LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

KINDT v LUND Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 17,751, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff: KINDT, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00017751, County: New Castle County, Transaction, Motion, Report, Stock, Skin, Nse, Discovery, Committee, Special Committee, Complaint, Planet, Nsi, Shares, Nsusa, Nsi Transaction, Self-dealing Defendants, Protective Order, Reasonableness, Derivative Action, Individual Defendants, Acquisition, Earnings, Assets, Reasons, Skin Enterprises, David Guin, Supporting, Contingent Consideration, Independence, Litigation Committee, Distribution, Directors, Ebitda, Nominal Defendant, Opposition, Donaldson, Common Stock, Witness Interviews , ContentID: 120240513

Case Documents
1 2001-12-14 LETTER OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 126782
6 pages
PDF
2 2001-09-28 NU SKIN ENTERPRISES REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 127118
16 pages
PDF
3 2001-07-09 PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO NU SKIN ENTERPRISESS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115494
24 pages
PDF
4 2001-06-08 PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO NU SKIN ENTERPRISES MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115495
24 pages
PDF
5 2000-01-21 DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 101417
26 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 5 documents , 96 pages
Price: $ 39.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . LETTER OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
REQUESTS
PLAINTIFF
COURT
FAITH
DISCOVERY
INDEPENDENCE
ZAPATA
DIRECTORS
REQS
PROTECTIVE ORDER
SPECIAL LITIGATION
RECOMMENDATION
ADVISORS
DEL
REASONS
REPORT
DISMISS
PRODUCTION
MEMBERS
PURPOSE
UNDERLYING
ABBEY
CHALLENGED TRANSACTIONS
MOTION
SKIN
ENGAGEMENT LETTERS
DERIVATIVE CLAIM
STANDARD
SUPR
                                  COURT OF  CHANCERY
                                         OF THE
                                   STATE OF  DELAWARE

                                                                                              t?O. 
                          Date Submitted: September 28,200 1                   GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE
                           Date Decided: December  14,200l                      TELEPHONE (302)
                                                                                 FASCIMILE      



Norman M. Monhait                                  A. Gilchrist Sparks, III
Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross                          William M. Lafferty
 & Goddess, P.A.                                   S. Mark Hurd
P.O. Box 1070                                      Morris, Nichols, Arsht  & Tunnel1
Wilmington, DE 19899                               P.O. Box 1347
                                                   Wilmington, DE 19899
Daniel A. Dreisbach
Richards, Layton  & Finger
P.O. Box 55 1
Wilmington, DE 19899                                                                               
                                                                                                  

                 Re: Kindt v. Lund, et al.
                       Civil Action No. 17751                                                  
Dear Counsel:

      I have considered your positions with regard to defendant Nu Skin's motion

for a protective order. For the reasons that follow, I conclude that defendant's

motion must be granted to the extent that plaintiffs document request fails to seek

documents that bear upon the special litigation committee's good faith and

independence.

      Upon the commencement of a derivative action against Nu Skin, the Board

of Directors appointed a special litigation committee ("Special Committee") to

investigate the matters asserted in the complaint. In its report ("Report"), dated

