 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
SURREPLY AFF
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COUNTY SUPREME COURT SCUSA SECURITIES COOPERS LYBRAND THOMAS KAVALER DULY SWORN DEPOSES FABRICATIONS MEMORANDUM TRUTHFUL |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------x
SCUSA INC. AND SECURITIES CENTRES, INC.,:
Plaintiffs, : Index No.
-against- : SUFUXEPLY
COOPERS & LYBRAND,
Defendant.
STATE OF NEW YORK ) : ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK)
THOMAS J. KAVALER, being duly sworn, deposes and
says:
1. I have read the reply affidavit of Louis A.
Mangone, sworn to on September 5, 1989.
2. I make this further affidavit to make
crystal clear the following fact: the agreement Mr. Mangone
swears he and I entered into never took place. Mr.
repeated assertions to the contrary are complete and utter
fabrications,
3. The March 4, 1988 memorandum is the only memo-
randum in my files that relates to this precise topic;
-.-
are other memoranda, reflecting other conversations
Mr. Mangone. However, there is no memorandum
to March 4, 1988 which reflects any agreement
bling the one Mr. Mangone falsely swears we entered
Moreover, as noted in Coopers & Lybrand's prior
CPLR requires such a stipulation between counsel
ing if not made on the record in open court.
of this requirement. I trust Mr. Mangone is as
no writing signed by both of us and, indeed,
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
REP COUNTERCLAIMS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COUNTY SUPREME COURT COOPERS LYBRAND MATERIALS ADMIT PAID PREMISES ATTORNEYS DEFENDANT AGE PARTY |
I 2
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-------i------------------------------ x
SCUSA INC. and SECURITY CENTRES, INC., :
Plaintiffs, :
-against- :
COOPERS & LYBRAND, a partnership, :
Defendant. :
Plaintiffs, by Mangone & Schnapp,
herein, for their reply to the countercl
1. Admit the allegations of paragraas
2. Deny the allegations of paraGraphs
except admit that John Dooley, SCUSA's Treasurer
President of Finance, requested Coopers &
various materials in connection with the sale
Systems, Inc. of the assets of two Holmes Groups entities,
and that Coopers t Lybrand reviewed certain
materials.
3. Admit the allegations of paragraphs
54.
4.. Deny the allegations of paragraphs
except admit that plaintiffs received
defendant for work performed in reviewing
relating to the sale to API Alarm Systems,
Holmes Group entities, and that in response thereto
Coopers t Lybrand $30,000.
5. In response to the allegations of paragraph
repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs
4 above as though set forth in full hereat and with the
same force and effect.
6. Admit the allegations of paragraph 59.
7. Deny knowledge or information sufficient
a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph
60.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
REP AMENDED COUNTETCLAIMS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COOPERS LYBRAND COUNTY SUPREME COURT DULY SWORN DEPOSES SCUSA SECURITY MATERIALS ADMIT PAID PREMISES CAHILL GORDON REINDEL ATTORNEYS DEFENDANT JOHN DOOLEY ELLIOTT PETERSON |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
_-----1-----1-------_1________11______ x
SCUSA INC. and SECURITY CENTRES, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
COOPERS & LYBRAND, a partnership, :
Defendant. :
--------------------_-c--l------------------ x
Plaintiffs, by Mangone & Schnapp,
herein, for their reply to the counterclaims
1. Admit the allegations of paragraphs
49.
2. Deny the allegations of paragraphs
except admit that John Dooley, SCUSA's Treasurer
President of Finance, requested Coopers & Lybrand
various materials in connection with the sale to
Systems, Inc. of the assets of two Holmes Groups entities,
I and that Coopers & Lybrand reviewed certain of those
materials.
3. Admit the allegations of paragraphs
and 55.
4. Deny the allegations of paragraphs
except admit that plaintiffs received certain
defendant for work performed in reviewing
r
relating to the sale to API Alarm Systems, Inc. of two
Holmes Group entities, and that in response thereto
Coopers & Lybrand $25,000.
5. In response to the allegations of paragraph
repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs
4 above as though set forth in full hereat and with the
SNIPPETS:
|
|
4
.
