 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
MOTION TO REARGUE
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MATTER MOTION MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHACKMAN DETERMINATION STATUTE ENCLOSING STEVEN SANFORD ARSTK PARTIES DISCOVERY JUDGE PLAINTIFF EXCHANGE ESQ BAKER MCKENZIE STEVE LIMITATIONS PARTY CATHERINE CASEY LAWSUIT PENDING JURISDICTION FIRST EXCHANGE EXPERT WITNESSES SECOND EXCHANGE MOTION CUTOFF DISPOSITION CONFERENCE |
KANTOR, DAVIDOFF, WOLFE, RABBINO, MANDELKER & KASS, P. C.
ATTORNEYS AT L A W
51 EAST 42ND STREET
NEW Y O R K , N . Y . 10017-5497
TELEPHONE:(ZI2) 6 8 2 -8 3 8 3
HERBERT C. KANTOR TELECOPIER:(212) 9 4 9 -5 2 0 6
RICHARD S . DAVIDOFF
STEVEN W. WOLFE
WILLIAM A.K ASS *
MITCHELL W. RABB INO t
LAWRENCE A. MANDELKER 0
ROBIN NELSON WOLFE
MATTHEW C. KESTEN
TIMOTHY ARMBRECHT **
THOMAS E.Knss
THOMAS E.GLICK **-
O F COUNSEL June 2 0 , 1995
I.R
OB ERT HARRIS
ROBERT M. B IRNBAUM
BY HAND
Honorable Walter M. Schackman
60 Centre Street
New York, New York 10007
.--,,
,
Re: Arstk v. Audre, et al.
Motion to Reargue
Courtroom 130 Calendar of May 1, 1995
Index No. 117224/93
Dear Justice Schackman:
We represent plaintiffs who are opposing the above-
referenced motion to reargue this Court's prior determination
conditioning dismissal of the within action on f0n.m IlQIl
conveniens grounds, on defendant Audre waiving its statute of
limitation's defenses. I am enclosing a redacted letter that
Steven Sanford received on Friday, June 16, 1995 from his
attorneys in San Diego advising him of the outcome of the case
management conference held that day concerning the Arstk case-
In light of the status of the California case, plaintiffs
respectfully request that the Court's determination of the
above-referenced motion be expedited so that the parties can
proceed with discovery and trial in California.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
COMPLAINT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SHARES DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF SCHEINBERG RIGHTS ARSTK RECOGNITION CASEY STOCK YORK THOMAS JOHN DOE MARKET HONORING SCHEME ANTI-DILUTION INDEMNIFY AUDRE ESCROW PIGGY-BACK REGISTRATION RIGHTS PERSONAL FINANCIAL INCENTIVES DEVISING ENFORCEMENT ANTI-DILUTION OBLIGATION ISSUING AUDRE STOCK PERSONAL HOLDINGS SECURITY AGREEMENT SIGNIFICANT PORTION LIQUID |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
ARSTK, INC.,
Plaintiff, Index No. 73 //7229
-against- COMPLAINT
AUDRE RECOGNITION SYSTEMS INC.,
AUDRE, INC., THOMAS F. CASEY,
COOPERS & LYBRAND, DAVIS MARSHALL,
STEVEN E. SCHEINBERG, DAVID
HARRIS, SERGE1 GIVOTOVSKY and
JOHN DOE 1 to JOHN DOE 10,
Defendants.
Plaintiff, ARSTK, I n c . , by its attorneys, Heller,
Horowitz & Feit, P.C., as and for its Complaint against Defendants,
alleges as follows :
Introduction
1. This is a commercial dispute relating to events in
late 1989 and 1990 as a result of which Plaintiff* was defrauded
by the Defendants out of receiving approximately 4 million shares
of common stock in a public corporation with a c u r r e n t market value
of in excess of $20 million. As set forth below, each of the
Defendants, upon information and belief, had their own personal
financial motives to deceive Plaintiff and conspire to avoid
* Unless otherwise indicated, "Plaintiff" refers to Plaintiff
ARSTK, Inc.'s Assignor.
h 'r
3
(24331.1)
honoring Plaintiff's extremely valuable contractual and other
rights.
2 . Upon information and belief, in or about late 1989
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
