HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-06233
l
~.
.
~
"
j
'd'.t
,
"
'I'
I,
'"
..
)
(j
/~
,/
"
, "
,;
1.
"
C
.,
~
~
~
,/
iI
/
,
(
')
J
'(I
ii'
"f
,
,.n
r
',f
IN
;J~
ili
!
(
"
~
"
\
'I d~
I
, ~',~
"-
. .
.'3
..
{
!n
"
! I~
"
,,)
"
~
'i
"
.
'I
It l' ill ill; II 'i, Iii 'll
; ill'l '-, I !II
:., I
'" Ii! i 111 I!
II, i I j,l,
,~ I j I I I, I " , I 'I' Ii' I I ,
I II: I , " (il " I , " I"~ , , I >- '" ,1 I '..', , ,. I '1' ,
i Ii, , Ii. 'oj I I " /' II I;; II, I I I 'Iii , j II I:lli I' , , , I
I
" I I " I I I " :1 I I il II II I, , 'I' .' I , .Ii , I
I, , , I II' , I I 'I " I I,' . , I, " , " I
. \-il I Ij!!'" Ii " '! I
I I I Lj , I 1111'1 I {Ii
, I "
1111 I j;! I, i'l iii I!i I . , , . 1,1 , Ill. , ,/\fd
I I i I, . , , I 11/iI" "
'.' I I 'I I I' ~ I I" i,11l 111.1 , , ill! . II I ,'III II' , I' I .
. , I, ,
I I It' jl.; , I ,ji, , , I , I I , , , , , " , '1 I I " , " I , 11'.
I,
l',1
;'i~~r(~~
"I,
,\ I
"
II
'i!
"
','
''I
. .,,'
"I
1'/.1:
'I 1'1
!l'ii'l,
il i
,,-,tt..,.L_
,
lj.;;. LL~\....
I i II " i! r
,f ,f
I I
1'1 It:
(/'I
,-} ',' ." ~"'~~~" ~~
{~....:t
I', I
.
II I, I( i
I'
I"
, I
ttf' "
, , 'I!i " ,'I , II iii 1,1 I 1111' ,'/'1 ','/.Ii I I ,
"Iii I I " rJjlllt I,ll!
1"')'1 , , II I ,
','
11111 " " , I ! / ,Ql II II},
, , I, ""11 / !'! ,I'll
I"j 'I ,',/11' '11;1 , ,
'" I I"
1.1
'III I II!
I,. Illlt, <'llId I " ,j I
I, '''i.
! "'Ii; "1, '../,.
I, Ijl'! "Iii
""1/'11 I' .', .fili'l
f ~ I II t t j 1;/ r I, III I I , I, I I' r ]I I" j I' I ,', I ; i' I II I I I I
\,.J
I" j
II)"
lil'l jl! (dill 11," 1'/1' I ljlj
II'
, /1'
,',
,1,.1 !
,I
1'1 t I 1',1 IH .1/1.
"jl I j"
11'/, ",,' , I /,1"
"
I,~ I . III.! I I.! 1 II /. '/ I" .
1/,1.[ I' i I I I
,\ I "i' ' ,"11'11'1'11' !!.I'I
,Iii,'
1.11:
\" ill I " Iii' I,qli I] li'l " (di,1
11i,!.t',."
I:' /) I ,. fl!, ',' /, II"
J I Ii' I 1/ i I I ~ "; 11/\" I .' I'
'J j'
II,
;j'llllll'_"1
'I i'
'I..
id" I /,/ ,II' '''I" ,/0 III! 1\ III II',' I I,
",
,t ! III i 1,111' 1\111,
Ill'
t Ili'l It'
,I t I
'"'ll
'11,/
'II" 'II i
111':11 ';',
I,
I'
\",., j Ii
:. ,
'-li_'.I
1.11,'
1:11,'1
1,1',1
"?~~
I;, Tl, 1'1 'I, , ' ,.,.
10.1'1"
i ' 1, II 'j'
~: i i . ! 11.~, I' II 1\ r II I j ; I I I, I I
I',. \,1
!iI.' I
H I I.
'\ )
l.)Cl.'I.'l
, (,)). ~JliL "
I., j 'j!: 1., I II
.", f ,j,1
. I
;'
:' : ,,!, 1111
....
1'1 '
,~ i: '
Q/lp-'f
"1 '" I ,
"'-.j~,.tLc.. i q'I~'~~'7
.J/r.;
,
.,. .:I' I \t~ ~
II ~ .1 . ~
r~ .. " \\ ~
('~ ...
\.1.1, ,., "
"-li. ,
. -, " ,~ ~
I r, i ~ ".. ,
"~I',:
l.. J ~- , ~"'~.l ','/ '~ ~
E1: - I;..i 1ft ~ '\\
I ~ J I ' -, ',iij '\l ~ ~
, t11. ~
,. ~ '1'\
I .
r. ")
" _t'} ''Ol
~, c'
. . .,.
J i'j rL
;::!li:: :5
'''; ..;
m .: ,( Z fi J,
~~ .E1 .i~ G
~
J , ~I ~ ~~ l
. ~.., . Mp.jO
U i i ~ ~~ .~
f"l l1!~
~ -:
~ ~~ o ~ ~f~
. ij :Z ' -
] o . r-
~~ ~~j:j~~ ~
";f"lp. -
~
~-.-.
i ' 0'
I ' ..
lIt' (I'
, ' '
~: ~..
~,), I ,
( ~' ,
Ii
1"" , <".\
, , I 1.1..
I L,
" , '
, ~_.
. ,'I
i ~.
.' ..
II!! fj'
~ ':.
I,;' 'I"':
'y'
{'\
, I.~
I.L I I, <I
I
I, L.. ( i~
" l'1
,,' I,' .I
~
.....-----)
"
... CI ',.
tl~ N t;
~:, .. ';\
~F ,r; , l;'j
~t: '.., ~,~
.'1 "- f .'04
f' ; .. "~.
