 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MOTION DIRECTORS DEFENDANTS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT COURT OPINION ESQUIRE DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT CHALLENGED TRANSACTION REARGUMENT SATISFY TELXON DEMAND CHANCERY DELAWARE DISINTEREST MAJORITY DEL REASONS ARONSON SECOND PRONG AUTHORITY GOODMAN WILMINGTON ATTORNEYS PLAINTIFF DERIVATIVE ACTION LITIGATION |
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
TELXON CORPORATION. >
Plaintiff, I,
v. i C.A. No. 17706
JOHN H. CRIBB, ROBERT A. ,'
GOODMAN, RAJ REDDY, FRANK
BRICK, NORTON ROSE, ROBERT F. i
MEYERSON, and TELANTIS 1
VENTURE V INC.,
;
Defendants. >
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Submitted: November 13, 2001
Decided: December 6, 2001
Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esquire, ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT, GROSS &
GODDESS, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Sidney B. Silverman, Esquire,
New York, New York; and Walter Siegle, Esquire, Symbol Technologies, Inc.,
Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Henry E. Gallagher, Jr., Esquire, CONNOLLY, BOVE, LODGE & HUTZ,
LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; and Steven J. Miller, Esquire, Drew A. Carson,
Esquire, GOODMAN, WEISS, MILLER, LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, Attorneys for
Defendants Cribb, Goodman, Reddy, Brick and Rose.
Martin P. Tully, Esquire, MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL,
Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendant Meyerson.
LAMB, Vice Chancellor.
I.
The defendant Non-Meyerson Directors' have moved to reargue the
Court's opinion of October 29, 2001. In that opinion, I decided, among other
things, that for purposes of satisfying the statute of limitations the Amended
Complaint (filed as a direct action by Telxon Corporation after its acquisition by
Symbol Technologies, Inc.) related back to the time of filing of the original
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
PLAINTIFFS ANSWER TO NON-MEYERSON DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR RE-ARGUMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COMPLAINT MOTION MERCHANTS COURT DEMAND TELXON DEL DIRECTORS AMENDED COMPLAINT REASON FACTS OPINION LAW DISMISS PLAINTIFF TRANSACTION AIRONET MAJORITY CONTENTION ALLEGE DEMAND FUTILITY EXCUSE TRANSCRIPT ALLEGATIONS CORPORATE WASTE AIRONET OPTION COUNSEL INHERENT POWER NATIONAL PROPERTIES |
ORIGINAL
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY f-1
_.
TELXON CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
V. C.A. No. 17706-NC
RICHARD J. BOGOMOLNY et al.,
Defendants. :
_-_______---___--_------------------------------------------ X
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO THE NON-MEYERSON
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RE-ARGUMENT
Standard of Review
It is axiomatic that a motion for re-argument will be granted only when the "the Court
has overlooked a decision or principle of law that would have controlling effect or the Court
has misapprehended the law or the facts so that the outcome of the decision would be
affected."' To succeed, the motion "must show that the Court misunderstood material facts
or applied the wrong legal standard."' If the motion "merely restates arguments a court has
already rejected, the court should deny the motion."3 The Non-Meyerson defendants'
("defendants") motion for re-argument of the Courts October 29, 2001 opinion (the
`Sfein v. Orlofl, Del. Ch., C.A. No. 7276, 1985 WL 21136, Hartnett, V.C. (Sept.
26, 1985) at **2; Miles, Inc. v. Cookson Am., Inc. Del. Ch., 677 A.2d 505, 506 (1995);
Confinenfal Ins. Co. v. Rutledge & Co., Del. Ch., C.A. No. 15539, 2000 WL 268297,
Chandler, C. (Feb. 15, 2000) at **I.
3Confinenfal Ins. Co. v. Rutledge & Co, supra, at **I.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
MOTION FOR REARGUMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COMPLAINT TELXON DEFENDANTS COURT AMENDED COMPLAINT OPINION DEL TELXON CORPORATION NON-MEYERSON MOTION BOGOMOLNY DISMISS DEMAND PLAINTIFF LIMITATIONS CHALLENGED TRANSACTION CHANCERY RULE DISINTERESTED BOARD BUSINESS JUDGMENT DISINTERESTED BOARD MAJORITY ALLEGED AIRONET OPTION AIRONET OPTION MEMORANDUM DEMAND FUTILITY STOCKHOLDER ARONSON TEST DEFENDANTS RICHARD REARGUMENT MATERIAL FACT |
ORIGINAL
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
TELXON CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
C.A. No. 17706 NC
V.
