LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

BERNS v PATH 1 NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 17,562, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF T H E STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff: BERNS, State: CA California, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00017562, Delaware Plaintiffs, California Action, Expenses, Officer, California, Felber, Indemnification, Directors, Franklin Felber, James, Complaint, Berns, Del, Request, Certificate, Cross-complaint, Michael, Incorporation, Proceeding, Defending, James Bems, Corporation Law, Officers, Prosecuting, First Amended Complaint, Indemnify, Connection, Bems, Advanced Mining, Opposition, Contract, Commonly Accepted Meaning, Amended Complaint, Network Technologies, Sunbeam Corn, Entitlement, Capacity , ContentID: 120240638

Case Documents
1 2000-08-23 PATH 1S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR ADVANCEMENT OF EXPENSES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102675
15 pages
PDF
2 2000-07-06 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF F. FELBER IN SUPPORT REQUEST FOR ADVANCEMENT OF EXPENSES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102676
8 pages
PDF
3 2000-02-08 PATH 1S REPLY BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR ADVANCEMENT OF EXPENSES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102677
14 pages
PDF
4 2000-02-04 ANSWERING BRIEF OF M. BERNS J. BERNS AND F. FELBER IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR ADVANCEMENT OF EXPENSES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102678
15 pages
PDF
5 2000-02-01 PATH 1S OPENING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DELAWARE PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR ADVANCEMENT OF EXPENSES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 102679
22 pages
PDF
6 1999-12-09 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 101626
7 pages
PDF
7 1999-11-09 COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 101627
4 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 7 documents , 85 pages
Price: $ 49.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . PATH 1S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR ADVANCEMENT OF EXPENSES

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CALIFORNIA
FELBER
CALIFORNIA ACTION
DELAWARE PLAINTIFFS
ENTITLEMENT
EXPENSES
COMPLAINT
PROSECUTING
CROSS-COMPLAINT
OFFICER
EMPLOYEE
CONNECTION
DEFENDING
REQUEST
AGENT
CAPACITY
CONTRACT
INCURS
INCORPORATION
FORMATION
DEL
MOTION
ASSERTION
DIRECTORS
INDEMNIFICATION
CERTIFICATE
RULING
COUNT-BY-COUNT
REASON
                                        IN AND FOR NF,W CASTLE COUNTY


              MICHAE:L  B.ERNS,  JAMES BERNS,
              and FRANKLIN FELBER,
                                                     1
                                   Plaintiffs,
                                                     i
                       V.                            1    Civil Action  17562-NC   i  :

              PATH 1 NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES            i
              INC.,                                  1

                                   Defendant.




                             PATH 1 NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
                              IN OPPOSITION TO FRANKLIN FELBER'S REQUEST FOR
                                    ADVANCEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED
                                            IN THE CALIFORNIA ACTION



. . .



                                                          M. Duncan Grant
                                                          Andrea B. Unterberger
         ,                                                PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
                                                          Suite 1600
                                                          1201 Market Street
                                                          P.O. Box 1709
                                                          Wilmington, DE 19899-1709
                                                          (302)  777-6500

                                                          Attorneys for Defendant Path 1
                                                          Network Technologies Inc.

              Dated: August  23,200O



                                                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of .4uthorities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . .
         .  .  .  . ii
SNIPPETS:
  • That He Incurs Prosecuting His Cross-Complaint
  • Bnzusch v. Mundel, Del.
  • Franklin Felber, who sought indemnification from Path 1 Network
  • Path 1 filed against them and others in state court in California.
  • One of the defendants in the California Action,
  • When Path 1 refused to indemnify the Delaware Plaintiffs for their California
  • litigation expenses, they commenced this Court of Chancery litigation in November 1999.
  • Together with their Complaint, the Delaware Plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited treatment
  • entitled to indemnification is directors, officers, employees, and agents of the corporation.
  • entitlement to indemnification, and hence to advancement, must be analyzed by looking at the
  • California complaint on a count-by-count basis, to determine, for each count, whether they
  • been sued in their capacity as directors, officers, employees, and agents of Path 1 (Tr.
  • requirements of the statute and the certificate of incorporation" (Tr.
  • Felber's request for advancement of the expenses that he incurs in the California Action.
  • connection with the their participation in the formation and initial capitalization of Path 1.
  • contends that Path 1 is obligated to advance the fees and costs that he incurs defending
  • to the first assertion, the Court should deny the request for advancement, because Mr. Felber
  • capacity as a director, officer, employee, or agent of Path 1 in the California Action.
  • Felber has conceded as much in his brief in support of the summary judgment motion that he
  • Count 1 of the California complaint alleges several breaches of an oral contract
  • Eleing sued by reason of a breach of contract that was formed before the corporation was
  • If Mr. Felber had wanted the Court to reconsider its ruling that he is not entitled to