I' c:> "."VI
"
(il.i M I::,
r I' (.,J ~~
I. ~ ~, ~
1-' t;:;
1/, .n
',) <n
flY.-l'C 11'13 FO'!..-J....!,fj'l'}.J~~L<,:J..\.;;J~.!::9l_I_I1IIGlJHEN'I'
(Hwlt be l-ypewdtton Bnd llubnittoo In duplicntel
TO TilE PROTIIONO'rARY OF CUHllEIILANIl COUN1'Y I
Please list the within matter for the next IU:g\mlIrIt Court.
------------------_.~-------------------------------------------------------"-----------
CAP'rlON OF CASE
(entire caption mus t be s tlJ ted in fuI..l)
ANIL 'lH1\KlIM,
IN 11lE COUll'l' 01" Ca.M:lN PLEI\S
CUMBERLAND COUNT'i, PENNSYLVANIA
(Oofl!OO8nt)
P :9 ()
-1'1
~ . '", ":1
~(:": ~
(;; f I ,;~
'!J .\ t.l
, ' 'I
~~- e;: 1
"j~
~l- -
," - ,'j
01;", .. iJ
~ 0
co ;Q
(PlBint:iff)
VB.
WILLII\M II, HOOK, JR.,
CURT E. SUTER,
JEFFREY A. AUSTIN,
EAGLE DEVELOl'MEN'l' CORPOIWI'ION, AND
CUMBERLAND toPl'OR INNS, INC.
No. 96-6233
civil
19
1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plBintiff's rootion for new trial. defemant's
derurrur to CCJTtl.l4int, ete.):
(a) dAfp.ndants' Prolbninary Objoctions to AmondP.d Complaint
(b) pIaintiff'll Prolbninary Objp.clionll to AmondAd Compli.lint
2. Identify OJUI1Ilel who will argue case I
(6) for plBintiff: AllP.n C, WarGhaw, ~~squirA
I\ddress: DUANE t-PImIS & HECKSCllER LLP
305 N. Front Str,~p.t
1'.0. llox 1003
(b) for defendant: Harr ill burg , PA 17106-1003
Address: William A. Duncan, Ellqui.rp.
DlJNCAN & O'l'ID, P.C.
OnA hvinn HoW
Carl.ill1A, pA 17013
3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this cese has
been liB too for a.rgunen t,
4, I\rgunent Court Date: AllgllGt 13, 1997
[Elln: hj).) /11
_atfL~,
Attorney for I~f
Anil 'I'hakrar
'ImTIFICA'I'I~ Oil !i1!:ltVICI~
Onlhls 121h duy of June, 19<J7, I, Sherry L, Wc\l!el, u sllcrclury In lhc luw ofllces of
Duunc, Morris und IIceksd\cr LLP hcrcby ccrllfy lhul 1 I)IIVC scrved this duy lrue und con'ccl
coplcs of thc forcl!olnl! 1'ltM:CI1'i': IIOH LISTING CASE nm AIWUMENl' In the
ubove-cuptloned cuse, by dcpollltlnl! Mn1lC In thc United Stutes First Cluss Mull, postul1.e
prepuld, In lIurrisburl!, Pcnnsylvunlu, 10 thosc pcrsuns und uddrcsses Indlcuted below:
Wllllul11 A, Duncnn, Esq,
DUNCAN & OTTO, P,C,
One Irvine Row
Cllrllsle, VA 17013
.
,!'J!~-"Sl.!'l, Fl}!I. ,Ii} tiT I N.ti CAllY: ,I':~)I~n_~,II(!Y!1)::~:!'
(Muut btJ typ,!wdttl!1I IIId uuunitt:oo in dupJJ.clILl!1
TO Till; I'II01'1I0NO'l'A1I'i Of' CUMllEllLAtlP COUI'I'l'Y I
l'lellSll list the with.in matter ror the next f\rUlJl1I!nt Court.
_____._____________._________________________________________________~_________H________
CAP'rlON O~' CABle
(entire clIption must bo stAted in full)
MIl. 'lHAJ<HAH,
IN 'lll~: <''OUrl'l' Ol" C\l>JIPN pLEAS
CUMIlErll.ANP COllN'l"1, l'~:NtlSYLVANIA
(PlAintiff)
( , ,1:> ,..,
, -I "
, ,
.~: I !
" I
t..) "
)
, ),'l
, " , q
, , )
, ,"
!..) I
> , .. ',!
. ~~ '/1 ',JI
'&:i ".
WILLIAM II, llooK, YlIIl.,
CUI~I' E. sU'n::rl,
JEl"FllEY A. AU6'I'INI
E!\GW PEVELOl'MEN'l' COlll'OIW1'ION I AND
ClJMI3~:)l)"I\NP t<<m:m INtIS, IN<:.
(lleferd6nt)
/'kJ. 96-6233
civil
19
1. BtAte matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's rootion for. new trial. defendant's
dewrre.r to CO)1plaint, etc.) I
(a) d!1flmdants' l'r'! liminnry ObjAc;t ions to I\nYlndI1d Conlllaint
(b) plail1tiff's PrAliminary ObjAcL.ions to I\nYll1dAd CoII111aint
2. Identify oounsel who will argue case:
(al for plaintiff: AllAn <.:. Warsh.aw, ESCjuirA
IIddress: DUANE, I'KIrlrllS & IIECKSCIIErl LLl'
305 N ["ront Str<!nt
1',0, Box 1003
(b) for defendant: lIar.risbur.g, I'A 17108-1003
IIddres,U Willinm A. l.Juncllll, Esquirl!
DUNCAN & 01'1'0, P,C.
anA Irvinn llow
Car.J.islA, PA 17013
3. I will notify aU parties in writing with.in 1:1!10 days that l:hia ClI8e has
been listed for argurent.