RICHARD J. BOGOMOLNY, et al.,
Defendants.
MOTION FOR REARGUMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendants Richard J. Bogomolny ("Bogomolny"), John H. Cribb ("Cribb"), Robert A.
Goodman ("Goodman"), Raj Reddy ("Reddy"), Frank Brick ("Brick"), and Norton Rose ("Rose")
(the "Non-Meyerson Director Defendants") respectfully move the Court, pursuant to Court of
Chancery Rule 59(f), for reargument of the Court's Memorandum Opinion, dated October 29,
2001 ("Opinion"), denying their motion to dismiss Telxon Corporation's Amended Complaint
as time-barred by operation of the applicable three-year statute of limitations, 10 Del. C.
58106. The standard on a motion for reargument is whether the Court has misapprehended
a material fact or rule of law. Cole v. Kershaw, Del. Ch., C.A. No. 13904 NC, Jacobs, V.C.,
2000 WL 1336724 (August 29, 2000) (copy attached at tab 1). This standard is met here.
II. LAW AND ARGUMENT
A. The Derivative Action Over Which Telxon's Post-Acquisition Board
Attempts to Assert Control Over Was Brought Unlawfully
SNIPPETS:
|
|
4
.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
TELXON MEYERSON STOCK GOODMAN DEFENDANTS ROSE REDDY DERIVATIVE ACTION AIRONET OPTION AMENDED COMPLAINT BOGOMOLNY PLAINTIFF DIRECTORS BRICK COMPLAINT ALLEGES AGREEMENT ALLEGATIONS ATTORNEYS COMPENSATION COMMITTEE WILMINGTON VICE CHANCELLOR REASONABLENESS CASH COMPENSATION INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES LLP WEISS MILLER FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS |
IGINAL
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY Y/ic/
TELXON CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
V. > C.A. No. 17706
>
RICHARD J. BOGOMOLNY, JOHN H. )
CRIBB, ROBERT A. GOODMAN, RAJ )
REDDY, FRANK BRICK, NORTON )
ROSE, ROBERT F. MEYERSON, and )
TELANTIS VENTURE V INC., >>
Defendants. >
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Submitted: August 22, 2001
Decided: October 29, 2001
Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esquire, ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT, GROSS &
GODDESS, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Sidney B. Silverman, Esquire,
(argued), New York, New York; and Walter Siegle, Esquire, Symbol
Technologies, Inc., Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Henry E. Gallagher, Jr., Esquire, CONNOLLY, BOVE, LODGE & HUTZ,
LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; and Drew A. Carson, Esquire, (argued),
GOODMAN, WEISS MILLER, LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, Attorneysfor
Defendants Bogomolny, Cribb, Goodman, Reddy, Brick and Rose.
Martin P. Tully, Esquire, MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL,
Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendant Meyerson.
LAMB, Vice Chancellor.
I.
This action was filed as a derivative action on behalf of Telxon
Corporation challenging an April 1996 stock option agreement between Telxon
and its then board chairman, Robert F. Meyerson (the "Derivative Complaint").
The option agreement gave Meyerson the right to acquire 10% of the fully
SNIPPETS:
|
|
5
.
PLAINTIFFS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
TELXON MEYERSON PLAINTIFF GOODMAN ROSE AMENDED COMPLAINT AIRONET OPTION DIRECTORS REDDY COURT MOTION STOCK BRICK DEL COUNSEL AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGES MERCHANTS NON-MEYERSON DEFENDANTS BUSINESS JUDGMENT DERIVATIVE ACTION TRANSACTION STOCKHOLDERS SUPREME COURT AMENDED COMPLAINT STATES NON-MEYERSON DEFENDANTS CONTEND LIMITATIONS ROBERT SILVERMAN SEVERANCE |
ORIGINAL
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 5-7
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
-----------------------------------------------"----------x
MERCHANTS NATIONAL PROPERTIES, :
INC., : C.A. No. 17706 NC
Plaintiff,
RICHARD J. BOGOMOLNY, JOHN H.