REP AFF SUP MOT TO ENFORC
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COUNTY SUPREME COURT LOUIS MANGONE DULY SWORN DEPOSES SCUSA SECURITY |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
---------------------,-,,;;,,,,,,,,,,,,x
SCUSA INC. and SECURITY CENTRES, INC., : Index No.
Plaintiffs, : REPLY
-against- : IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO
COOPERS & LYBRAND, : A STIPULATION
BETWEEN
Defendant. : AND TO COMPEL
DISCLOSURE
---------------------------------------x
STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
LOUIS A. MANGONE, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice
the Courts of this State, and a member of Mangone &
Schnapp, attorneys for plaintiffs in this action,
attorney in charge of this case.
2. I have personal knowledge of the facts
herein, and submit this reply affidavit in support
plaintiffs' motion for an order enforcing a stipulation
between counsel and scheduling the depositions
and Michael Stillwell, residents of the United
employees of the defendant's London office for October
1989 and October 5, 1989, respectively, and for such
orders as are necessary and appropriate to effect
taking of those depositions.
3. In his affidavit submit`ted in opposition
motion, Thomas Kavaler, Esq., states that on March 4,
..,.
.- --...
I tlobviously agreed II to defer discovery in this
until Ms. Flehner's unfortunate personal situation
resolved in exchange for his "best efforts" to get
Moss and Stillwell to appear for their depositions
action. Mr. Kavaler submits a memorandum to his file
March 4, 1988, in support of this contention.
4. While my conversation of March 4, 1988, with Mr.
Kavaler seems to be accurately reflected in his memorandum
to his file, that memorandum not only does not support
ipse dixit contention that I Itobviously agreed" to his
proposal, it confirms that I did not agree to it.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
5
.
ORDER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ELLIOTT WILK ING DEPOSITIONS |
At I.A.S.
Court of
held at the
PRESENT:
F" HON. ELLIOTT WILK,
Justice.
SCUSA INC. and SECURITY CENTRES, INC., :
Plaintiffs, :
-against- :
COOPERS & LYBRAND, :
Defendant. :
--------------------x
Plaintiffs having moved, by order
June 26, 1989, for an order pursuant to CPLR $ 3108
the issuance of an open commission; and plaintiffs
mitted the Affidavit of Eric Grabino, Esq.,
1989; and defendant having submitted the Affidavits
A. Alessi, Esq. and David L. McLean, Esq.,
1989, in opposition to said motion; and the matter
come on at I.A.S. Term, Part 6, of this Court
ing) on June 28, 1989,
-2-
NOW, upon the foregoing papers, and upon the
of the Court dated June 29, 1989, it is
ORDERED, that a court reporter employed by Ashurst
Morris Crisp, Veritas House, 119 Finsbury Pavement,
England shall, pursuant to the Commission annexed hereto
Exhibit A, act as Commissioner of this Court for the transcrib-
ing of the depositions of Timothy Moss and Michael
SNIPPETS:
|
|
6
.
ORDER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SECURITY COOPERS LYBRAND SHGENLOL-3 |
At
Supreme
of
New
New
day of
PRESENT:
HON. ELLIOTT WILK,
Justice.
------------------------------------x
SCUSA INC. and SECURITY CENTRES, INC., . .
Plaintiffs,
-against-
COOPERS & LYBRAND,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------x
Plaintiff has moved this
to CPLR 53108 directing the issuance
This action was initiated
and complaint on July 17, 1986 to recover
in
actual damages for defendant's
performance of its accounting duties
plaintiff's of the "Holmes Grouptl,
engaged in the business of providing
rm
services in several locations in
October 15, 1984.
Issue was joined on or about August 11, 1986, when
defendant served upon plaintiff its answer with
counterclaims by which it seeks to recover $28,872.90
SNIPPETS:
|
|
7
.
MEM SUP MOT FOR PRT ORDER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COUNTY SUPREME COURT COOPERS LYBRAND PARTNERSHIP COUNSEL LARRY JOHNSON DULY SWORN DEPOSES PERSONA LLY HAND LLY HAND DE1 ICES |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
------------------- -X
SCUSA INC. and SECURITY CENTRES, : Index No.