4. Argurent Court Dilte I Oclob...r 1, 1997
Dilted: 7-29-97
v~=__t!!~-~.,
M lomey for
/lnil 'I'hiJl<rilr.
II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1\. PROc..EDUML IHS'I'OIW
Plaintiff filed a Complaint on or about March 7, 1997. The
Complaint was served on Defendants Hook, Suter and Austin on or
about March 12, 1997. On March 27, 1997 Defendal1ts filed
Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint. On or about
April 0, 1997 Plaintiff filed an ~nended Complaint l1aming William
H. Hook, Jr.., Curt E, Suter, Jeffrey A, Austin, Eagle Development
Corporation and Cumber.land Motor Inns, lnc, as Defendants.
Defendants were served on or about April 11, 1997. On April 30,
1997 Defendants filed Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's
Amended ComplaInt. On or about May 13, 1997, Plaintiff filad
Preliminary Objections to Defendants' Preliminary Objections.
B. S'I'ATEMENT OF FACTS
The well pled facts in Plaintiff's Complaint are taken as
true in relation to Defendants' Preliminary Objections. Those
alleged facts include that Defendants Hooke, Suter and Austin
entered into an Agreement with Plaintiff to acquire a twenty-six
acre tract of land in Middlese~ Township, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania for the purpose of development. They signed an
undated Agreement which was attached to the Complaint as Exhibit
"A". The twenty-six acre tract of land referred to in the
Agreement was never purchased. Eagle Development Corporation and
Cumberland Motor Inn, Inc. were formed with Hooke, Austin, Suter
and Thakrar as shareholders. On March 17, 1995, Hooke, Suter and
Austin voted at a meeting of the shareholders to amend the by-
laws of each of the corporations to reduce the number of
l.
'.
directors from four to three and to remove Plaintiff from the
Boards of Directors of Eagle Development Corporation and
cumberland Motor Inn, Inc.
Based upon these facts, Plaintiff asserts breach of contract
against Defendants Hooke, Suter and Austin, seeking monetary
damages and equitable relief, Plaintiff also asserts a claim of
minority shareholder oppression against Eagle Development
Corporation and Cumberland Motor Inn, Inc, Plaintiff in his
Complaint seeks equitable relief in the nature of an order
forcing Defendants to restore him to the Boards of Directors of
Eagle Development Corporation and Defendant Cumberland Motor Inn,
Inc. Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages from both the
Individual Defendants and the Corporate Defendants stemming from
his assertion of minority shareholder oppression.
I I I. ARGUMEN'r
A. Count I of Plaintiff'a Complaint alleqea breaoh of a
contract which ia unenforceable becauae of failure of
oonaideration, It therefore faila to atate a oauae of aotion
aQain.t Defendanta Booke, Suter and Auatin for breach of contract
permittinQ injunctive relief aQainat Defendanta,
Plaintiff in his Complaint alleges a contract between
himself and Defendants Hooke, Suter and Austin. (Complaint
Paragraph 8). Exhibit "A" attached to the Complaint is a copy of
the "Agreement of Principal Points at Issue Between Hooke, Suter,
Austin and Thakrar." The Agreement concerns the acquisition of a
twenty-six acre tract of land. Plaintiff acknowledges that the
twenty-six acre tract of land referred to in the Agreement was
never acquired and developed by Defendants. (Complaint Paragraph
. ......
'.,-
.
17) .
Under Pennsylvania law, interpretation of the parties'
intent in entering into a contract is a question of law for the
court to determine, if the \~riting is not ambiguous, that is, is
not susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. Koch
Y.L...!L..~ 814 F. Supp, 1221 (M.D. Pa. 1993). The question as to
whether a certain or undisputed state of facts establishes a
contract is one of law for the court. Alexanian v. Fidelity-
Philadelphia Trust Co., 30 A.2d 651, 152 Pa. Super 23 (1943). In
the instant case, it is undisputed that the subject matter of the
Agreement, the twenty-six acre tract of land, was never
purchased. As a result, there was a failur.e of consideration. A
contract is unenforceable when the consideration for it wholely
fails. The failure of consideration contemplates the
nonexistence of the subject-matter of the contract and occurs
where the consideration bargained for does not pass, either in
whole or in part, to the promisor. Shields v. Hoffman, 204 A.2d
436, 416 Pa. 48 (1964), McGuire v. Schneider, Inc., 534 A.2d 115,
368 Pa. Super. 344, appeal granted 541 A.2d 746, 518 Pa. 619,
affirmed 548 A.2d 1223, 519 Pa. 439 (1987).
In the instant case, the twenty-six acre tract of land in
the contract never passed to the parties, a Holiday Inn was never
built on the tract and the Middlesex Development Corporation was
never formed. Thus there is presumably a failure of
consideration and the contract is unenforceable.
Count I of Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed for
failure to state a cause of action under Pennsylvania law.
I,
B, Count II of Plaintiff'. Complaint allooo. broaoh of a
oontraot whioh i. unenforceablo bacaula of failure of
oonlidoration, It tharef.ora faill to .tate a oaule of aotion
aoainlt Defendant. Hooke, suter and AUltin for breaoh of contraot
PQ~ttino monata~y relief aoain.t Defendant.
Plaintiff in his <.:omplnillt nllegoB i\ cont~nct between himself and
Defendants Uooke, Suter and Austin, (Complaint Paragraph 8).
Exhibit "A" attached to the Complaint is a copy of the "Agreement
of Principal Points at Issue Between Uooke, Suter, Austin and
Thakrar." The Agreement concerns the acquisition of a twenty-six
acre tract of land, Plaintiff acknowledges that the twenty-siX
acre tract of land referred to in the Agreement was never
acquired and developed by Defel1dants, (Complaint Paragraph 17).
