs' decision to retain separate counsel
  • recognition that the evidence could and would vary among the defendants in the Present
  • and indemnific,ation for fees and expenses incurred in bringing compulsory counterclaims.

  • 2 . DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A PARTIAL FINAL ORDER

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    EXPENSES
    REASONABLENESS
    LAW FIRMS
    SD1
    MOTION
    COUNSEL
    PLAINTIFF THOMAS
    ASSESS
    INDEMNIFICATION
    LITIGATION
    SEPARATE LAW FIRMS
    CIVIL ACTION
    COURT
    INVOICES
    ATTORNEYS
    COUNTERCLAIMS
    CITADEL HOLDING
    SHAREHOLDERS
    CALIFORNIA
    OBLIGATION
    DIRECTORS
    REASONABLENESS DETERMINATION
    DUPLICATION
    DYER ELLIS
    JOSEPH
    ALEX BLANTON
    WATERGATE
    HAMPSHIRE AVENUE
    WASHINGTON
    
               IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE                               -i
                                 IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    THOMAS F. TREINEN, THOMAS J.
    TREINEN, JOHN M. CUTHBERT, and          ;
    JOHN T. VINKE,                          >
    
                        Plaintiffs,         1                        Civil Action No. 18265          `,
    
    V.                                      i
    
                                            >
    SPECIAL DEVICES, INC.
    
                        Defendant.          1
    
    
    
                         DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'
                            MOTION FOR A PARTIAL FINAL ORDER
    
    
                                            MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
                                            Kenneth J. Nachbar
                                            1201 N. Market Street
                                            P.O. Box 1347
                                            Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
                                            (302) 658-9200
                                                 Attorneys for Defendant
    
    O'F COUNSEL:
    
    DYER ELLIS & JOSEPH
    Alex Blanton
    Watergate, Eleventh Floor
    600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20037
    (;!02) 944-3000
    
    May  14,200l
    
    
    
                                                                                            i.
    
                                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • MOTION FOR A PARTIAL FINAL ORDER
  • DYER ELLIS & JOSEPH
  • Alex Blanton Watergate, Eleventh Floor
  • 600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20037
  • PLAINTIFFS' USE OF FIVE SEPARATE LAW FIRMS IN THE
  • CIVtL LITIGATION IS UNREASONABLE.
  • Plaintiff Thomas F. Treinen Is Not Entitled to Advances (or
  • Indemnification) for Expenses Related to Placerita Land
  • SD1 HAS NOT WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO OBTAIN THE
  • p:revented from doing so by plaintiffs' refusal to provide the information necessary to
  • reasonableness of the expenses for which plaintiffs seek advances.
  • serving as officers and directors of SDI, caused the illegal disposal of hazardous wastes.
  • damage SD1 (and thereby the investor-plaintiffs in the civil action) by retaining eleven law
  • As the Court will recall, the Order on which plaintiffs' motion is based (Pl.
  • SD1 informed plaintiffs' counsel that it would not
  • statute, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Citadel Holding Corp. v. Raven, 603 A.2d 818,
  • including "descriptive time records of attorneys," to make that determination.
  • reasonableness determination until they have given SD1 the required information and SD1 has
  • Plaintiffs concede, as they must, that SDI's obligation to advance litigation
  • review of their attorneys' invoices (Pl.
  • PLA.INTIFFS' USE OF FIVE SEPARATE LAW FIRMS IN THE
  • Court for the Central District of California brought by investors that in December 1998 became
  • The unnecessary duplication of effort and increased cost inherent in this
  • Counterclaims Thev Have Asserted in the Civil Action.
  • shareholder against the majority shareholders for alleged misconduct after the merger.

  • 3 . OPPOSITION OF SPECIAL DEVICES TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    SD1
    REASONABLENESS
    EXPENSES
    THOMAS
    PARAGRAPH
    COURT
    MOTION
    DEFEND
    PROPOSED ORDER
    FEES
    PLEADINGS
    CONNECTION
    ATTORNEYS
    JOHN
    FORMER OFFICERS/DIRECTORS
    LEHMAN
    PROSECUTING
    CALIFORNIA
    GRAND JURY
    SPECIAL DEVICES
    PARTIAL JUDGMENT
    PARTNERS
    LAW FIRMS
    REASONABLE LEGAL EXPENSES
    AMOUNTS
    DECLARE
    FAIL
    FACTS
    ENTRY
    
                 IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                 IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    THOMAS F. TRElNEN, et al.,
                                                                                            /.
                           Plaintiffs,                                                      _.
                                                                                 :          r
                                                    ;
           V.                                       ) Civil Action No. 18265  '                  :     
    
    SPECIAL, DEVICES, :INCORPORATED,                1
                                                                                                      .
                           Defendant.                                                                 5c
                    OPPOlSITION  OF SPECIAL DEVICES, INCORPORATED
                 TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
    
    
                   Defendant Special Devices, Incorporated (SDI) does not dispute that plaintiffs
    
    have a current right to advancement of their reasonable legal expenses in connection with the
    
    three matters identified in paragraph 2 of their motion. SD1 does, however, dispute the
    
    reasonableness of the expenses they have incurred to date and appear likely to incur in the future.
    