INC.,
:
Plaintiffs,
:
-against- :
COOPERS & LYBRAND, a partnership,
i
Defendant. :
------------------- -X
MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF DEFENDANT
COOPERS & LYBRAND IN SUPPORT OF
ITS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
Defendant Coopers & Lybrand respectfully
Memorandum of Law in support of its motion for a protective
order directing that defendant's deposition be
plaintiffs have been deposed or, in the alternative,
that plaintiffs limit their examination to the
raised by defendant's Amended Counterclaims.
Plaintiffs commenced the instant
1986. Availing itself of its statutory priority
Rule 31061, on September 8, 1986, Coopers & Lybrand served
(with its Answer and Counterclaims) a notice of
-2-
-.
plaintiffs on November 24, 1986.1 Consistent with
complicated.nature of the case, and in order to facilitate
conduct of the deposition, on October 7, 1986, Coopers &
Lybrand served a request pursuant to CPLR Rule 3120 seeking
production of documents onOctober 27, 1986.
On September 30, 1986, plaintiffs served a
deposition of defendant on October 28, 1986.
notice of deposition contains a request for documents
relate to the merits of plaintiffs' claims against
Lybrand but not to defendant's Amended Counterclaims,
SNIPPETS:
|
|
8
.
MEM SUP CMPL PROMT DEP TA
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SUPREME COURT COUNTY YORE PURSUANT CPLR POWER FIRM BUSY DEPOSITION PRIORITY DEPOSED FIRST COUNSEL CRAIG PENN ESQ |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORE
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
---1------31-1------_-------------------- x
SCUSA INC. and SECURITY CENTRES, INC., : Index
Plaintiffs, :
-against-
COOPERS & LYBRAND, a partnership,
Defendant. A
_-_-----------I-----_______c__________ x IN
A
Preliminarv Statement
This memorandum is submitted along with
of Louis A. Mangone, (#@LAM Aff."), sworn to on
1986, in support of plaintiffs' cross-motions
3104(a) and 3103 to compel the prompt taking
of all parties and to limit the dispersal of
produced by parties to this action, and in opposition
defendant's motion for a protective order
taking of defendant's deposition.
The instant motion is in reality a request
establishment by this court of a formal deposition
for all parties under CPLR 3104. This need arose
the Cahill Gordon & Reindel partner assigned
is engaged on trial in Nevada and will
proceed until six or seven months from now.
Defendant's arguments with regard
SNIPPETS:
|
|
9
.
KAVALER AFF OPP PLF MOT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COOPERS COUNTY LYBRAND SUPREME COURT THOMAS KAVALER DULY SWORN DEPOSES DEFENDANT WLNLNA MTRNIMIM EXPIRES IS91 SCUSA MANGONE EXCHANGE FLEHNER MANN |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-------------------- X
SCUSA INC. and SECURITIES CENTRES, INC., :
Plaintiffs,
-against-
COOPERS & LYBRAND,
Defendant,
STATE OF NEW YORK ) : ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
THOMAS J. KAVALER, being duly sworn, deposes and
says:
1. I am a member of the Bar of this Court and of
the firm of Cahill Gordon & Reindel (a partnership
professional corporations), attorneys for the
I make this affidavit in opposition to plaintiffs'
enforce the terms of a stipulation between counsel
compel1 [sic] disclosure," which is supported
the affidavit of Louis A. Mangone, Esq.
2. Although the exact nature of
is unclear, it is my understanding that the court has
-2-
dealt with the question of the timing and procedures
depositions of Tim Moss and Michael Stillwell; thus,
no need for this motion. I make this affidavit to
emphatically that which Mr. Mangone has recklessly
under oath. To put it shortly and simply, what Mr. Mangone
says it is simply not true: either he misunderstood
spired between us, or he has chosen to misstate the
3. Rule 2104 of the CPLR provides that
ment between parties or their attorneys relating to
in an action, other than one made between counsel in
court, is not binding upon a party unless it is in a
subscribed by him or his attorney or reduced to the form of an
order and entered." Proceeding on the perhaps unduly opti-
SNIPPETS:
|
|
10
.
COVERSHEET
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
RESPONDENT YES/NO0 |
46.3004A-2WM-63
( COUNTY CLERK, NEW YORK COUNTY
Application for INDEX NUMBER pursuant to Section 8Oi8,
C.P.L.R.