August 3 1, 2000, the Special Committee recommended the company move to



dismiss the complaint, which the company did on September 11, 2000. Thereafter,

SNIPPETS:
  • I have considered your positions with regard to defendant Nu Skin's motion
  • For the reasons that follow,
  • Upon the commencement of a derivative action against Nu Skin,
  • of Directors appointed a special litigation committee to
  • In its report, dated
  • dismiss the complaint, which the company did on September 11, 2000.
  • plaintiff served her First Request for Production of Documents Directed to the
  • to obtain a protective order.
  • Nu Skin to provide plaintiff with any and all minutes of the Special Committee,
  • those portions of the minutes of the Board of Directors of the Company relating to
  • to the appointment of its members, and any retention or engagement letters
  • Court to allow additional discovery of documents necessary to assess the Special
  • Committee's independence.
  • committee's recommendation to dismiss a derivative claim,
  • Zapata prescribes that the Board of Directors remains in control
  • the court "finds bad faith or a lack of independence or reasonableness on the part
  • committee's investigation would eviscerate the very purpose of having a special
  • the Abbey Court relied on the Supreme Court's analysis
  • I decline plaintiffs invitation to read the Zapata standard more
  • Computer & Communications Technology Corp., et al., Del.
  • I will evaluate the document requests in light of the procedural
  • posture of the underlying action.
  • and opinions produced by the advisors to the Committee,
  • to the challenged transactions, the legal and financial advisors to the Transaction
  • Reqs., Reqs.
  • to the underlying operative facts upon which plaintiff posits her derivative claim.
  • Supr., 499 A.2d 1184.

  • 2 . NU SKIN ENTERPRISES REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFF
    COMMITTEE
    COURT
    REPORT
    MEMBERS
    REASON
    INTERVIEWS
    PROTECTIVE ORDER
    FAITH
    KAPLAN
    DELAWARE
    MOTION
    DEPOSITIONS
    LIMITED-SCOPE
    INDEPENDENCE
    DEL
    GRIMES
    CARLTON
    DELAWARE LAW
    REQUEST
    COMPLAINT
    DEFENDANTS
    SKIN
    WEISER
    ROBERT
    VALUATION
    DISMISS
    COUNSEL
    FINANCIAL ADVISOR
    
                IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                          IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    KAREN KINDT,
    
                       Plaintiff,       :
                                        :
         V.                             :       Civil Action No. 17751
                                        :
    STEVEN J. LUND, BLAKE M. RONEY      :       PUBLIC VERSION
    SANDRA N. TILLOTSON, KEITH R.
    HALLS, BROOKE B. RONEY, DANIEL      :
    W. CAMPBELL, E.J. GARN, PAULA       :
    HAWKINS, and MAX L. PINEGAR,        :
                                         :
                       Defendants.      :
                                        :
         and                            :
                                         :
    NU SKIN ENTERPRISES, INC.,           :
    a Delaware corporation,              :
                                         :
                       Nominal          :
                       Defendant.        :
    
    
                   NU SKIN ENTERPRISES, INC.'S REPLY BRIEF IN
                  SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
    
    
    
                                      MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT  & TUNNELL
                                      A. Gilchrist Sparks, III
                                      William M. Lafferty
                                      S. Mark Hurd
                                      1201 N. Market Street
                                      P.O. Box 1347
                                      Wilmington, DE    19899-1347
                                      (302) 658-9200
                                        Attorneys for Nominal Defendant
                                        Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc.
    
    September 28, 2001
    
    
    
                                                                           I.
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
  • LIMITING DEPOSITION DISCOVERY TO THE
  • INDEPENDENCE AND GOOD FAITH OF THE SPECIAL
  • Plaintiff Already Has Received All The
  • Contents Of The Report Do Not Justify
  • Carlton Investments v. TLC Beatrice Int'l Holdincs, Inc., Del.
  • Grimes v. DSC Communications Corp.,
  • Kaplan v. Wyatt, Del.
  • Robert F. Reilly & Robert P. Schweihs,
  • The Handbook of Advanced Business Valuation
  • "Special Committee"); those portions of the minutes of the Board
  • Company's motion to dismiss should be denied,
  • Under Delaware Law.
  • to depose the members of the Committee concerning the good faith
  • reviewed and/or relied upon in drafting the Report," see request
  • the complaint in this action allegedly contains specific factual
  • factors in valuing the [Nu Skin International,
  • finds that the Transaction Committee's financial advisor, DLJ,
  • Based on those interviews and its review of materials
  • committee and the defendants relating to the lawsuit or its
  • permitted limited-scope depositions of the committee members and
  • _- its expert, depositions to which the Company here has agreed,
  • and plaintiff offers no principled reason for broaderranging discovery.
  • continued) litigation committee's counsel participated in the simultaneous discovery process,
  • purports to be governed by Delaware law, Weiser v. Grace, N.Y.