CRIBB, ROBERT A. GOODMAN,
RAJ REDDY, FRANK BRICK, NORTON :
ROSE, ROBERT F. MEYERSON,
TELANTIS VENTURE PARTNERS V, INC. i
and TELXON CORPORATION,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------x
PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS
RICHARD J. BOGOMOLNY, JOHN H. CRIBB, ROBERT A. GOODMAN,
RAJ REDDY, FRANK BRICK, AND NORTON ROSE'S MOTION TO DISMISS
ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT, GROSS
& GODDESS, P.A.
Joseph A. Rosenthal
Carmella P. Keener
Mellon Bank Center
Suite 1401
P.O. Box 1070
Wilmington, DE 19899
(302) 656-4433
Attorneys for Plaintiff
OF COUNSEL:
SIDNEY B. SILVERMAN, ESQUIRE
3 % East 93*d Street
New York, NY 10128
(646) 672-0054
Dated: August 3,200 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SNIPPETS:
|
|
6
.
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MEYERSON ADMIT DEFENDANTS AGREEMENT MERGER STOCK INDEMNIFY EXPENSES TELANTIS TELXON BOARD COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REFER COURT AMENDED COMPLAINT REDDY EMPLOYEE SUBSIDIARIES ROSE DIRECTORS AIRONET RESPECTFULLY REFER BREACH TELANTIS VENTURE PARTNERS ATTORNEYS PAID PRIOR DETERMINATION CERTIFICATE |
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
TELXON CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
V.
RICHARD J. BOGOMOLNY, JOHN H. Civil Action No. 17706
CRIBB, ROBERT A. GOODMAN, RAJ
REDDY, FRANK BRICK, NORTON
ROSE, ROBERT F. MEYERSON, and
TELANTIS VENTURE PARTNERS V
INC.
Defendants.
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM
Defendants Robert F. Meyerson and Telantis Venture Partners V Inc. ("Telantis")
(hereinafter "Defendants") by their attorneys, respond to plaintiff's Amended Complaint as
follows:
1. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 1, except admit, upon information and belief,
that Telxon is a Delaware corporation that was acquired by Symbol in a merger consummated on
or about November 30,200O.
2. (a) Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 2, except admit that
Mr. Meyerson served as Telxon's CEO from 1978 to 1985, and again, at the request of Telxon's
Board, from October 1992 to March 1996, when his employment contract expired and thereafter
at the pleasure of the Board pending full assumption of his duties by his successor, and admit
that Mr. Meyerson served as Chairman of the Telxon Board of Directors from 1981 to February
SNIPPETS:
|
|
7
.
REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
NON-MEYERSON DEFENDANTS DISMISS DISCOVERY TELXON PLAINTIFF COURT COUNSEL COMPLAINT AMENDED COMPLAINT EXHIBIT MEYERSON BRIEFING ROBERT ALLEGE RULING DELAWARE SUPPORT GOODMAN RAJ REDDY CONFERENCE PARTY PLAINTIFF REASONABLE EXPECTATION PENDING LITIGATION STANDING SCHEDULE BURDENS CHANCELLOR JACOBS PROCEED PENDING |
ORlGlMi4L
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
TELXON CORPORATION,
Plaintiff, _
C.A. No. 17706 NC ,.
V.
i 8
RICHARD J. BOGOMOLNY, et al.,
Defendants.
REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
STAY DISCOVERY AND MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS RICHARD J. BOGOMOLNY,
JOHN H. CRIBB, ROBERT A. GOODMAN, RAJ REDDY,
FRANK BRICK, AND NORTON ROSE
OF COUNSEL:
Henry E. Gallagher, Jr. (#495)
Steven j. Miller Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP
Drew A. Carson 1220 Market Street
Goodman Weiss Miller LLP P.O. Box 2207
100 Erieview Plaza, 27th Floor Wilmington, DE 19899
Cleveland, OH 44114-I 882 (302) 658-9141
(216) 696-3366
Attorneys for Defendants Richard 1. Bogomolny,
lohn H. Cribb, Robert A. Goodman, Raj Reddy,
Frank Brick, and Norton Rose
Dated: July 20, 2001
INTRODUCTION
Defendants Richard J. Bogomolny, John H. Cribb, Robert A. Goodman, Raj Reddy,
Frank Brick, and Norton Rose (hereinafter "Non-Meyerson Defendants") respectfully
SNIPPETS:
|
|
8
.