FEE 835.00
Spaces below to be TYPED-or PRINTED by applicant
in this rpme
TITLE OF ACTION OR .PROCEEDtNG
CONSUMER
CREDIT
Name und address of
Attorney for Plaintiff
or Petitioner.
Telephone No.
Name and address of
Attorney for Defendant
or Respondent.
.. is-
Nature of special proceeding
/ /
/
B. Application for Index Number filed b : Plai_nti
C. Date of SyGce of Summons `.,\ 42 .-
x i./ /`/,
ed?
YES/NO0
SNIPPETS:
|
|
11
.
COMMISION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SUPREME COURT COUNTY |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------d---------- - x
SCUSA INC. and SECURITY CENTRES, INC., : Index
>..,
Plaintiffs, : (Hon.
-against- : COMMISSION
COOPERS & LYBRAND, :
Defendant. :
-----------1------- - x
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE
OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
TO
ASHURST MORRIS CRISP, VERITAS HOUSE,
119 FINSBURY PAVEMENT, LONDON, ENGLAND
GREETINGS:
YOU have been duly appointed and are hereby
rized, at a certain day and place or certain
be ordered by the appropriate judicial authority
Kingdom, to cause Timothy Moss and Michael
before you; to cause them to submit to oral
oath as witnesses in the above-captioned action
Court; to reduce said testimony to writing and
to be signed by said witnesses; to annex said testimony
-2-
close the same under your seal and make return hereof unto
Court with all convenient speed.
WITNESS, the Honorable Elliott Wilk, Justice of the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York,
United States of America on the day of
, 1989.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
12
.
AMENDED ANS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COOPERS LYBRAND SUPREME COURT COUNTY HOLMES GROUP SWORN PARAGRAPH PAID PARTNERSHIP ADMITS MAKE-UP CUSCOUNTS BECOMING OVERDUE SCUSA WORKPAPERS LYBRAND TRANSWORKPAPERS ASSETS DEEM PROPER ABDUL AHMAD DULY SWORN DEPOSES PERSONALLY HAND DELIVERING THEREOF ABOVE-MENTIONED ATTORNEYS |
,SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-----------d----------------------------x
SCUSA INC. and SECURITY CENTRES,
INC.,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
COOPERS & LYBRAND, a partnership,
Defendant.
Defendant Coopers & Lybrand,
Gordon & Reindel (a partnership including
tions), answers the Complaint as follows:
1. Denies having knowledge
cient to form a belief as to the truth
paragraph 1.
2. Denies the allegations of
admits that Coopers & Lybrand is a general
nized and existing under the laws of the State
that it is a firm of certified public
has offices at 1251 Avenue of the Americas,
and in Los Angeles, California, Chicago,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
-2-
3. Admits on information and belief the truth
the allegations of paragraph 3.
4. Admits on information and belief the truth
the allegations of paragraph 4.
5. Denies the allegations of paragraph 5.
6. Denies having knowledge or information suffi-
cient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
paragraph 6.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
13
.
ALLESSI AFF OPP PLF MOT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
LYBRAND COUNTY COOPERS SUPREME COURT SWORN EXHIBITS |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
SCUSA INC. and SECURITY CENTRES, INC., :
Plaintiffs, :
- against - :
COOPERS & LYBRAND, :
Defendant. : IN
--------------------x
STATE OF NEW YORK ) . ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK i
ROBERT A. ALESSI, being duly sworn,
1. I am a member of the Bar of this
associated with the firm of Cahill Gordon &
for defendant Coopers & Lybrand in the
I submit this affidavit in opposition to
1989 "Motion to Enforce the Terms of a Stipulation
Counsel and to Compel1 [sic] Disclosure."
,
.
-2-
1. Coopers & Lybrand - U.S. and
Coopers & Lybrand - U.K. Are
Wholly Distinct Leqal Entities
2. As I have explained to plaintiffs'
numerous occasions, Coopers & Lybrand - U.S.,
this lawsuit, is a wholly distinct legal entity
Lybrand - U.K., the firm with which Timothy
Stillwell -- the witnesses sought to be deposed by plaintiffs
-- are affiliated.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
14
.
AFF SUP MOT ISSUANCE OPEN
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
----1----------1----___________II_____
SCUSA INC. and SECURITY CENTRES, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
COOPERS & LYBRAND,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------x
ERIC GRABINO, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am an attorney duly
the Courts of this state and am
Schnapp, attorneys for plaintiffs.