  • 3 . PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO NU SKIN ENTERPRISESS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DEFENDANTS
    TRANSACTION
    COURT
    MOTION
    REPORT
    SKIN
    COMMITTEE
    COMPLAINT
    SPECIAL COMMITTEE
    DISCOVERY
    NSI TRANSACTION
    REASONS
    BUSINESS
    REASONABLENESS
    DERIVATIVE ACTION
    PROTECTIVE ORDER
    DIRECTORS
    SKIN ENTERPRISES
    DAVID GUIN
    SUPPORTING
    NSUSA
    LITIGATION COMMITTEE
    WITNESS INTERVIEWS
    CONTINGENT CONSIDERATION
    EBITDA
    NOMINAL DEFENDANT
    OPPOSITION
    DONALDSON
    INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
    
                                               PUBLIC VERSION
                  IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                                     IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    --------------------------------------------------~--~--------x
    KAREN  KINDT, Derivatively On Behalf                               :
    Of NU SKIN ENTERPRISES, INC.,
    
                      Plaintiff,
    
             V. : Civil Action No. 17751 NC
    
    STEVEN J. LUND, BLAKE M. RONEY
    SANDRA N. TILLOTSON, KEITH R.
    HALLS, BROOKE B. RONEY,
    DANIEL W. CAMPBELL, E.J. GARN,
    PAULA HAWKINS, MAX L. PINEGAR,
    
                      Defendants.
          and
    
    NU SKIN ENTERPRISES, INC.,
    
                      Nominal Defendant.
    ------------------~~--------------------~-~-------------------x
    
                             PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
                                      TO NU SKIN ENTERPRISES, INC.`S
                                     MOTION  FOR PROTECTIVE  ORDER
    
                                                  ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT, GROSS  & GODDESS, P.A.
                                                  Norman M. Monhait
                                                  Suite 1401, Mellon Bank Center
                                                  P.O. Box 1070
                                                  Wilmington, Delaware 19899
    OF COUNSEL:                                   (302) 656-4433
                                                  Attorneys for Plaintiff
    David Guin
    DONALDSON  & GUIN
    2 North  20" Street
    Suite 1100
    Birmingham, A.L 35203-4014
    (205) 226-2282
    
    
    June 8, 2001
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • Of NU SKIN ENTERPRISES, INC.,
  • PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
  • David Guin
  • Additional Authority Supporting Plaintiff 7
  • nominal defendant Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc., for the following
  • On January 21, 2000, plaintiff commenced this derivative action on behalf of Nu Skin
  • against all but one of the Company's directors, alleging that the individual defendants had
  • Complaint 17 19, 20.1 The Complaint sets forth with particularity the manner in which the
  • Nu Skin had appointed a special litigation committee
  • discovery) while the Special Committee conducted its investigation.
  • Mr. Garn was a member of Nu Skin's board of directors when Nu Skin negotiated,
  • The Special Committee ultimately served a copy of its report on
  • 2000 (the "Motion to Dismiss").
  • having received the Company's motion for protective order (the
  • Committee] and the bases supporting its conclusions."
  • Nu Skin objects to plaintiff's Request which seeks to obtain relevant discovery that is
  • special litigation committee sponsored a motion to dismiss the action or, alternatively, stay
  • reasonableness of the Com.mittee's investigation, and thus, to that extent, the
  • The plaintiffs entitlement to discovery is supported by cases in otlner business savvy
  • prepared for use during witness interviews; all notes or transcripts prepared in connection
  • F'ursuant to the NSI Transaction,
  • defendants purportedly for "strategic" reasons and, therefore, not included in
  • now acquire the North American business operations of NSUSA.
  • in a manner which allowed them to qualify for the contingent consideration payments that had
  • asserts that Donaldson, L&kin & Jenrette, financial advisor to the Company's
  • Since the Report reveals that the "parties"' intended to use a standardized "EBITDA" formula,