    See Delphi Easter Partners Ltd. Partnership v. Spectacular Partners. Inc., Del. Ch., C.A. No.
    
    12409, Allen, C., slip op. at 17 (Aug. 6, 1993) (recognizing that corporation may challenge the
    
    reasonableness of amounts sought to be advanced) (Exhibit A). While paragraph 1 of plaintiffs'
    
    proposed order would direct  SD1 to advance only plaintiffs "reasonable attorneys' fees and
    
    expenses," paragraphs 2 and 3 would declare  SD1 liable for plaintiffs' enforcement expenses
    
    irrespective of their reasonableness.
    
                   As the rnotion makes clear, the four plaintiffs seek advancement of the fees of ten
    
    different law firms in connection with three proceedings. What the pleadings fail to reveal is that
    
    (1) the three proceedings all arise out of essentially the same facts, (2) the facts are peculiarly
    
    within the knowledge of the plaintiffs themselves, (3)  SD1 has already advanced approximately
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
  • Defendant Special Devices, Incorporated does not dispute that plaintiffs
  • three matters identified in paragraph 2 of their motion.
  • SD1 does, however, dispute the
  • reasonableness of the expenses they have incurred to date and appear likely to incur in the
  • See Delphi Easter Partners Ltd. Partnership v. Spectacular Partners.
  • reasonableness of amounts sought to be advanced).
  • expenses," paragraphs 2 and 3 would declare SD1 liable for plaintiffs' enforcement expenses
  • the four plaintiffs seek advancement of the fees of ten
  • different law firms in connection with three proceedings.
  • What the pleadings fail to reveal is that
  • the three proceedings all arise out of essentially the same facts,
  • Based upon paragraph 1 of plaintiffs' proposed order,
  • of reasonable legal expenses in connection with the three identified proceedings.
  • while SD1 opposes the entry of an order in the form proposed by plaintiffs to the extent it
  • $24,685.62 expense of prosecuting the present action, quantification by the Court of any
  • THOMAS F. TREINEN, THOMAS J.
  • JOHN T. VWKE,
  • attorneys' fees and expenses incurred and to
  • Vinke (collectively the "the former Officers/Directors") for the services for Troop, Steuber,
  • to defend the claims asserted by J.F. Lehman & Company, Inc., et al. in the case entitled J.F.
  • States District Court for the Central District of California,
  • directors (the "Grand Jury Investigation"), to defend a California Department of Toxic

  • 4 . MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    SD1
    FEES
    INDEMNIFICATION
    MERGER
    ATTORNEYS
    MERGER AGREEMENT
    EXPENSES
    COURT
    CHARTER
    BYLAWS
    DEFENDANT
    COMPL
    SDI
    OFFICERS
    LANGUAGE
    DELAWARE
    MANDATORY
    DEL
    OBLIGATION
    THOMAS
    LEHMAN
    SURVIVING
    DIRECTORS
    CONNECTION
    LAW
    SD1 ACQUISITION
    ANS
    PERMITS
    SLIP
    
                     IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                 IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    THOMAS F. TREINEN, THOMAS J.
    TREINEN, JOHN M. CUTHBERT,
    and JOHN T. VINKE,                              1
    
                             Plaintiffs,            1            Civil Action No. 18265               z
                                                                                           ski
             V.                                     ;                                      gE
                                                                                           -"-i
                                                                                           -..
                                                                                           $1,
                                                                                           -.,
     SPECIAL DEVICES, INCORPORATED,                 1                                      _'-.<... Lisi
                             Defendant.                                                    7`
                                                    1                                      F,-.
                                                                                           g t:.
                                                                                                     .`.
                                            NOTICE OF MOTION                                         5
    
     TO:     Patrick 0. Cavanaugh, Esquire               Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esquire
             Dyer Ellis & .Joseph                        Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnel1
             Watergate - Eleventh Floor                  1201 North Market Street
             600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.              P.O. Box 1347
             Washington, :DC 20037                       Wilmington, DE 19899-l 347
    
    
                      PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached Motion for Partial Judgment on the
    
    Pleadings will be presented to the Court at a time convenient to Court and counsel.
    