2. I am fully familiar with
heretofore in this action and submit
support of the plaintiff's motion
open commission to take the oral depositions
and Michael Stillwell residents
employees of the defendant.
2. As this court is aware, this
the acquisition by Security Centres,
Centres") (which is now known as Holmes Holding
Inc.) of all of the capital stock of
October 15, 1984, pursuant to an
c .I
Sale dated as of July 1, 1984 (the "Agreement").
ttHolmes Group" was a group of companies that were owned
directly or indirectly by Security Corporation
engaged in the business of providing central
services in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
locations in the United States. Defendant Coopers
Lybrand were the accountants for the Sellers of
Group and its work or lack of work is at issue herein.
3. Michael Stillwell and Tim Moss accountants
in defendant's London, England office, were engaged by
Security Corporation of America, Jacques Gaston Murray and
Hawley Holdings, B.V. & &, to conduct certain
SNIPPETS:
|
|
15
.
AFF SUP MOT ENFORCE STIP
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
LONDON COOPERS MIND COUNTY DEPOSITIONS LYBRAND SUPREME COURT PARTNERS FIRM SCUSA SCOA UNSUCCESSFULTL FORM REPORT UNDERSTANDING AGREEMENT MATTER |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--__I_-_____________----- X
SCUSA INC. and SECURITY CENTRES,,INC.,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
COOPERS & LYBRAND,
Defendant.
---c---------____I--_______________I__
STATE OF NEW YORK ; ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
LOUIS A. MANGONE, being duly sworn,
1. I am an attorney duly licensed
the Courts of this State, and a member of
Schnapp, attorneys for plaintiffs in
attorney in charge of this case.
2. I have personal knowledge of
herein, and submit this affidavit in
motion for an order enforcing a stipulation
and scheduling the depositions of Tim
Stillwell, residents of the United
the defendant's London office for October
October 5, 1989, respectively, and for
are necessary and appropriate to effect
depositions.
The Prior Aureement
3. On March 31, 1988, Thomas Kavaler, Esq. of
Gordon & Reindel ("Cahill Gordon"), attorneys for the
defendant, and I entered into a stipulation, the terms of
which were that I agreed to a delay of u depositions
this case, a delay Mr. Kavaler requested because Maralynne
Flehner, Esq., the attorney whom Cahill Gordon had assigned
to this action, was and would be absent from Cahill
SNIPPETS:
|
|
16
.
AFF SUP CMPL DEPSOITIONS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COUNTY SUPREME COURT LOUIS MANGONE DULY SWORN DEPOSES |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
1-------1-----11----1-------------------- X
SCUSA INC. and SECURITY CENTRES, INC., : Index No.
16683/86
Plaintiffs, : AFFIDAVIT
OF THE
-against- : CROSS-MOTIONS TO C(
PROMPT TAKING OF
COOPERS & LYBRAND, a partnership, : DEPOSITIONS AND FOI
PROTECTIVE ORDER
Defendant. : IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION
: A PROTECTIVE ORDER
--------------I-----_l_______________l x
STATE OF NEW YORK ; ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
LOUIS A. MANGONE, having been duly sworn, deposes and
says:
1. I am an attorney with Mangone & Schnapp,
attorneys for the plaintiffs, and I submit this affidavit
in opposition to the defendant's motion for a protective
order, and in support of the plaintiffs' cross-motion:
(a) To compel the prompt taking of depositions from all
parties to this action by establishing a deposition
schedule, and (b) For a protective order under
CPLR 3103 to limit the dispersal of documents and
information produced by parties to this action.
2. This action was commenced on July
service of a summons and complaint on the
recover a minimum of $18,000,000 in damages for
in the performance of defendant's accounting
(Summons and complaint and affidavit of service
hereto as Exhibit A), and for other acts.
defendant's reply was originally due on August
plaintiffs agreed, at defendant's request,
defendant's time to answer until September
SNIPPETS:
|
|
17
.