  • 2 . SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF F. FELBER IN SUPPORT REQUEST FOR ADVANCEMENT OF EXPENSES

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    FELBER
    CALIFORNIA ACTION
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    INDEMNIFICATION
    CROSS-COMPLAINT
    ALLEGES
    BERNS
    COURT
    BREACH
    PLAINTIFFS
    CERTIFICATE
    DEFENDANTS
    AGREEMENT
    BUSINESS
    PARTIES
    BEMS
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    INCORPORATION
    DIRECTORS
    LANGUAGE
    FRANKLIN FELBER
    EXPENSES
    INCURRING
    COMPULSORY
    FELLMAN
    PALMER
    JYRA
    OFFICER
    PARTY
    
                   I[N THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE                                 I
    
                                IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    
    
    MICHAEL BERN& JAMES BERN&
    and FRANKLIN FELBER,
    
                           Plaintiffs,            1           Civil Action 17562-NC
             V.                                   1
    
    PATH 1 NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES,                  ;
    INC.,
                                                  ;
                           Defendant.             >                                            i
    
    
                      SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF FRANKLIN FELBER
                                 IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'
                      REQUEST FOR ADVANCEMENT OF EXPENSES
                         INCURRED IN THE CALIFORNIA ACTION
    
             Plaintiff Franklin Felber ("Felber") hereby submits the following supplemental brief in
    
    support of his complaint for advancement of expenses incurred in the California action.
    
             On November 9, 1999, plaintiffs filed a complaint under 8 Delaware C. $ 145 seeking an
    
    order compelling defendant Path 1 Network Technologies, Inc. ("Path 1") to indemnify plaintiffs
    
    for all legal fees and expenses incurred and to be incurred in connection with an action pending
    
    in the Superior Court of the State of California entitled Path 1 Network Technologies. Inc. v.
    
    Michael l3m. Bems & Bems. James Bems. Rona Bems and Franklin Felber ("California
    
    action"). The complaint in the California action was originally filed September 20, 1999. On
    
    November 29, 1999, Felber filed a compulsory cross-complaint in the California action against
    
                                                       -l-
    
    
    
    Path 1, Ronald D. Fellman, Douglas A. Palmer, Roderick Adams, and Jyra Research, Inc.
    
    alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF FRANKLIN FELBER
  • IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'
  • REQUEST FOR ADVANCEMENT OF EXPENSES
  • support of his complaint for advancement of expenses incurred in the California action.
  • in the Superior Court of the State of California entitled Path 1 Network Technologies.
  • Bems & Bems.
  • November 29, 1999, Felber filed a compulsory cross-complaint in the California action against
  • Path 1, Ronald D. Fellman, Douglas A. Palmer, Roderick Adams, and Jyra Research, Inc.
  • alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.
  • After extensive briefing by the parties related to the relevant language of the Certificate
  • of the language of the Certificate of Incorporation,
  • On this issue, I - - I think I would be the first to agree with Mr. Grant that the use of the
  • However, it appears to me that given the policy underlying the statute that authorizes the ity before there can be advancement - - then the certificate has got to state that clearly.
  • And this certiJicate not on/y does not state that clearly, its language suggests precisely
  • l's First Amended Complaint in the California action are indemnifiable and subject to
  • settlement negotiations with Path 1 resulting in a Settlement Agreement dated April 11,200O
  • between E'ath 1, on the one hand, and Michael Berns, Berns & Berns, James Berns, Rona Berns,
  • has settled its claims against all defendants in the California action,
  • continued 1.0 defend himself against Path l's claims and has pursued his compulsory
  • The first cause of action for breach of oral contract alleges that "by issuing stock,
  • Felber "to work for Path I and to be the primary person responsible for business development
  • Except as otherwise provided for by statute, if a party against
  • Felber and cross-defendant JYRA were parties.
  • parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or