    
    
    
                                                           Allen .M. Terrell,  Jr.
                                                           Peter B . Ladig
                                                           Dominick 7`. Gattuso
                                                           RICHARDS, LAYTON  & FINGER, P.A.
                                                           One Rodney Square
                                                           P.O. Box 551
                                                           Wilmington, Delaware 19899
                                                           (302)658-6541
                                                            Attorneys for Plaintiffs
    Dated: January  15,200l
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • THOMAS F. TREINEN, THOMAS J. TREINEN, JOHN M. CUTHBERT,
  • Pleadings will be presented to the Court at a time convenient to Court and counsel.
  • declaring that Plaintiffs are entitled to mandatory advancement of their
  • legal fees and expenses, including expert fees, incurred in investigating and defending
  • and that Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys' fees and expenses
  • which the defendant has failed to pay within the 30 day period.
  • Lehman"), entered into an Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
  • Agreement") whereby SD1 Acquisition Corp. merged with and into SDI,
  • surviving corporation.
  • Compl.
  • acting as officers and/or directors of SDI.
  • connection with J.F. Lehman's acquisition of SD1 inDecember 1998.
  • Incorporation of SDI, and 8 Del.
  • enforcement oftheir right to mandatory advancements under the Merger Agreement, the Bylaws,
  • expenses as a result of the Present Proceedings (Ans.
  • Bylaws and charters regarding indemnification and advancements were properly set forth
  • SD1 Bylaws, its agreernents with the Plaintiffs, and Delaware law, Plaintiffs tiled this
  • Slip op.
  • with the terms of the corporate charter, which provided for indemnification to the fullest
  • Corporate Law permits advancement of attorneys' fees in connection with a lawsuit,
  • defendants' obligation to advance attorneys' fees was mandatory,
  • The language of the Bylaw is clear.

  • 5 . ANSWER

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    ALLEGATIONS
    AVERS
    SPEAKS
    LETTER SPEAKS
    DENIES
    REFERENCED LETTER SPEAKS
    PARAGRAPH
    PLAINTIFFS
    RESPONSE
    UNDERTAKING
    INVOICES
    PARAGRAPH STATES
    COMPLAINT
    DEFENDANT
    SD1
    SUFFICIENT INFORMATION
    ADDRESSING
    REFERENCED BY-LAW
    DENY
    COMPLAINT EXHIBIT
    LAW
    THOMAS
    JOHN
    CUTHBERT
    VINKE
    INCORPORATION
    CERTIFICATE
    ADDRESSING ATTORNEYS
    FEES
    
                       IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                                    IN .4ND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    THOMAS I;. TREINEN, THOMAS J. TREINEN, )
    JOHN M. CUTHBERT and JOHN T. VINKE,
                                                            1
                                      Plaintiffs,
                                                            i
                 V.                                         >      C.A. No. 18265
    
    SPECIAL DEVICES, INCORPORATED
                                                            >
                                      Defendant.
    
                                                     ANSWER
    
                        With respect to .the numbered paragraphs of the complaint, defendant responds as
    
    foll'ows:
    
                        1.     Admits the allegations.
    
                        2.     Admits the allegations.
    
                        3.     Admits the allegations.
    
                        4.     Admits the allegations.
    
                        5.     Admits the allegations.
    
                        6.     Admits the allegations.                                     :~
    
                        7.     Admits the allegations.
    
                        8.     Admits the allegations
    
                        9.     Admits that plaintiffs have incurred and continue to incur legal expenses
    
    as a result `of the Present Proceedings (as defined in the complaint)1  and avers that the remainder
    
    of this para.graph states a legal conclusion to which no response is -required. To the extent that a
    
    response may be required, the remainder of the paragraph is denied.
    
    
    
                   10.     Avers that the corporate documents cited by plaintiffs speak for
    
    themselves.
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • THOMAS I;. TREINEN, THOMAS J. TREINEN,)
  • JOHN M. CUTHBERT and JOHN T. VINKE,
  • With respect to .the numbered paragraphs of the complaint, defendant responds as
  • Admits the allegations.
  • Admits that plaintiffs have incurred and continue to incur legal expenses
  • as a result `of the Present Proceedings 1 and avers that the remainder
  • of this para.graph states a legal conclusion to which no response is -required.
  • Admits that plaintiffs have correctly quoted article X of the Certificate of
  • Incorporation of SD1 prior to the Merger, which speaks for itself.
  • Admits that plaintiffs have correctly quoted paragraph 13 of SDI's
  • Avers that the first sentence of this paragraph states a legal conclusion to
  • which no response is required and that it lacks sufficient information by which to admit or
  • November and December 1999 (the latter of which is attached to the complaint as exhibit A),
  • that those letters speak for themselves, and denies the remaining allegations.
  • Admits that invoices were submitted as alleged and denies the remaining
  • fees, among other things, to Th.omas J. Treinen and avers that the letter speaks for itself.
  • Admits that `Treinen executed an undertaking dated November 17, 1999,
  • and that complaint exhibit C is a true and correct copy of that undertaking,
  • Admits that on February 2, 2000, it sent a letter addressing attorneys' fees
  • Avers that the referenced letter speaks for itself.
  • Avers that the referenced By-law provision speaks for itself and denies the
  • fee:s to John M. Cuthbert and avers that the letter speaks for itself.
  • to John T. Vinke and avers that the letter speaks for itself.
  • Avers that this paragraph states a conclusion of law to which no response