  • 4 . PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO NU SKIN ENTERPRISES MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DEFENDANTS
    TRANSACTION
    COURT
    MOTION
    REPORT
    SKIN
    COUNSEL
    SPECIAL COMMITTEE
    COMPLAINT
    DISCOVERY
    NSI TRANSACTION
    PLANET
    BUSINESS
    REASONABLENESS
    DERIVATIVE ACTION
    PROTECTIVE ORDER
    EBITDA
    SKIN ENTERPRISES
    DAVID GUIN
    SUPPORTING
    NSUSA
    LITIGATION COMMITTEE
    CONTINGENT
    INDEPENDENCE
    NOMINAL DEFENDANT
    OPPOSITION
    DONALDSON
    INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
    WITNESS INTERVIEWS
    
                   IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                       IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    --------------------~------------------------------~-~--~------x
    KAREN KINDT, Derivatively On Behalf                                 :
    Of NU SKIN ENTERPRISES, INC.,
    
                       Plaintiff,
    
             V.                                                         : Civil Action No, 17751 NC
    
    STEVEN J. LUND, BLAKE M.  RONEY
    SANDRA N.  TITLLOTSON, KEITH R.
    HALLS,  BROOKE B. RONEY,
    DANIEL W. CAMPBELL, E.J. GARN,
    PAULA  HAWKINS, MAX L. PINEGAR,
    
                       Defendants.
          and
    
    NU SKIN ENTERPRISES, INC.,
    
                       Nominal Defendant.
    ----------------"-~-----------------------~-------------------~,x
    
                              PLAINTIFF'S  MEMORANDUM  IN OPPOSITION
                                       TO NU SKIN ENTERPRISES,  INC.'S
                                      MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
    
                                                    ROSENTHAL,, MONHAIT, GROSS  & GODDESS, P.A.
                                                    Norman M. Monhait
                                                    Suite 1401, Mellon Bank Center
                                                    P.O. Box 1070
                                                    Wilmington, Delaware 19899
                                                    (302)  656-4433
                                                    Attorneys for Plaintiff
    OF COUNSEL:
    
    David Guin
    DONALDSON  & GUIN
    2 North  20th Street
    Suite 1100
    Birmingham, AL 35203-4014
    (205) 226-2282
    
    June 8, 2001
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • Of NU SKIN ENTERPRISES, INC.,
  • PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
  • OF COUNSEL:
  • David Guin
  • Additional Authority Supporting Plaintiff 7
  • Plaintiff, Karen Kindt, opposes the motion for protective order of
  • nominal defendant Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc., for the following
  • On January 21, 2000, plaintiff commenced this derivative action on behalf of Nu Skin
  • against all but one of the Company's dimctors, alleging that the individual defendants had
  • Complaint Ifi 19, 20.1 The Complaint sets forth wi.th particularity the manner in which the
  • On or about March 7, 2000, before plaintifY could commence discovery, Nu Skin's
  • discovery) while the Special Committee conducted its investigation.
  • The Special Committee ultimately served a copy of its report on
  • having receiv'ed the Company's motion for protective order (the
  • plaintiff deemed necessary to assess "the independence and good faith of the [Spe:cial
  • Committee] and the bases supporting its conclusions."
  • special litigation committee sponsored a motion to dismiss the action or, alternatively, stay
  • In applying this standard, Zanata held that the "corporation should have the burden of
  • The plaintiffs entitlement to disc'overy is supported by cases in oi:her business savvy
  • prepared for use during witness interviews; all notes or transcripts prepared in connection
  • Pursuant to the NSI Transaction,
  • The `contingent consideration is payable in $25
  • earnings pursuant to an elaborate "EBITDA" formula.
  • now acquire the North American business operations of NSUSA.
  • asserts that Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, financial advisor to the Company's
  • The Big Planet And NSUSA Transactions