Under Pennsylvania law, interpretation of the parties'
intent in entering into a contract is a question of law for the
court to determine, if the writing is not ambiguous, that is, is
not susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, Koch
v. U.S. 814 E'. Supp. 1221 (M.D, Pa, 1993).
The question as to
whether a certain or undisputed state of facts establishes a
contract is one of law for the court, Alexanian v. E'ideli~-
Philadelphia Trust Co., 30 A.2d 651, 152 Pa. Super 23 (1943). In
the instant case, it is undisputed that the subject matter of the
Agreement, the twenty-six acre tract of land, was never
purchased. As a result, there was a failure of consideration. A
contract is unenforceable when the consideration for it wholely
fails. The failure of consideration contemplates the
nonexistence of the SUbject-matter of the contract and occurs
where the consideration bargained for does not pass, either in
"
whole or in part, to the promisor, Shields v, Hoffman, 204 A.2d
436, 416 Pa. 48 (1964), McGuire v. Schneider, Inc., 534 A.2d 115,
368 Pa, Super. 344, appeal granted 541 A,2d 746, 510 Pa. 619,
affirmed 548 A.2d 1223, 519 Pa. 439 (1987).
In the instant case, the twenty-six acre tract of land in
the contract never passed to the parties, a Holiday Inn was never
built on the tract and the Middlesex Development Corporation was
never formed. Thus there is presumably a failure of
consideration and the contract is unenforceable.
Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed for
failure to state a cause of action under Pennsylvania law.
C, Count III of the Complaint alleqes minority shareholder
oppre..ion aqain.t Eaqle Development Corporation and the
Individual Defendants, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state the
required avermGnts in conformity with Pa, R,Civ,P, 1506,
Plaintiff'. Complaint fails to state a oause of action becau.e it
doe. not include material alleqations Qstabliahinq the element.
of the claim as required under the law,
Plaintiff's Complaint fails to contain sufficient
allegations to clearly determine whether he is suing the
corporation in his own right or whether he is suing to enforce a
secondary right against the directors of the corporation to force
them to enforce rights that may properly be asserted by it.
Plaintiff may properly bring both a direct suit and a derivative
suit in the same Complaint, however each must be set forth in a
separate Count. Wolf v. Young Supply Co., 19 Pa.D. & C.2d 404,
409, 46 Del. 367, 73 York 11 (1959).
Plaintiff in Count III of his Complaint seeks equitable
relief from the Court in asking that he be restored to the Board
11
of Directors. A derivative suit may be brought by s shareholder
sgainst any present or forlller officer or director of the
corporation because the corporation refu8~s to enforce rights
that may properly be asserted by it, In the instant case, the
Plaintiff apparently bolieves that his removal from the Board of
Directors was improper, Whether the removal is detrimental to
the Plaintiff alone or to the Corporation as well is for the
Court to determine. If the Court determines that the removal of
Plaintiff from the Board of Directors was detrimental to the
Corporation, tllen Plaintiff should have filed a derivative suit.
If the Court determines that the removal of the Plaintiff from
the Board of Directors was detrimental to the Plaintiff directly,
then Plaintiff should have filed a diroct suit against the
Corporation. The number of stockholders involved does not
determine whether an action is direct or derivative. John L.
Motley Associates, Inc, v. Rumbaugh, 104 BR 683, reconsideration
denied (E.D.Pa) 1990 US Dist LEXIS 5382 ( E.D.Pa 1989). The
right of an individual stockholder to bring a derivative action
is exceptional and arises only on a clear showing of special
circumstances. The inablility or unWillingness of the corporation
to proceed, demand upon the regular corporate management and a
refusal by them to act, are imperative requisites. The refusal
of the corporate management must appear affirmatively to be a
disregard of duty and not an error of judgment. Plaintiff has
failed to state clearly on what basis he is filing, direct or
derivative.
Pa. R.Civ.P. 1506 provides I
7
(al In an action to enforce a secondary right brought by one
or more stockholders or members of a corporation or similar
entity because the corporation or entity refuses or fails to
enforce rights which could be asserted by It, the complaint shall
set forth
(1) that each plaintiff is a stockholder or owner of an
interest in the corporation or other enLlty.
(2) the efforts made to aecure enforcement by the
corporation or similar entity or thll rlluon for not makinq any
.uoh IIffort., (IImpha.i. addlld)
In a Cumberland County case, the court discussed the
foregoing requirement, statingl
In stockholder's derivative suits, such as
the one now before the court, th~ corporation must be
given an opportunity to bring suit first, because the
cause of action stated in the complaint belongs to the
corporation. Under the rule, if plailltiff made efforts
to aecure enforcemel1t by the corportion, through its
officers and directors, she must set forth sufficient
facts to inform defendants and the court of the efforts
made. If she made not efforts, she must state the
reason for not making them,
Kistler v. f'aller 8 Pa.D.& C.2d 682, 685, 7 Cumb.7(1956)
The Court discussed the requirement of setting forth "the
reason for not making any such efforts"1
Where it appears that fraudulent acts,
prejudicial to the interests of the corporation, have
been committed, so interwoven with the conduct of the
corporate managers and of such nature that it might be
presumed the officers would commit a breach of trust in
refusing to proceed, a demand is not necessary, as it
would be vain and useless, Ordinarily there is no
presumption that officers will commit such breach of
trust, and the charge that they will should rest on
acts, affirmative or permissive, duly averred,
manifestly in violation of duty, nnd manifestly a
result of fraud and not of erroneous judgment.
Id. citing Evans v. Diamond Alkali Company, 172 A. 678, 315 Pa.
335 (19341 .
In the Kistler case the court held that the fraudulent acts
H
by the individual defendants must be alleged before it could be
presumed that the corporation would refuse to proceed. For that
reason, the court sustained defendants' preliminary objections to
plBintiff's complaint,
In the instant ~ase, the Plaintiff has failed to stJte any
efforts made to secure enforcement, nor has he stated any reason
for not mBking such efforts. BecauBe Plaintiff's Complaint fails
to include material facts establishing the elementR of the cause
of action under Po. R,Civ.P. 1506, Count III of Plaintiff's
Complaint should be dismissed.