OPENING BRIEF OF R. BOGOMOLNY J. CRIBB R. GOODMAN R. REDDY F. BRICK AND N. ROSE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
AMENDED COMPLAINT PLAINTIFF COURT DEL FACTS REDDY ROSE GOODMAN MEYERSON DEFENDANTS CRIBB BOGOMOLNY NON-MEYERSON DIRECTORS AIRONET OPTION BRICK DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT ALLEGATION AIRONET OPTION GRANT AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGES DEFENDANTS RICHARD NORTON ROSE LEXIS ORIGINAL DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT LIMITATIONS SUBSTITUTE WASTE CLAIM AMENDED COMPLAINT FAILS FRANK BRICK CHALLENGED TRANSACTION |
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
TELXON CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
C.A. No. 17706 NC
V.
RICHARD J. BOGOMOLNY, et al.,
Defendants.
OPENING BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS RICHARD J. BOGOMOLNY,
JOHN H. CRIBB, ROBERT A. GOODMAN, RAJ REDDY,
FRANK BRICK, AND NORTON ROSE IN SUPPORT OF
THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS
OF COUNSEL:
Henry E. Gallagher, jr. (#495)
Steven J. Miller Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP
Drew A. Carson 1220 Market Street
Goodman Weiss Miller LLP P.O. Box 2207
100 Erieview Plaza, 2Ah Floor Wilmington, DE 19899
Cleveland, OH 44114-I 882 (302) 658-9141
(216)696-3366
Attorneys for Defendants Richard j. Bogomolny,
john H. Cribb, Robert A. Goodman, Raj Reddy,,
Frank Brick, and Norton Rose
Dated: June 29, 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTiORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
INTRODUCTION, STATEMENT OF THE FACTS, AND
SNIPPETS:
|
|
9
.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS RULE 37 MOTION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DISCOVERY MOTION TELXON NON-MEYERSON DEFENDANTS MEYERSON BURDENSOME COURT PLAINTIFF DOCUMENT REQUEST AIRONET GOODMAN PURSUANT DIRECTORS PARTY COMMITTEE GRANT MEETINGS REASONS IMPOSE ROBERT LAW DISMISS OBLIGATIONS DISPOSITION RESPONSE SHAREHOLDER POSSESSION EXPENSE COMPLYING |
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
TELXON CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
C.A. No. 17706
V.
RICHARD J. BOGOMOLNY, JOHN H. :
CRIBB, ROBERTA. GOODMAN, RAJ :
REDDY, FRANK BRICK, NORTON
ROSE, ROBERT F. MEYERSON, and I
TELANTIS VENTURE PARTNERS V. INC., :
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S RULE 37
MOTION AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION OF
CERTAIN DEFENDANTS TO STAY DISCOVERY
- -
Defendants Richard J. Bogomolny, John H. Cribb, Robert A. Goodman
("Goodman"), IRaj Reddy, Frank Brick and Norton Rose (hereinafter referred to collectively
as the "Non-Meyerson Defendants") have failed to respond timely to the document request
served by plaintiff Telxon Corporatiorl ("Telxon")' pursuant to Rule 34 on May 10, 2001' .
Instead, on June 8, 2001, they moved for a stay of discovery pending disposition of their
motion to dismiss also filed on June 6, 2001.
The other defendants in this case are Robert F. Meyerson ("Meyerson") and a
company wholly owned by him, Telantis Venture Partners V Inc. (collectively "the
Meyerson Defendants"). The Meyerson Defendants have timely responded to Telxon's
document request and have agreed ,to produce documents nol: objected to which are in
`The individual defendants are former Texlon directors. Telxon was acquired by
Symbol Technologies, Inc., Telxon replaced the shareholder plaintiff who commenced
this action derivatively on Telxon's behalf.