AFF IN FURTHR SUP PRT ORD
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MANGONE SUPREME COURT COUNTY STIPULATION |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - -
SCUSA INC. and SECURITY CENTRES,
. 16683/86
INC.,
IN FURTHER
Plaintiffs,
OF DEFENDANT'S
OR A PROTECTIVE
-against-
D IN OPPOSITION
TIFFS' CROSS-
COOPERS & LYBRAND, a partnership,
O COMPEL PROMPT
F ALL DE.POSITIO?!
Defendant.
-------------------
STATE OF NEW YORK 1 ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK f
MARALYNNE FLEHNER, being
ses
and says:
1. I am a member of the bar
t
associated with the firm of
(a
partnership including professional
counsel
for defendant in the above-captioned
ke
this affidavit in further
and's
motion for a protective order
nt's
SNIPPETS:
|
|
18
.
COMPLAINT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PURCHASE AGREEMENT YORK COOPERS LYBRAND STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT SCUSA EMPLOYEES AMOUNT SUPREME COURT COUNTY YORK CITY AREA ISLAND PRIOR THERETO SCOA DND HOLMES DND HOLMES UNDERTOOK POTENTIAL PURCHASERS EXACT PLAINTIFFS CAUSED COOPERS INDEBTEDNESS INCOME BENEFICIARIES WORK RULES DYCKMAN RIGGIO PREMIUMS EXCESS PAID |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------__l-----___l---L-- x
SCUSA INC. and SECURITY CENTRES, INC., : Index No.
Plaintiffs, :
V. :
COOPERS & LYBRAND, a partnership, : COMPLAINT
Defendant. *
-----1-----1--------____________11___1 x
Plaintiffs SCUSA INC. and SECURITY CENTRES, Inc.,
Mangone & Schnapp, their attorneys herein, for their
complaint, allege:
FACTS COMMON TO ALL THE CLAIMS
1. Plaintiff SCUSA Inc. ("SCUSA") is a Delaware
corporation having its principal place of business
Corporate Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington,
Delaware. Plaintiff Security Centres, Inc. (ttSecurity
Centres") also is a Delaware corporation having its
principal place of business at Corporate Trust Center,
Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Security Centres
wholly owned subsidiary of SCUSA.
2. Defendant Coopers & Lybrand is a general
partnership organized and existing, on information
belief, under the laws of the State of New York.
principal office is located at 1251 Avenue of the Americas,
in the City, County and State of New York.
certified public accountants and has offices
other places, Los Angeles, California, Chicago,
and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
3. Holmes Protection, Inc. (llHolmeslfi)
times pertinent hereto has been a New York corporation
its principal place of business located at 130
Street in the City, County and State of New York, engaged
primarily in the central station security alarm
the New York City area and on Long Island.
4. On October 15, 1984, and for a period
prior thereto, Holmes and a number of related
engaged in central station security alarm business
New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Chicago,
SNIPPETS:
|
|
19
.
AFF IN OPP PLF APP FOR AN
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COUNTY SUPREME COURT SWORN |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------x
SCUSA INC. and SECURITY CENTRES, INC., :
Plaintiffs, :
-against- :
COOPERS & LYBRAND, :
Defendant. :
--------------------x
STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK f
ROBERT A. ALESSI, being duly sworn,
1. I am a member of the Bar of this
associated with the firm of Cahill Gordon
for defendant Coopers & Lybrand - U.S. in the
action. I submit this affidavit in opposition
application for an order to show cause why an open commission
for the depositions of certain non-party,
should not be issued.
2. On June 16, 1989, plaintiffs
notices purporting to demand the depositions
,
-2-
England, on July 12 and 14, 1989, of non-party,
SNIPPETS:
|
|
20
.
STIP AND ORDER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY SEAL PURSUANT DISCLOSURE |
\
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------x
SCUSA INC. and SECURITY CENTRES, INC., :
Plaintiffs, :
-against- :
COOPERS & LYBRAND, a partnership, :
Defendant. '. .
----------------------------------------x
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED
parties hereto, acting by their respective
that:
1. The parties shall each have the
to designate as "confidential" and thereby
Stipulation and Order documents produced
proceedings in this action as well as in the
HP Cleaning, ,Inc. v. SC-USA, Inc., et a,l.,
V. Security Corporation of ,America, et .al..
collectively referred to as the "Actions").
documents as "confidential," the supplying
such designation only as to that information
good faith believes contains trade secrets
to which a business justification exists
its confidentiality. Documents or information
to the public shall not be designated as "confidential."