0, Count IV of the Complaint alleges minority shareholder
oppression against Cumberland Motor Inns, Ino, and the Individual
Defendants, Plaintiff'. Complaint fails to state the required
averments in oonformity with Pa, R,Civ,P, 1506, Plaintiff's
Complaint fails to state a oause of aation because it does not
inolude matorial allegationa establishing the elementa of the
olaim as required under the law,
Plaintiff's Complail1t faila to contain sufficient
allegations to clearly determine whether he is suing the
corporation in his own right or whether he is suillg to enforce a
secondary right against the directors of the corporation to force
them to enforce rights that may properly be asserted by it.
Plaintiff may properly bring both a direct suit and a derivative
suit in the same Complaint, however each must be set forth in a
separate Count. Wolf v. Young Supply Co., 19 Pa.D. & C,2d 404,
409, 46 Del. 367, 73 York 11 (1959).
Plaintiff in Count IV of his Complaint seeks equitable
relicf from the Court in asking that he be restored to the Board
of Directors. A derivative suit may be brought by a shareholder
against any present or for.mer officer or director of the
'i
co~po~ation because the corpo~ation ~efuses to enfo~ce ~Ights
that may p~ope~ly be asserted by it. In the lnstant case, the
plaintiff appa~ently believes that his ~emoval f~om the Doa~d of
Di~ecto~s was imp~ope~, Whethe~ the removal Is det~imontal to
the Plaintiff alone or to the Corporation as well Is for the
Court to determine. If the Court determines that the removal of
Plaintiff from the Board of Directors was detrimental to the
Corporation, then Plaintiff should have filed a derivative suit,
If the Court determines that the removal of the Plaintiff from
the Board of Directors was detrimental to the Plaintiff directly,
then plaintiff should have filed a direct suit against the
corporatl,on. 'rhe number of. stockholders Involved does not
determine whether an action is direct or derivative, Joh~~
Motley Associates, Inc. v. Rumbaugh, 104 DR 683, reconsideration
denied (E.D.Pa) 1990 US Dist LEXIS 5382 ( E.D.Pa 1989). 'rhe
right of an individual stockholder to bring a derivative action
is exceptional and arises only on a clear showing of special
circumstances. The inablility or unwillingness of the corporatloll
to proceed, demand upon the regular corporate management and a
refusal by them to act, are imperative requisites, 'rhe refusal
of the corporate management must appear affirmatively to be A
disregard of duty and not an error of judgment. Plaintiff has
failed to state clearly on what basis he is filing, direct or
derivative.
Pa. R.Civ.P. 1506 provides~
(a) In an action to enforce a secondary right brought by ono
or more stockholders or members of a corporation or similar
entity because the corporation or entity refuses or falls to
enforce rights which could be asserted by it, the complaint SIIOI I
III
set forth
(1) that each plaintiff is a stockholder or owner of an
interest in the corporation or other entity.
(2i the ef.forts made to secure
corporation or similar entity or the
.uoh effort., 'empha.i. added)
In a Cumberland County case, the court discussed the
enforcement by the
rea.on for not makinq any
foregoing requirement, stating:
In stockholder's derivative suits, such as
the one now before the court, the corporation must be
given an opportunity to bring suit first, because the
cause of action stated in the complaint belongs to the
corporation. Under the rule, if plaintiff made efforts
to secure enforcement by the corportion, through its
officers and directors, she must set forth sufficient
facts to inform defendants and the court of the efforts
made. If she made not efforts, she m~st state the
reason for not making them.
Kistler v. Faller 8 Pa.D,& C,2d 682, 685, 7 Cumb.7(l956)
The Court discussed the requirement of setting forth "the
reason for not making any such efforts":
Where it appears that fraudulent acts,
prejudicial to the interests of the corporation, have
been committed, so interwoven with the conduct of the
corporate managers and of such nature that it might be
presumed the officers would commit a breach of trust in
refusing to proceed, a demand is not necessary, as it
would be vain and useless. Ordinarily there is no
presumption that officers will commit such breach of
trust, and the charge that they will should rest on
acts, affirmative or permissive, duly averred,
manifestly in violation of duty, and manifestly a
result of fraud and not of erroneous judgment.
Id. citing Evans v. Diamond A,lkali_Company, 172 A 678, 315 Pa.
335(1934).
In the Kistler case the court held that the fraudulent acts
by the individual defendants must be alleged before it could be
presumed that the corporation would refuse to proceed. For that
II
r~ason, the court sustained defendants' preliminary objections to
plijintiff's complaint.
In the instijnt case, the Plaintiff has failed to state any
efforts made to secure enforcement, nor has he stated any reason
for not making such efforts. Because Plaintiff's Complaint Eaiis
to include material facts establishing the elements of the cause
of action under Pa. R.Civ.P. 1506, Count IV of Plaintiff's
Complaint should be dismissed.
!, Count V ot the Complaint alleqos minority shareholder
oppreslion aqainlt Eaqh DeveloplMllt CorporsUon and the
Individual Detendants and seeks monetary damaqes tor a tailur. to
distribute protits acoruinq trom the operation ot Eaqle
Development Corporation, Plaintitt's Complaint taill to .tat. a
oaule of action because it does not incl.ude material alleqaUonl
eltablishinq the eloments of the claim as required under the law,
In Count V of his Complaint, Plaintiff again asserts
"minority shareholder oppression" as a cause of action without
clearly stating whether he is proceeding directly or
derivatively. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against the
Corporation and the individual named Defendants for failure to
distribute profits accruing from the operation of Eagle
Development Corporation,
Profits realized by a corporation are not "dividends" Ullt 11
so declared by its proper officials. Thompson's Estate, 105 A.
