LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

BENCHMARK CAPITAL PARTNERS v VAGUE Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 19,719, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff: BENCHMARK CAPITAL PARTNERS, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00019719, Juniper, Benchmark, Preferred Stock, Cibc, Merger, Delaware, Rights, Representation, Class Vote, Transaction, Certificate, Benchmark Capital Partners, Holders, Holdings, Protective Provisions, Preferred Shares, Disqualification, Esquire, Vague, Preferences, Rlf, Motion, Preliminary Injunction, Voting Rights, Incorporation, Law Firm, Preferred Stockholders, Prejudice, Matter, Liquidation Preference, Attorney-client Relationship, Financing, Amendment, Purchase Agreement, Authorization , ContentID: 120254664

Case Documents
1 2002-09-03 LETTER OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 131673
13 pages
PDF
2 2002-07-15 MEMORANDUM OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 131674
41 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 2 documents , 54 pages
Price: $ 24.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . LETTER OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
REPRESENTATION
COUNSEL
BENCHMARK CAPITAL PARTNERS
DISQUALIFICATION
TRANSACTION
VAGUE
RLF
MOTION
LAW FIRM
MEETING
DELAWARE
PREJUDICE
MATTER
ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANT
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL
FINANCING TRANSACTION
SUBSTANTIVE DISPUTE
RESERVED DECISION
ATTORNEYS
DEFENDANT CORPORATION
EXISTENCE
INFORMATION RELATING
DICAMILLO
POTENTIAL CONFLICT
                                                                      .

                                               COURT  OF  CHANCERY
                                                      OF THE
.                                               STATE OF  DELAWARE


                                                                                            417  s.
     JOHN  W.  NOBLE                                                                     DOVER.  
     WCE CHANCELLOR                                                                     TELEPHONE
                                               September  3,2002                        FACSMLE





             Kevin G. Abrams, Esquire                   William M. Lafferty, Esquire
             Richards, Layton  & Finger                 Morris, Nichols, Arsht  & Tunnel1
             One Rodney Square                           120 1 North Market Street
             P.O. Box 551                               P.O. Box 1347
             Wilmington, DE 19899-055 1                 Wilmington, DE  19899- 1347

                        Re:    Benchmark Capital Partners IV, L.P. v. Vague, et al.
                               CA. No. 19719-NC
                               Date Submitted: July  9,2002

             Dear Counsel:

                        Defendant Juniper Financial Corp. ("Juniper") has moved to

            disqualify the law firm of Richards, Layton, & Finger, P.A. ("RLF") from

            representing Plaintiff Benchmark Capital Partners IV, L.P. ("Benchmark")

            in this matter. Following a hearing on July 9, 2002, I reserved decision on

            Juniper's motion because of time constraints associated with Benchmark's

            motion for a preliminary injunction scheduled for hearing on July 11, 2002,

            and the prejudice that might have befallen Benchmark if its counsel had

            been disqualified two days before the hearing on its preliminary injunction

            application. This letter opinion addresses Juniper's disqualification motion.


Benchmark Capital Partners IV, L.P. v.  Vape,  et al.
C.A. No. 19719-NC
SNIPPETS:
  • Benchmark Capital Partners IV, L.P. v. Vague, et al.
  • Dear Counsel:
  • Following a hearing on July 9, 2002, I reserved decision on
  • Juniper's motion because of time constraints associated with Benchmark's
  • motion for a preliminary injunction scheduled for hearing on July 11, 2002,
  • The substantive dispute between Benchmark,
  • stock of Juniper, and Juniper involves a financing transaction (the "Series D
  • Capital Partners N, L.P. v. Vague, Del.
  • The two attorneys from RLF participating in the Meeting with Juniper's in-house counsel were
  • counsel for Juniper's special committee and that the Meeting did not result
  • in the formation of an attorney-client relationship.
  • attorneys with confidential information regarding the Series D Transaction.
  • Benchmark had knowledge of at least a significant portion of the information that was
  • Juniper's argument is premised upon Rule 1.9 of the Delaware
  • A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:
  • The parties also agree that Benchmark's interests are materially adverse to the interests of
  • detetining the existence of an attorney-client relationship is a factintensive inquiry that
  • In denying the movant's disqualification motion in Brady, the Court listed the law firm's
  • At issue in Eckerd was a motion seeking to disqualify the plaintiffs law fum on the basis
  • an investment bank hired by the defendant retained the services of plaintiffs law firm in
  • the Court in Eckerd found that the defendant corporation had supplied information relating to
  • and to demonstrate how the conflict will prejudice the fairness of the
  • a potential conflict arose from RL+F's receipt of