  • 3 . PATH 1S REPLY BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR ADVANCEMENT OF EXPENSES

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CALIFORNIA
    CALIFORNIA ACTION
    OFFICERS
    FRANKLIN FELBER
    CROSS-COMPLAINT
    INDEMNIFICATION
    JAMES
    DIRECTORS
    COURT
    COMPLAINT
    REQUEST
    PROSECUTING
    ANS
    CERTIFICATE
    CONTRACT
    OPPOSITION
    FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
    COMMONLY ACCEPTED MEANING
    ADVANCED MINING SYS
    MICHAEL BERNS
    NATIONAL MEDIA
    INCORPORATION
    CORPORATION LAW
    JAMES BEMS
    FEDERAL COURT
    OPTION AGREEMENT
    CAPACITY
    BUSINESS PARTNERS
    EMPLOYEES
    
                IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE              lb
    
                                IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    MICHAEL BERNS, JAMES BERNS,
    and FRANKLIN  FELBER,
    
                        Plaintiffs,
    
          V.
    
    PATH 1 NETWORK
    TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
    
                        Defendant.
    
    
    
    
                               PATH l's REPLY BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
                        TO DELAWARE PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR
                                  ADVANCEMENT OF EXPENSES
                         INCURRED IN THE CALIFORNIA ACTION
    
    
    
    
    
                                             M. Duncan Grant
                                             Andrea B. Unterberger
                                             PEPPER HAMILTON L.LP
                                             Suite 1600
                                             1201 Market Street
                                             P.O. Box 1709
                                             Wilmington, DE 19899-1709
                                             (302) 777-6500
    
                                             Attorneys for Defendant Path 1
                                             Network Technologies Inc.
    
    Dated: February  8,200O
    
    
    
                                                                                TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                  ii
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • MICHAEL BERNS, JAMES BERNS,
  • PATH l's REPLY BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
  • INCURRED IN THE CALIFORNIA ACTION
  • Expenses Incurred in Prosecuting His Cross-Complaint
  • The principal contentions raised by the Delaware Plaintiffs in their Answering
  • Brief are that the Path 1 certificate of incorporation makes advancement mandatory (Ans.
  • directors and officers of Path 1 (Ans.
  • and that Franklin Felber is entitled to
  • The Delaware Plaintiffs posit that indemnification ":is separate and apart from the
  • See Advanced Mining Sys., Inc. v. Fricke, Del.
  • certificate] are to be given their commonly accepted meaning," Hibbert v. Hollywood Park,
  • Supr., 457 A.2d 339,343, the Delaware Plaintiffs ask the Court to abandon the
  • which was drafted by plaintiff James Bems.
  • Because They Were Not Sued in Their Capacity as Directors
  • allegations [in the California complaint] arise out of the same transaction and occurrence"
  • Count 1 of the First Amended Complaint in the California Action (Exh.
  • alleges severa breaches of an oral contract that was made in connection with the formation
  • Sorensen went to the federal court seeking indemnification, which the court denied with
  • their capacity as business partners of Path 1 in connection with the formation of the
  • Second, relying upon Salaman v. National Media Corp., Del.
  • thus implying that employees and agents may also receive advancement of expenses
  • under section 145of the General Corporation Law,
  • That reference to the option agreement consists of one sentence (out of a complaint
  • that the Court deny the Delaware Plaintiffs' request for advancement.

  • 4 . ANSWERING BRIEF OF M. BERNS J. BERNS AND F. FELBER IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR ADVANCEMENT OF EXPENSES

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DEL
    PLAINTIFFS
    INDEMNIFICATION
    CALIFORNIA
    COMPLAINT
    DEFENDANT
    BERNS
    NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES
    REQUEST
    SUNBEAM CORN
    COURT
    DIRECTORS
    OFFICER
    CITADEL HOLDING
    CERTIFICATE
    OPTION AGREEMENT
    INCORPORATION
    PARAGRAPH
    CROSS-COMPLAINT
    CIVIL PROCEDURE
    DELAWARE LAW
    FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
    MICHAEL BERNS
    JAMES BERNS
    ADVANCED MINING
    INDEMNIFY
    CONNECTION
    ATTORNEY FEES
    OBLIGATION
    
              IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF T H E  STATE OF DELAWARE                                     
                                IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY                 ( 3 F'y;*s I !, c
                                                                                              .I ,  ,,
                                                                           /_ i~                       
                                                                           ibL
    MICHAEL BERNS, JAMES BERNS, )                                                 i;p:I.*,L i;.
    and FRANKLIN FELBER,
                                            ;
                 Plaintiffs,                1
    V.                                              Civil Action 17562-NC
                                            I
    PATH 1 NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES )
    INC.,
    
                 Defendant.
    
                          ANSWERING BRIEF OF MICHAEL BERNS,
                              JAMES BERNS AND FR
                                                    AN
                                                          KL
                                                              IN
                                                                 FELBER
                                IN SUPPORT OF THEIR REQUEST FOR
                         ADVANCEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED
                                   IN THE CALIFORNIA ACTION
    
    
    
    
    
                                             HElMAN, ABER, GOLDLUST, & BAKER
                                             Henry A. Heiman (DS13 #127)
                                             Susan E. Kaufman (DSB # 3381)
                                             702 King Street
                                             Suite 600
                                             P.O. Box 1675
                                             Wilmington, DE 198011
                                             (302) 658-1800
                                             Attorneys for Plaintiffs
    
    Date: February  4,200O
    
    
    
                                                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         .  .
    
    Nature and Stage of the Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                    .  .
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • PATH 1 NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES) INC.,
  • ANSWERING BRIEF OF MICHAEL BERNS,
  • JAMES BERNS AND FR
  • Advanced Mining Svstems.
  • Inc. v. Fricke, Del.
  • Citadel Holding Corn.
  • Dunlap v. Sunbeam Corn., Del.
  • California Code of Civil Procedure 0 426.10.
  • On November 9, 1999, Plaintiffs filed a complaint under 8 Del.C.
  • compelling Defendant Path 1 Network Technologies, Inc. to indemnify Plaintiffs for
  • the Superior Court of the State of California captioned Path 1 Network Technologies.
  • Rona Berns and Franklin Felber.
  • connection with the California Action.
  • The Certificate of Incorporation for Path 1, formerly known as, Millennium Network
  • The Certificate provides in pertinent part in paragraph 8 that
  • The Corporation shall, to the full extent permitted by the General Corporation Law of the
  • Directors and offkers of the Corporation shall not be obligated to repay funds so advanced
  • Incorporation that was unanimously signed by the holders of all outstanding shares.
  • The Company shall indemnify to the fill extent now or hereafter authorized or permitted by
  • Are the Plaintiffs entitled to advancement of attorney fees and expenses incurred in
  • Does Franklin Felber have the right to advancement of attorney fees and expenses incurred in
  • indemnifiable must be made before there is an obligation for repayment of advanced funds See
  • and two other cross-defendants regarding the negotiation and exercise of an option agreement
  • and the alleged reasons for its formation, is referred to at 137 of the First Amended

  • 5 . PATH 1S OPENING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DELAWARE PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR ADVANCEMENT OF EXPENSES

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    EXPENSES
    OFFICER
    CALIFORNIA ACTION
    COURT
    FELBER
    JAMES
    DIRECTORS
    INDEMNIFICATION
    PROCEEDING
    MICHAEL
    BERNS
    REQUEST
    DEFENDING
    JAMES BEMS
    DEL
    CERTIFICATE
    CORPORATION LAW
    FRANKLIN FELBER
    CROSS-COMPLAINT
    FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
    ADVANCED MINING
    INDEMNIFY
    CERTIFICATE PROVISION
    CLAIMANT
    INCORPORATION
    COMMONLY ACCEPTED MEANING
    DEFENDANTS
    OPPOSITION
    LITIGATION EXPENSES
    
                 IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                               IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    MICHAEL BERNS, JAMES BERNS,
    and FRANKLIN FELBER,
                                          1
                        Plaintiffs,
                                          ;
           V.                                    Civil Action 17562-NC
                                          ;
    PATH 1 NETWORK
    TECHNOLOGIES INC.,                    ;
    
                        Defendant.
    