273, 262 Pa. 278 (1918), As between the Corporation and the
stockholders, no debt arises until dividends are declared by the
directors. Greenbaum Bros, & Co. ,62 F, Supp. 769 (I';.lJ.l'a. 1'14"/).
Until a dividend of the profits of a corporation ho1s beull
declared by its board of directors, a stockholdllf han 110 11l'lo1l
title to any interest in them. The shares of sLock whLch he
12
, "
holds represent only a right to participate in the profits and
that right is to be enforced ordinarily only after a dividend of
the profits has been declared. Goetz's Estate, 85 A. 65, 236 Pa.
630 (1912). Declaration of dividends out of net profits rests in
the discretion of the board of directors. Pa. Business
Corporation Law, 15 Pa.C,S,A. section 1551. When fraud or abuse
of discretion can be shown by a shareholder, the shareholder may
invoke the equitable powers of the court for relief asking the
court to compel the declaration of dividends. Knapp "v, Bankera
Securities Corp" 230 r.2d. 717 (Pa. D,C, 1956),
In the instant case, Plaintiff has not alleged a failure to
declare dividends nor has he alleged a failure to pay dividends.
The Defendants, both Corporate and Individual, have no
contractual duty to pay Plaintiff a portion of the profits from
the Corporation absent a declaration of dividends. furthermore,
an action to ~ompel a corporation to declare a dividend lies in
equity and requires a showing of fraud or abuse of discretion.
Knapp v. Bankers Securities Corp., 230 f.2d. 717 (Pa. D.C. 1956).
Plaintiff has not specifically alleged fraud or abuse of
discretion by the directors. furthermore, Plaintiff has failed
to seek equitable relief by asking the court to compel
declaration of dividends.
for the above stated reasons, Count V of Plaintiff's
Complaint should be dismissed.
r. Count VI of the Complaint alleges minority shareholder
oppression against Cumberland Motor Inns, Ino, and the Individual
Defendants and seeks monetary damages for a failure to distribute
profits aooruing from the operation of Cumberland Motor Inns,
Il
lnc, Pla1nt1ff'. Compla1nt f.11. to .t.te . cau.e of aat10n
becau.e 1t doe. not 1nclude mater1al alleqat1on. e.tab11.h1nq the
element. of the cla1m .. requ1red under the law
In Count VI of his Complaint, Plaintiff again asscrts
"minority shareholder oppression" as a cause of action without
clearly stating whether he is proceeding directly or
derivatively. Plaintiff seeks monet3ry damages against the
Corporation and the illdividual nallled Defendants for failurc to
distribute profits accruing from the operation of Cumberland
Motor Inns, Inc.
Profits realized by a corporation are not "dividends" until
so declared by its proper officials. 'rhompson'~tate, 105 A.
273, 262 Pa. 278 (1918). As between the Corporation and the
stockholders, no debt arises until dividends are declared by the
directors. Greenbaum B.!:.Q.!!. & Co. 62 f'. Supp. 769 (I:;. D. Pa. 1947).
Until a dividend of the profits of a corporation has been
declared by its board of directors, a stockholder has no legal
title to any interest in them. The shar.es of stock which he
holds represent only a right to participate in the profits and
that right is to be enforced ordinarily only after a dividend of
the profits has been declared. Goetz's Estate, 85 A. 65, 236 Pa.
630 (1912). Declaration of dividends out of net profits rests in
the discretion of the board of directors. Pa. Business
Corporation Law, 15 Pa.C.S.A. section 1551. When fraud or abuse
of discretion can be shown by a shareholder, the shareholder may
invoke the equitable powers of the court for relief asking the
court to compel the declaration of dividends. Knapp v. Bankers
Securities Corp., 230 F.2d. 717 (Pa,D.C.1956).
II,
, " ,
" ,
In the l.nstant case, Plaintiff has not alleged a failure to
declare dividends nar has he alleged a fal.lure to pay dividends,
'fhe Defe~dants, both Corporate and Individual, have no
contractual duty to pay Plaintiff a portion of the profits from
the Corporation absent a declaration of dividends. Furthermore,
an action to compel a corporation to declare a dividend lies in
equity and requires a showing of fraud or abul3e of discretion.
Knapp v. 8ankers Securities Corp., 230 F.2d, 717 (Pa.D.C.1956).
Plaintiff has not specifically alleged fraud or abuse of
discretion by the directors. Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed
to seek equitable relief by asking the court to compel
declaration of dividends.
For the above stated reasons, Count VI of Plaintiff's
Complaint should be dismissed.
G. Pennsylvania Law does not permit the joinder of causes
of action in equity with causes of action at law, Plaintiff'.
Complaint which joins causes of action in equity with cause. of
aotion at law should be dismissed for lack of conformity to law,
Pennsylvania law permits the joinder of causes of action at
law whether they are in tort or in contract. Pa.R,Civ,P. 1020.
Pennsylvania law also permits the joinder of multiple causes of
action in equity. Pa, R.Civ.P. 1508. Penn~ylvania law does not,
however, permit the joinder of causes of action at law with
causes of action in equity. P'allessandro v. Wassel, 526 Pa.
534, 587 (a) (2) (d), 724 (1991) I Lustig v. Lustig, 652 A.2d 393
(Pa.super. 1995).
In the instant case, Plaintiff has asserted causes of action
15
, ,
" ,
at law with cnus~s of action in equity, In Count I Plaintiff
seeka equitable relief in the natu~e of specific performance in
asking the court to restare Plaintiff to the Boards of Directors
of Defendant Corporations. In Count II Plaintiff seeks damages
against DefenQants in excess of $50/000.00/ suggesting that
Plaintiff is requesting compensatory damages, In Count III
Plaintiff against requests that the court order Defendants to
restore Plaintiff r.o the Board of Directors of Defendant Eagle
Development Corporation, an equitable remedy. Similarly, in
Count IV, Plaintiff again seeks to be restored to the Board of
Directors of Cumberland Motor Inn, Inc., an equitable remedy.