  • 6 . COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    FEES
    THOMAS
    ATTORNEYS
    VINKE
    PLAINTIFFS
    SDI
    CUTHBERT
    OFFICER
    INVOICE
    LAW
    COUNSEL
    OFTHE
    PURSUANT
    PAYMENT
    GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION
    INCORPORATION
    LEHMAN ACTION
    REIMBURSEMENT
    INDEMNIFICATION
    UNDERTAKING
    MCDERMOTT
    DEFENDANT
    VICE PRESIDENT
    CONNECTION
    PROSECUTING
    AGREEMENT
    CALIFORNIA DTSC INVESTIGATION
    SD1 BY-LAWS
    REPRESENTATION
    
                            IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE                          
    n                                    IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY                                  
    .f
    
    
           THOMAS F. TREINEN, THOMAS J.
           TREINEN, JOHN  M. CUTHBERT,
           and JOHN T. VINKE,                                 >
    
                                     Plaintiffs,              ;          Civil Action No. /gJ  cc@Mc
    
                    V.                                        i
    
           SPECIAL DEVICES, INCORPORATED                      ,'>
                                     Defendant.               )
    
                                                      COMPLAINT
    
                             Plaintiffs Thomas F. Treinen, Thomas J. Treinen, John M. Cuthbert and John
    
          Vinke, by and through their undersigned attorneys, bring this Complaint against defendant
    
          Devices, Incorporated ("SDI") seeking summary adjudication pursuant to Section 145(k) of the
    
          General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware ("DGCL") of their right to (i) advancement of
    
          certain. fees and expenses, and (ii) reimbursement  ofthe fees and expenses incurred in
    
          action for enforcement. In support of their claims, plaintiffs allege as follows:
    
                                                         PARTIES
    
                             1.     Plaintiff Thomas F. Treinen was Co-President and Co-ChiefExecutive
    
          of SDI from March 1976 until April 1981. He was the sole President and Chief Executive Officer
    
          from 1981 until December 1998. Thomas F. Treinen was Chairman ofthe Board ofDirectors of SD1
    
          from 1991 until December 1998.
    
                             2.     Plaintiff Thomas J. Treinen was Vice President of  SD1 from in or
    
          to in or about 1998.
    
    
    
          RLFl-2189842-1
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • THOMAS F. TREINEN, THOMAS J. TREINEN, JOHN M. CUTHBERT,
  • Plaintiffs Thomas F. Treinen, Thomas J. Treinen, John M. Cuthbert and John T
  • Vinke, by and through their undersigned attorneys, bring this Complaint against defendant
  • Incorporated seeking summary adjudication pursuant to Section 145of the
  • fees and expenses, and reimbursement ofthe fees and expenses incurred in prosecuting this
  • plaintiffs allege as follows:
  • He was the sole President and Chief Executive Officer
  • Thomas F. Treinen was Chairman ofthe Board ofDirectors of SD1
  • Plaintiff John M. Cuthbert was Vice President of the Automotive Products
  • Restated Agreement and Plan ofMerger whereby SD1 Acquisition Corp.
  • merged with and into SDI, with SD1 being the surviving corporation.
  • Named as defendants in the Lehman Action were Messrs.
  • California DTSC Investigation, the plaintiffs individually
  • plaintiffs to mandatory advancements and reimbursement offees and expenses incurred in
  • SDI's Current Certificate of Incorporation;
  • Defendant's indemnification and advancement obligations are set forth in
  • such n/ indemnification shall be mandate CorDoration ISDII shall advance expenses in
  • authorized SD1 to agree to indemnify officers and directors of SD1 to the tillest extent of
  • Articl'e VII, Section 1, of the SD1 By-Laws provides:
  • the payment of such expenses incurred by a director or officer in his
  • independent legal counsel or its stockholders) to
  • for and advancement of attorneys' fees in connection with the Grand Jury Investigation.
  • On July 25,2000, Kaye Scholer sent counsel for SD1 an invoice for legal fees and expenses
  • of representation if his counsel is not willing to continue their representation of him
  • McDermott, Will & Emery, counsel for Mr. Vinke, forwarded to SD1 for payment
  •    |