`A copy of Telxon's document request is annexed hereto as Exhibit A.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
10
.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MEYERSON ROSE TELANTIS AIRONET AGREEMENT AIRONET OPTION PURSUANT STOCK OPTION COMMITTEE DEFENDANTS BRICK AMENDED COMPLAINT PLAINTIFF MERGER DELAWARE CORPORATION TELANTIS VENTURE PARTNERS BOGOMOLNY DIRECTORS COMPENSATION COMMITTEE NORTON ROSE CAUSED TELXON FAIR MARKET EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION COURT CHANCERY ACCORDANCE UNDERSIGNED ATTORNEYS AUDIT COMMITTEE EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT |
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
TELXON CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
V. i Civil Action No. 17706
RICHARD J. BOGOMOLNY, JOHN H. CRIBB, 1
ROBERT A. GOODMAN, RAJ REDDY, FRANK i
BRICK, NORTON ROSE, ROBERT F. MEYERSON, )
and TELANTIS \/ENTURE PARTNERS V INC.
'
Defendants.
NOTICE OF FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT;
.`.
TO: Henry E. Gallagher, Jr., Esquire Martin P. Tully, Esquire
Connolly Esove Lodge & Hutz LLP Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnel1
1220 Market Street 1201 N. Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801 Wilmington, DE 19801
PLEASE `TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff herewith Eiles the within Amended Complaint
pursuant to leave granted at the scheduling conference held on April 11,200 1..
In accordance with Rule 15(aa), plaintiff avers that the within Amendeli Complaint is in full
substitution for the Derivative Complaint filed on December 30, 1999.
ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT, GROSS &
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
SNIPPETS:
|
|
11
.
DIRECTOR DEFENDANTS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANTS MOTION PLEADINGS PLAINTIFF DISCOVERY STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT DELAWARE DISMISS COMPLAINT DEL PLEADING THRESHOLD SUPR SUPPORT AUTHORITIES DISCOVERY PENDING CONTRACT PERSONAL JURISDICTION DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT MEYERSON DERIVATIVE PLAINTIFF DISPOSITIVE MOTION SUPREME COURT CRIBB DATECD COURT SHOULLD CORTEC INDUS ORDER PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF CONTENDS |
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
------------------------------------~--------------------------------x
MER.CHANTS NATIONAL PROPERTIES INC., :
Plaintiff,
V. : CA. N o . 1 7 7 0 6
RICHARD J. BOGOMOLNY, JOHN H. CRIBB,
ROBERT A. GOODMAN, R4J REDDY, FRANK :
BRICK, NORTON ROSE, ROBERT F. MEYERSON, :
TELANTIS VENTURE PARI'NERS V INC., :
and TELXON CORPORATION,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------~--------------------------------x
THE DIRECTOR DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS
MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER
& FLOM LLP
One Rodney Square
P.O. Box 636
Wilmington, Delaware 19899
(302) 651-3000
Attorneys for Defendants Telxon Corporation,
Richard J. Bogomolny, John H. Cribb, Raj Reddy,
Norton Rose and Frank Brick
DATECD: July 5,200O
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SNIPPETS:
|
|
12
.
PLAINTIFFS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO STAY DISCOVERY
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MOTION PLAINTIFF COURT DEFENDANTS DISCOVERY AIRONET GRANT TELXON STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT DELAWARE CHANCERY DEL TELANTIS JUDGEMENT PARTNERS PLEADINGS COMPLAINT HARNES CONTENTIONS TELESYSTEMS SUMMARY JUDGMENT EMPLOYEES MERCHANTS NORTON ROSE VENTURE PARTNERS PROCEDURAL POSTURE REFERENCE DIRECTORS INVESTMENT PERSONAL JURISDICTION |
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
MERCHANTS' NATIONAL PROPERTIES, INC.,
I
Plaintiff,
1 1:"
) Civil Actior$'N&. I_'"
V. 17706 ; :..a
1
RICHARD J. BOGOMOLNY, JOHN H. CRIBB, __ '-7 1
ROBERT A. GOODMAN, RAJ REDDY, FRANK 1
BRICK, NORTON ROSE, ROBERT F. MEYERSON, )
TELANTIS VENTURE PARTNERS V INC.,
and TELXON CORPORATION, 1 L
) _. i
Defendants. 1
PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO STAY DISCOVERY
ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT, GROSS &
GODDESS, !?.A.
Suite 1401, Mellon Bank Center
P.O. Box 1070
Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
Attorneys for Plaintiff
OF COUNSEL:
SILVERMAN, HARNES, HARNES,
PRUSSIN h KELLER
International Plaza
750 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10022
(212) 754-2333
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Statement of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
SNIPPETS:
|
|
13
.