In Counts V and VI Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages from the
respective Corporations.
In short, Plaintiff seeks to join in a single complaint
causes of action in equity for the specific performance of a
contract with Defendants Hooke, Suter and Austin, specific
performance through a minority shareholder oppression suit with
Defendants Eagle Development Corporation and cumberland Motor
Inn, Inc., with causes of action for breach of contract against
Hooke, Suter and Austin and a cause of action for shareholder
minority oppression against both the individual named Defendants
and the Corporate Defendants, such joinder is not permissible
under Pennsylvania law. Plaintiff's Complaint should be
dismissed for the misjoinder of causes of action in law and in
equity and failure to conform to the requirements of Pennsylvania
law.
16
,
Shortl)' Iillcr slllnhl11 thc ^I!rccmcnt, llfl Jul)' J, 1 '1HlJ, thc Indlvlduul I'urtlcs lill'lllcd u
corporullolI cullcd EUl!lc I.JcvclopmclIl CorpoJ'ullon, I'umulflt 10 thc Al!rCcmclIl. cuch of lhc
purllc~ rccclved 25% of thc shurcs of <Icfcndunl EUl!lc IJcvelollmcnt l'orporutlulI I1l1d cuch of
thc llldlvlduul 1'III'IIcs bCCllll1C u mcmbcr of Ihc 1I0urd of Dlrcclurs ur thc Corporullun, Also
pursuul1t to Ihc ^I!rccmcnt, Ihc purtlcs, thl't)ul!h dclimdunt cUl!lc Dcvelopmcnl Cllrpurllllon,
pllrchuscd IUl1d In Cumbcr/nnd Cuunl)' (lhc "Lund") ul1d dcvclupcd purl of thllt IUl1d,
cUl1structlnl! und opcrullnl! u Ilolldu)' 11111, Thc 1I01ldu)' Inn bCl!unopcrnllunIn 19HJ,
LlIlcr, on Dcccmbcr 12, 1 '1H5, ulso pursllunl 10 thc ^I!rccmcnt, lhc Indlvlduul I'lIrllcs
formcd unolhcr corporullon, cullcd Cumbcrlnnd MOlor Inns, fnc, ^I!uln pursuunt 10 Ihc
^I!rccmcnt, cuch of lhc Indlvlduul Pllrllcs rccelvcd 25% of thc shurcs of dcfcndulll
Cumbcrlund Motor Inl1, Inc, und cuch of thc IlIdlvlduul I'urllc~ hccumc u mcmbcr of lhc
Bourd of Dlrcctors,
Whllc thc Lund which wus uCluull)' dcvclopcd WIIS dlffcrcnllhulI thc IUlld which thc
purllcs hud orlg.lnull)' Intcndcd 10 purchusc und dcvelop, thc purtles undcrsloud und ul!rccd lhul
lh~ ^I!rccmcnl would clll1linuc 10 I!ovcrn lhclr rclullonshlp, Includlnl! thc dcvclopmcnl of lhc
Land ulld lhc dc:dslon-mukhll!, munul!cmcnl I1l1d opcrutloll of dcfcndunl cUl!lc Dcvelopmcnl
Corporullon nnd dcfcndul1l Cumbcrlund MOlor Inn, Inc, Somctlmc lhcrcuncr, also pursual1l tu
thc ^l!rccmclIl, thc fndlvlduul Parllcs, lhroul!h dcfcnduJ1l Cumbcrlund Motor fnn, Inc" ICllscd
und dcvclopcd unolhcr purl of thc Lund, construct In I! und opcrutlrll! UII ccunu-Lodl!c Motcl.
The ccono-Ludl!c Mutel bCl!nn opcrullulI 111 19H6,
Durinl! thc pcrlod belwccn lhc Iill'lllutlon uf thc lWO curpurullons until laic Murch of
1995, cuch of thc Indlvlduull'nrtics scrved on thc Ilonrd of DircClurs uf both dcfcl1dnnl cnl!lc
Developmcnl Corporutlon nnd dcfclldunl Cumbcrlnnd Motor Inn, Inc, und, ns such,
3
plll'llclplllCd III 1111 muJor declslolls Illvolvllllllhc devcloplllcllt Ilflhc I.ulld, Dllrllll! Ihllt sumc
pcrlud, cuch of thc Illdlviduul Purtlcs prllvldcd 1Illllllllulllsslstuncc with thc IIlllllUl!cmClll of thc
Ilollduy 11111 und the Econo-I.odllc Inll locutcd 'JIllhc I.ulld, but rccclved 110 cumpcnsutlon lill'
thut work, III mosl of thc ycurs bctwccll thc forlllutloll Ill' thc two cllrporutlllns until 1995,
cuch of thc Illdlvlduul Purtlcs rccclved un c'luul und usuully u sll!nlllcullt dlslrlbutlon of
Incomc frlllll cllch of Ihc cllrporullolls.