2. Any documents to be designated
shall be so designated by marking the face of each page
SNIPPETS:
|
|
21
.
FLEHNER AFF
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
YORK COUNTY AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS SUPREME COURT COOPERS LYBRAND PARTNERSHIP EXAMINATION LAS SWORN |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
---m&s-------___--- -X
SCUSA INC. and SECURITY CENTRES, :
INC.,
:
Plaintiffs,
-against-
COOPERS & LYBRAND, a partnership,
:
Defendant.
:
---e------e -------- -X
STATE OF NEW YORK ) : ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
MARALYNNE FLEHNER, being duly sworn, deposes and
says:
1. I am a member of the bar of this Court
ated with the firm of Cahill Gordon & Reindel
including professional corporations), counsel
the above-captioned action. I make this
of Coopers & Lybrand's motion for a protective
that defendant's deposition be stayed until
been deposed or, in the alternative, directing
limit their examination to the issues raised
Amended Counterclaims.
-2-
--..2, Plaintiffs commenced the above-captioned
in July of 1986 (plaintiffs' Complaint is annexed hereto
Exhibit A).
3. Pursuant to Rule 3106(a) of the Civil Practice
Law and Rules ("CPLR"), defendant is entitled to priority
examination.
4. On September 8, 1986, Coopers & Lybrand served
(with its Answer and Counterclaims) a notice of deposition
plaintiffs on November 24, 1986 (lead counsel for Coopers &
SNIPPETS:
|
|
22
.
LTTR OF REQUEST
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SUPREME COURT COUNTY MENT PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
------------------- -X
SCUSA INC. and SECURITY CENTRES, INC., : Index
Plaintiffs, : (Hon.
-against- :
COOPERS & LYBRAND, :
Defendant. :
-----------------__ -x
THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTY OF
NEW YORK, STATE OF NEW YORK,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
TO
THE SENIOR MASTER, THE QUEEN'S
BENCH AND APPEALS,
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE
(OR OTHER APPROPRIATE JUDICIAL
AUTHORITY)
GREETINGS:
WHEREAS, there is an action pending
Court of the State of New York, County of New York,
States of America (hereinafter referred to as the
Court"), in which plaintiffs, SCUSA Inc. and
Inc., seek damages from defendant Coopers &
States), for defendant's alleged negligence
-2-
of auditing procedures with respect to plaintiffs'
October 15, 1984 of the "Holmes Group," a group
engaged in the business of providing central-station
vices in several locations in the United
WHEREAS, plaintiffs contend that
essary for the resolution of the above-captioned
SNIPPETS:
|
|
23
.
LETTER OF REQUEST
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SUPREME COURT COUNTY PROPER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT WITNESS HONORABLE ELLIOTT WILK JUSTICE |
LETTER OF REQUEST
THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTY OF
NEW YORK, STATE OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO
THE SENIOR MASTER, THE
QUEEN'S BENCH AND APPEALS,
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE,
(OR OTHER APPROPRIATE
JUDICIAL AUTHORITY)
GREETINGS:
WHEREAS, there is an action pending in
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York
!I
(hereinafter referred to as the "Requesting Court"),
which the plaintiff, SCUSA Inc. and Security
seeks damages from the defendant Coopers & Lybrand,
damages for defendant's negligence in the-performance
defendant's accounting duties with respect to plaintiffs'
purchase of the "Holmes GroupI', a group of companies
engaged in the business of providing central station
services in several locations in the United States,
October 15, 1984,
WHEREAS, issues of fact necessary for the
resolution of the above-captioned action include,
alia, the specific actions and procedures used by
to assess the financial condition of the Holmes Group from
and including March 31, 1983, through and including
15, 1984.
WHEREAS Tim Moss and Michael Stillwell,
employees of defendant participated in the audits of
Holmes Group performed by defendant during the
aforementioned relevant period;
WHEREAS, it has been established by the
Requesting Court that justice cannot be done among the
parties in the above-captioned action without the oral
testimony and documentary evidence of the aforementioned
United Kingdom witnesses, said testimony to be preserved
and recorded and intended to be given in evidence at
of the action;
WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of the Hague
Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence
Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (the "Conventiontl)
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