DEFENDANT TELANTIS VENTURES MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MOTION JUDGEMENT PLEADINGS DEFENDANT SUPPORT COURT TELANTIS VENTURE TELANTIS VENTURE PARTNERS WILMINGTON CHANCERY MEMORANDUM OPENING LLP FOREGOING DEFENDANT TELANTIS COUNSEL CARMELLA MONHAIT GROSS GODDESS MELLON BANK ARPS SLATE MEAGHER FLOM LLP RODNEY SQUARE HENRY GALLAGHER CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE HUTZ LLP |
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
MERCHANTS NATIONAL 1
PROPERTIES, INC.,
i
Plaintiff, >
V. t Civil Action No. 17706-NC
RICHARD J. BOGOMOLNY, et nl., !,
Defendants.
DEFENDANT TELANTIS VENTURE PARTNERS V, INC.`S
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
On March 8, 2000, Telantis Venture Partners V, Inc. ("Telantis") filed its motion
for judgment on the pleadings. Telantis is entitled to judgment on the pleadings as the complaint
fails to allege futility of demand as required by Court of Chancery Rule 23.1. In support of its
motion, Telantis incorporates by reference the arguments set forth in the Opening Brief in
Support of Telxon Corporation and Certain Director Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings, filed with this Court on April 10,2000, and the Opening Brief of Defendant Robert A.
Goodman in Support of His Motion to Dismiss, filed on April 7, 2000.
For the reasons set forth therein, Telantis respectfully requests that the Court
judgment on the pleadings in its favor.
Respectfully submitted,
%n 4-;-
SNIPPETS:
|
|
14
.
OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF TELXON CORP. AND CERTAIN DIRECTOR DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDMENT ON PLEADINGS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MEYERSON COURT JUDGEMENT AIRONET DEL DIRECTORS DEFENDANTS TELANTIS TELXON STOCK COMPLAINT DELAWARE FACTS PLEADINGS REDDY BUSINESS JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF ALLEGES INVESTMENT STOCK PRICE BOGOMOLNY TRANSACTION ALLEGATIONS MERCHANTS NATIONAL PROPERTIES REASONABLENESS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT DISINTERESTEDNESS STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT FAIR MARKET SHAREHOLDERS LITIG |
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
MERCHANTS NATIONAL PROPERTIES, INC., :
Plaintiff,
V. C.A. No. 17706 NC
RICHARD J. BOGOMOLNY, JOHN H. CRIBB, :
ROBERT A. GOODMAN, RAJ REDDY,
FRANK BRICK, NORTON ROSE,
ROBERT F. MEYERSON, TELANTIS
VENTURE PARTNERS V INC., and :. I-1
;-/
cl?,
TELXON CORPORATION, ; :'
Defendants. ..-_*
X -`~.
OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF , s-q
TELXON CORPORATION AND CERTAIN DIRECTOR ::. !:;
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ~
Steven J. Rothschild
Paul J. Lockwood
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Rodney Square
P.O. Box 636
Wilmington, Delaware 19899
(302) 651-3000
Attorneys for Telxon and
Certain Director Defendants
DATED: April lo,2000
TABLE OF
PAGE
TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . i
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SNIPPETS:
|
|
15
.
OPENING BRIEF OF DEFENDANT R. GOODMAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MERCHANTS TELXON DEMAND DEFENDANTS COURT FACTS DELAWARE ALLEGATIONS DEL CHALLENGED TRANSACTIONS PLAINTIFF SHAREHOLDERS COMPLAINT DEMAND FUTILITY FIRST PRONG DEMAND FUTILITY TEST DISINTERESTEDNESS DERIVATIVE ACTION DEMAND REQUIREMENT BUSINESS JUDGMENT SYMBOL BID MERCHANTS ALLEGES MEYERSON-AIRONET TRANSACTIONS DEFENDANT ROBERT PURCHASE PRICE LEXIS PARTICULARIZED FACTS DELAWARE CHANCERY COURT PROPER INQUIRY |
..~ .,
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY i- `--_ .I
-: [,'
MERCHANTS NATIONAL PROPERTIES, INC., )1
Plaintiff,
vs. C. A. No. 17706 NC
;
RICHm J. BOGOMOLNY, el al.,
;
Defendants. >
OPENING BRIEF OF DEFENDANT ROBERT A. GOODMAN
IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS
OF COUNSEL: Henry E. Gallagher, Jr. (#495)
CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP
Steven 3. Miller 1220 Market Street
Drew A. Carson P.O. Box 2207
GOODMAN WEISS MILLER EEP Wilmington, DE 19899
100 Erieview Plaza, 27th Floor (302) 658-9141
Cleveland, Ohio 441%4-1882
(216) 696-3366 Attorneys for Defendant
Robert A. Goodman
Dated: April 7,200O
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. STATEMENTOFTHEFACTS. . . . . . ~..~..~..~~~~~~~~.