  • 5 . DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    STOCK
    NSE
    NSI
    SHARES
    PLANET
    SELF-DEALING DEFENDANTS
    BUSINESS
    ACQUISITION
    NSUSA
    EARNINGS
    PLAINTIFF
    ASSETS
    DISTRIBUTION
    COMMON STOCK
    INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
    CONTINGENT CONSIDERATION
    TRANSACTIONS
    AGREEMENTS
    DISTRIBUTION NOTES
    RELEVANT TIMES
    INTERNET ACCESS
    TELECOMMUNICATIONS
    NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS
    SUBSIDIARIES
    EARNINGS GROWTH
    OPERATING LOSSES
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    FAMILY MEMBERS
    DIVERTED ASSETS
    
                                                                        be. . /--. A " " `; r.
                                                                        \j                        `1 `1
                                                                              ,:  .                    
                  IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                               IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    
    KAREN KINDT, Derivatively on Behalf of
    NU SKIN ENTERPRISES, INC.,
    a Delaware Corporation,                               ;
    
                                   Plaintiff,
    
           VS.                                            ;     Civil Action No. 1 yy5-d  c
    
    STEVEN J. LUND, BLAKE M. RONEY,                       ;
    SANDRA N. TILLOTSON, KEITH R. HALLS, )
    BROOKE B. RONEY, DANIEL W.                            >
    CAMPBELL, E.J. GARN, PAULA HAWKINS, )
    and MAX L. PINEGAR,
                                                          ;
                                   Defendants.            >
                     and
                                                          ;
    NU SKIN ENTERPRISES, INC., a Delaware                 )
    corporation,
                                                          ;
                                   Nominal Defendant.  )>
                                      DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT
    
           Plaintiff, for her Derivative Complaint, alleges the following upon information and belief
    
    except for those allegations that pertain to Plaintiff which are based upon personal knowledge.
    
                                                 THE PARTIES
    
            1.       Plaintiff Karen Kindt purchased 100 shares of Class A common stock of Nu Skin
    
    Enterprises, Inc. ("NSE" or the "Company") on August 27, 1997, which Plaintiff has owned
    
    continuously through the date of the tiling of this action. Plaintiff brings this action
    
    pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Rules of the Court of Chancery in the right of and for the benefit
    
    of NSE to redress injuries to NSE resulting from the defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty.
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • except for those allegations that pertain to Plaintiff which are based upon personal
  • Plaintiff Karen Kindt purchased 100 shares of Class A common stock of Nu Skin
  • of NSE to redress injuries to NSE resulting from the defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty.
  • At all relevant times, Defendant Steven J. Lund was the President, Chief
  • President and a director of NSE, and Vice President of NSUSA.
  • the Individual Defendants named in paragraphs 3 through 7
  • United States through a recently acquired, wholly-owned subsidiary, Big Planet, Inc. Prior to
  • the Company was wholly owned by the Self-Dealing Defendants and affiliates
  • Self-Dealing Defendants sold stock in the IPO, receiving (along with family members)
  • The Company's business is described in the Company's Annual Report,
  • services division that offers Internet access and related services, ecommerce,
  • The claims alleged herein arise out of three business transactions (the
  • acquisition by NSE of stock or assets of corporations previously owned and controlled directly
  • subsidiaries, and/or will result in the payment by NSE and/or its subsidiaries of
  • At the beginning of 1998, the Company operated as the exclusive distribution
  • vehicle for a network marketing company, NSI, which was then wholly owned by the Self-Dealing
  • earnings derived from NSI's entire business operations and activities.
  • The creation of S Distribution Notes had the effect of stripping NSI and its
  • payment was made even though the Company achieved negative "earnings growth" in the
  • have been entitled to receive the $25 million Contingent Consideration payment for 1998.
  • it was not an "appropriate" time to acquire NSI's North American operations.
  • Contingent Consideration to the Self-Dealing Defendants; and wrongfully allow the
  • licensing, sales, trademark and tradename agreements, as well as a wholesale distribution
  • and we anticipate further operating losses in the
  •    |