  • 2 . MEMORANDUM OPINION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    BENCHMARK
    PREFERRED STOCK
    CIBC
    MERGER
    COURT
    RIGHTS
    CLASS VOTE
    DELAWARE
    CERTIFICATE
    HOLDERS
    HOLDINGS
    PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS
    PREFERRED SHARES
    ESQUIRE
    DEFENDANT
    PREFERENCES
    TRANSACTION
    VOTING RIGHTS
    PLAINTIFF
    INCORPORATION
    PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS
    LIQUIDATION PREFERENCE
    FINANCING
    PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    AMENDMENT
    PURCHASE AGREEMENT
    AUTHORIZATION
    CORPORATE CHARTER
    CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK
    
    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                      IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    BENCHMARK CAPITAL
    PARTNERS IV, L.P.,
    
                       Plaintiff,
                                                   .
                V.                                 ..    C.A. No. 19719
    
    RICHARD VAGUE, JAMES STEWART, :
    JOHN TOLLESON, DAVID MARSHALL, :
    JOHN ORR, CHRISTINE CROUCHER,                  :
    MOYA GREENE, RICHARD VENN,                     :
    CHRISTOPHER GREENE, JUNIPER                    :
    FINANCIAL CORP., CIBC DELAWARE :
    HOLDINGS, INC. and CANADIAN                    :
    IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE,                     :.
                       Defendants.                 .
    
    
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION
    
                           Date Submitted: July 11, 2002
                               Date Decided: July 15, 2002
    
    
    Kevin G. Abrams, Esquire, Srinivas M. Raju, Esquire, Peter B. Ladig,
    Esquire, Lisa R. Stark, Esquire, Kelly A. Green, Esquire, and John D.
    Hendershot, Esquire, of RICHARDS, LAYTON  & FINGER, P.A.,
    Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
    
    Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esquire, William M. Lafferty, Esquire, David J. Teklits,
    Esquire, and Thomas W. Briggs, Jr., Esquire, of MORRIS, NICHOLS,
    ARSHT  & TUNNELL, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendant
    Juniper Financial Corp.
    
    
    David C. McBride, Esquire, of YOUNG  CONAWAY  STARGATT  6:
    TAYLOR LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendants CIBC
    Delaware Holdings, Inc. and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.
    
    
    
    
    
    NOBLE, Vice Chancellor
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • Plaintiff,
  • FINANCIAL CORP., CIBC DELAWARE:
  • David C. McBride, Esquire, of YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT 6: TAYLOR LLP, Wilmington, Delaware,
  • have negotiated protective provisions in a corporate charter to define the
  • balance of power or certain economic rights as between the holders of junior
  • preferred stock and senior preferred stock.
  • to play when additional financing becomes necessary.
  • the rights of the other side.
  • In this case, Plaintiff Benchmark Capital Partners IV, L.P.
  • invested in the first two series of the Defendant Juniper
  • Benchmark's holdings were relegated to the status of junior preferred stock
  • Incorporation (the "Certificate") contains several provisions to protect the
  • The Certificate grants the junior preferred stockholders a series vote on
  • the junior preferred stockholders are entitled to a class vote before
  • however, exercise this power "if such amendment, waiver or modification
  • waived by a majority vote of a class consisting of the holders of the Series A, Series B and
  • When it recognized that the protective provisions of the Certificate could be
  • transaction that now consists principally of a merger and a sale of Series D
  • Preferred Stock remain outstanding, the Corporation shall not, without the vote or written d Stock or Series B Preferred Stock as to dividend rights or redemption rights, voting rights or
  • Stock Purchase Agreement"" and the "Agreement and Plan of Merger.
  • Benchmark, however, does challenge the authority and the performance of the special
  • I note in passing that the record before me does not allow application of the principle that
  •    |