* ~
SNIPPETS:
|
|
16
.
DEFENDANT R. MEYERSONS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PLAINTIFF PERSONAL JURISDICTION COMPLAINT TELXON DEL COURT DELAWARE ALLEGE ROBERT DISMISS PURSUANT DEFENDANT TELANTIS PURCHASE TRANSACTION AIRONET PURPORTS DIRECTORS STOCK STATUTE BASIS SUPPORT MOTION EXERCISE PERSONAL JURISDICTION REASON FUTILITY DEMAND OFFICER STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT |
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
MERCHANTS NATIONAL
PROPERTIES, INC.,
Plaintiff, ; Civil Action No. 17706 NC
V. 1
RICHARD J. BOGOMOLNY, et al., 1
Defendants.
DEFENDANT ROBERT F. MEYERSON'S
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS
Nowhere in its Complaint does plaintiff Merchants National Properties, Inc. allege any
facts that suggest that this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Robert F. Meyerson,
and for good reason: there are none. Mr. Meyerson has no contacts with Delaware sufficient to
confer personal jurisdiction. Thus, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(2), plaintiffs
Complaint against Mr. Meyerson should be dismissed. In addition, plaintiff has failed to allege
futility of demand as required by Rule 23.1. For that independent reason as well, plaintiffs
Complaint against Mr. Meyerson should be dismissed.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff purports to bring this derivative action on behalf of Telxon Corporation and
alleges that Telxon's directors breached their fiduciary duties by: (1) approving a transaction
between Telxon and Telantis Venture Partners V, Inc. ("Telantis"), a corporation wholly owned
by Robert F. Meyerson, a former chief executive officer of Telxon (Count One of the
Complaint); and (2) rejecting a proposal to acquire Telxon (Count Two). Only Count One of the
Complaint purports to allege any claims against Mr. Meyerson.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
17
.
DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MEYERSON AIRONET DIRECTORS DEFENDANTS PURCHASE STOCK MEYERSON-AIRONET TRANSACTION EMPLOYEES ROSE PLAINTIFF GOODMAN RECEIVING BRICK SALE REDDY VIOLATION PRICE FEES WASTE FUNDS ASSETS SHARES MAJORITY CONSULTING FINANCE SYMBOL BID TECHNOLOGY PURPOSE PRIVATE SALE |
%
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE i
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
MERCHANTS NATIONAL PROPERTIES, INC., )
)
Plaintiff,
i
v. > Civil Action No. /y'xlQ
RICHARD J. BOGOMOLNY, JOHN H. CRIBB, ;
ROBERTA. GOODMAN, RAJ REDDY, FRANK )
BRICK, NORTON ROSE, ROBERT F. MEYERSON, )
TELANTIS VENTURE PARTNERS V INC.,
and TELXON CORPORATION, i'1
Defendants. >
C O M P
DERIVATIVE L A I N T
Plaintiff, by its undersigned attorneys, alleges as follows:
COUNT ONE
I. Plaintiff Merchants National Properties, Inc. is a stockholder of Telxon
Corporation ("Telxon" or the "Company") and has owned 1,000 shares of Telxon common
stock continuously since on or prior to February 8, 1990. Plaintiff brings this action
derivatively on behalf of Telxon.
2. Telxon is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Akron,
Ohio. Telxon is engaged primarily in the design, manufacture and sale of handheld
portable computers that are linked to customer-specific enterprise computer systems.
Telxon's market includes retail, manufacturing, health-care and service-related industries.
3. a. Defendants Richard J. Bogomolny ("Bogomolny"), John H. Cribb
("Cribb"), Robert A. Goodman ("Goodman"), Raj Reddy ("Reddy"), Frank Brick ("Brick"),
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