    
    
    
    
                         PATH 1'S OPENING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
                        TO DELAWARE PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR
                                ADVANCEMENT OF EXPENSES
                         INCURRED IN THE CALIFORNIA ACTION
    
    
    
    
    
                                          M. Duncan Grant
                                          Andrea B. Unterberger
                                          PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
                                          Suite 1600
                                          1201 Market Street
                                          P.O. Box 1709
                                          Wilmington, DE 19899-1709
                                          (302) 777-6500
    
                                          Attorneys for Defendant Path I
                                          Network Technologies Inc.
    
    Dated: February 1, 2000
    
    
    
                                                              TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
         Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • MICHAEL BERNS, JAMES BERNS,
  • PATH 1'S OPENING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
  • ADVANCEMENT OF EXPENSES
  • Director or Officer of Path 1
  • Defending An Action
  • Delaware Trust Co. v. Brady,
  • 5 145, in which plaintiffs Michael Berns, James Berns, and Franklin Felber
  • ("Delaware Plaintiffs")
  • The California Action is captioned Path I Network
  • rejected their request for advancement of their California litigation expenses,
  • (who are defendants in the California Action)
  • Plaintiffs violated fiduciary duties to Path 1 in their capacities as directors or officers
  • professional negligence against Michael Bems and James Bems;
  • Felber has filed and is prosecuting a "cross-complaint" in the
  • indemnification, in this case the right to receive advancement of ex:penses turns explicitly
  • party to an action, suit, or proceeding "by reason of the fact that he is or was a director or
  • February 9,200O hearing, it accepts Path l's position that under the certificate of
  • Third, under section 145of the Delaware General Corporation Law, 8 Del.
  • Berns in defending against Count 4 of Path l's First Amended Complaint in the California
  • gives Delaware corporations the power-but not the obligation -to indemnify and to advance
  • brought against" a claimant.
  • commonly accepted meaning unless the context clearly requires a different one or unless legal
  • them" -- the commonly accepted meaning of the Path 1 certificate provision must be that to the
  • Chancellor Allen in Advanced Mining Systems.

  • 6 . ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    MICHAEL
    BEMS
    COMPLAINT
    JAMES
    CALIFORNIA ACTION
    BERNS
    INDEMNIFICATION
    EXPENSES
    ATTORNEYS
    PARAGRAPH
    CORPORATION LAW
    AVERMENT
    OFFICERS
    DIRECTORS
    FEES
    DEFENDANT PATH
    DENIES
    ACTION ASSERT
    REASON
    ADMITS
    CAPACITIES
    CERTIFICATE
    BYLAWS
    INCUR
    DEL
    DEFENSE
    PROSECUTING
    INCORPORATION
    CONNECTION
    
                                                                         p,  F9  "  f--t  P  l-3   r-4 
                                                                         i.3              ;          
                                                                         t*. .j     ~           ;    
    
    
                 IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                   IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    MICHAEL BERNS, JAMES BERNS,                     )
    and FRANKLIN FELBER,                            >>
                              Plaintiffs,           >>
           V.                                       >     Civil Action 17562-NC                        
                                                    >                                                  
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                       
    PATH 1 NETWORK                                                                                     
                                                    >                                                  
                                                                                                       
    TECHNOLOGIES INC.,                              1                                                  
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                       
                                                    >
                              Defendant.            >
    
    
                                             ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
    
                    Defendant Path 1 Network Technologies Inc. hereby answers the Complaint as
    
    follows:
    
                    1. Paragraph 1 of the Complaint sets forth legal conclusions to which no
    
    response is necessary.
    
                    2. Denies each and every averment of paragraph 2 of the Complaint, except
    
    admits only that Michael Berns is a natural person maintaining his principal residence in the
    
    State of New York.
    
                    3. Denies each and every averment of paragraph 3 of the Complaint, except
    
    admits only that James Berm is a natural person maintaining his principal residence in the State
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Defendant Path 1 Network Technologies Inc. hereby answers the Complaint as
  • Denies each and every averment of paragraph 2 of the Complaint,
  • admits only that Michael Berns is a natural person maintaining his principal residence in the
  • admits only that James Berm is a natural person maintaining his principal residence in the
  • admits only that Franklin Felber is a natural person maintaining his principal residence in
  • First Amended Complaint that Path 1 has filed in the California Action alleges that Michael
  • officers and directors of Path 1; the other causes of action asserted against them in the
  • Action assert that they violated duties that they owed to Path 1 in other capacities.
  • there is any basis in Path l's certificate of incorporation or bylaws,
  • In connection with the matters for which they seek indemnification in this action,
  • not entitled to indemnification under section 145of the Delaware General Corporation Law,
  • Michael Bems, James Bems, and Franklin Felber did not act in a manner that they reasonably
  • to indemnification under section 145of the Delaware General Corporation Law,
  • who is a party to an action, suit, or proceeding "by reason of the fact that he is or was a
  • for advancement of expenses, Path l's certificate of incorporation provides that "[tlhe
  • Path 1 to advance to them any of the expenses that they may incur in defense of the California
  • Felber will incur attorneys' fees and expenses prosecuting such cross-complaint.

  • 7 . COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    INDEMNIFY
    CALIFORNIA
    CONNECTION
    COURT
    DELAWARE
    LAW
    OFFICER
    LEGAL FEES
    PURSUANT
    PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE
    REASON
    PLAINTIFFS MICHAEL BERNS
    DEL
    DIRECTORS
    CIVIL
    RELEVANT TIMES
    ADMINISTRATORS
    REQUEST
    JAMES
    FRANKLIN FELBER
    PROCEEDING
    SUPERIOR COURT
    OFFRCER
    MATTER
    JURISDICTION
    CERTIFICATE
    INCORPORATION
    BY-LAWS
    PERTINENT
    
                   IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                                   IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    MICHAEL BERNS, JAMES BERNS,                                   1
    and FRANKLIN FELBER,                                          1
                              Plaintiffs,                         1
    
                                                                                                  .
                                                                  )
    PATH 1 NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES INC.,                                                             -.
                                                                  )
                              Defendant.                                                      c ".. .;a
                                                                  1                           * .
                                                                                              h::
                                                  COMPLAINT                                  r-`-J
    
            Plaintiffs Michael Berns, James Berns, and Franklin Felber, (collectively referred to as
    
    "Plaintiffs") by and through their undersigned counsel, for their Complaint herein, state as
    
    follovvs:
    
                                             NATURE OF THE ACTION
    
                 1. This is a summary proceeding pursuant to 8 Del. C. $ 145 seeking an order
    
    compelling Defendant Path 1 Network Technologies Inc., a Delaware corporation, ("Path") to
    
    indemnify F'laintiffs,  who are present or former directors and officers of Path, and to advance to
    
    Plaintiffs ah legal fees and expenses incurred (and to be incurred) in connection with a civil
    
    action brought by Path against Plaintiffs and others in the Superior Court of the State of
    
    California.
    
                                                   PARTIES
    
            2. Plaintiff Michael Berns is a natural person maintaining his principal residence in
    
    the State of New York, who was an officer and director of Path at all relevant times.
    
            3. Plaintiff James Berms is a natural person maintaining his principal residence in the
    
    State of Connecticut, who was an off-icer and director of Path at all relevant times.
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • Plaintiffs Michael Berns, James Berns, and Franklin Felber, (collectively referred to as
  • "Plaintiffs") by and through their undersigned counsel, for their Complaint herein, state as
  • This is a summary proceeding pursuant to 8 Del.
  • indemnify F'laintiffs, who are present or former directors and officers of Path, and to
  • Plaintiffs ah legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with a civil
  • who was an officer and director of Path at all relevant times.
  • Plaintiff James Berms is a natural person maintaining his principal residence in the
  • who was an off-icer and director of Path at all relevant times.
  • the State of California, who was an offrcer and director of Path at all relevant times.
  • EXCLUSIVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
  • PATH'S CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION AND BY-LAWS
  • Corporation law of the State of Delaware, indemnify all persons whom
  • Path's by-laws also provide, in pertinent part, as follows:
  • administrative or investigative) by reason of the fact that he is or
  • executors and administrators, and shall not be deemed exclusive of any
  • Action") against Plaintiffs and others in the Superior Court of the State of California,
  • Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an order pursuant to 8
  •    |