011 MUl'ch 27, 1995, dclclldunt~ 1I00k, SUtlll' ulld Austill (thc "llldlvlduuILJclclldunts")
votcd, Ul u IIlcclinll of thc shurcholdcl's, to umclld thc by-Iuws of cuch of thc curpurutlons to
rcducc thc Ilulllbcr of dlrcclors from limr tu lhrcc und 10 rcmovc plullltiff frum thc Uourds of
LJlrcctors of bOlh of thc dclclldulll COl'porutiolls, Slllcc thut dutc. Ilook. Sutcr und Au~tlll
huvc clicludcd pluhlliff fro III uny pllrllclputloll ill thc dcclsloll-muklllll, IIlnnllllClllcnl und
upcrulion of thc two curpol'Ullulls,
On Murch 30, 1995, Ihc Illdivlduul LJclelldullts limllcd a corporutioll by thc Ilumc of
CClltrul MUllullcmcll1 Scrviccs, fllC, of which thcy urc thc solc shurcholdcrs, all April 2,
f995, dclclldlllll EUlllc LJcvcloPIllClll Corporatlull und dcfcndul11 CUlllbcrlund Molor Illn. IIlC,
cllch cntcrcd Illto MallUI!CIllClll ^I!I'CClllcllts with CClltral Munullclllcnt Scrviccs. IIlC,
Undcr thc MunullCIllClll Agrcclllcl1ts clllcrcd Inlo bctwccn CClllral Munugclllcl11
Scrvices. Ille, nnd dcfendunt Euglc Dcvcloplllcllt Corporation und dcfendunl Cumbcrland
Motor Inn, Inc.. Ccnlrul Munullcmclll Scrvlccs, Inc, was to pcrform certain managcm~nl
functions for lhc IWo curporlltluns. MUM of thc l11unagcll1cnl lilllctlons which Ccntral
Managcmcnt Scrvlccs, Inc, agrlcd to pcrform undcr lhc Managcmcnl Agrccmcnts had
prcviuusly becn pcrlllrlllcd and cunlillUC to thc prcscnt to bc pcrformcd by cmployccs of lbc
lWo corporations, Thc rcmaindcr of lhosc functiolls, thosc not pcrformcd by cmployccs of thc
4
IWll Clll'pllrullon6, rC4ulrc only Illlnhnul IIIllC und wcrc prcvlouuly pcrlilrlncd by plulllllff und
Ihc Indlvlduul Dclcndunl6 Wllhout uny clllllpcn6ulllln,
In 19'15 und 1'196. dclcndunl6 EUl:llc Dcvelopl1lcnt Corporuthlll und Cumhcrlund Motllr
Inn, Inc, puld CCllll'ul Munul!clllcnt SCI'VIcC6. Inc, ull!nllkunl umllunl6 llr Illoncy (ncurly
$200,000 In 1995) which wcrc IiiI' grculcr Ihun Ihc VIIIIIC ~)r thc uCluul 6cl\llcc6 provldcd to
lhcm by ('cnlrul Munul!cmcnt Scrvlcc6, Jnc, In 1995 und 19<)6, nelthcr dclcndunl EUl!lc
Dcvelopmcnl Corpurullol1 nor dclcndunl ClImbcrlund Mlllllr Inn, Inc, puld uny dlvldcnd6 or
olhcr dI61r1l11lllonH of Incol1lc 10 plulnllfr, Thc Indlvlduul Dclcndunt6 limncd Ccntrul
Munul:!cl11cnt SCI'VIcC6, Inc, und cuuucd dclcndunt ElIl:!lc Dcvelofll11cnt CllrpOI'Ullon und
dclcndunl Cumbcrlund Inn, Inc, 10 clltcr hllo MUIll1l:!Cl11Clll AI!rCCl11Cnl6 with Ccnlrul
Munul!el11cnt Scrvlcc6. Inc, 111 ordcr lu bc uble to Illukc Illdlrccl dlslrlhllllon6 10 Ihcl11uelW6 or
the profils or lhc lWo corpol'lltlunu wlthoul huvlnl:!lO Illukc 6uch dl61r1bullons to plulnllrr,
C. LellUI Cluilll8
Uuscd on Ihc tilCluul ullcl:!utions SCI rorth In lhc Al11cndcd C'llIl1plulnl, und slll11l11url7.ed
ubove. plulntlrf usscrl6 six c1all11s, two buscd on thc ullcl!cd brcuch or thc Al:!l'CCI11Cnl und rour
buscd on lhc Il1dlvlduul dcfcndunls' opprc6slon or plullltirr us u I11lnorlly shureholdcr,
Specllkully. plulnllff c1ulms lhul thc Indlvlduul dclcndunls brcuched the Al:!rCCI11Cnl und
vloluted his rll!hlS us u mlnorily shurehold,:r when lhey cxcludcd him from purticlpullon In lhe
operullol1 of thc lWo corporullons und whcn they 6topped shurinl:! thc profils or the
corpormlolls with hil11.
Thrcc uf thc six counlS in the Al11cnded COlllpluint 6eek un order re610rlnl:! pluintlff to
the Uourd of Directors of the defcndunt Corporutlons, Thc other three seek money dwnul:!es
In cxccss of $50,000,
5
II In Ihl~ ~lIh~cqucnl ugrccmcnl Ihal limncd Ihc hu~l~ of Ihc flurllcn' cOllllnulnli! rclotlon~hlp
und Ihe lund which wu~ Ihc ~ubJcclof Ihul ugrccl11cnl WUH flurchuscd,
Morcowr, uccordlnl! 10 lhc Al11cndcd Comfllullll, fllulllllff fluid hln $125,000 und. In
relUrll, Wllll lrculcd un u full ulld c1luul flurlncrlshurcholdl!r In Ihc dcvcloflmclIl of Ihc IUIILl
which wu~ flurchuscd, Amcndcd Comfllulnl, flurun, I H-23, Thun, lhcrc In nu queslloll 111111,
uccordlng 10 Ihc An\l:ndcd COl11plulnl, Ihc ugrccd 10 con~ldcnlllon wus cxchungcd,
In uny cusc. undcr I'cnll~ylvunlu luw, u wrltlcll ugrccmcnl, such u~ Ihc Aurecl11ellt.
"shull not hc Illvulld or ullcnlilrccuhlc for luck of consldcrallon, If lhc wrlling ulso cullluln~ UII
uddltlonal cxprcs~ slUICmcl1l, III any lurl11 of IUllguugc, lhut lhc slgncr Irllend~ 10 be Icgully
bound," 33 1',8, ~6. Thc Agrccl11clII co ilia Ins Just u sllllcmcnl und Is, thcrclorc, cnforccuble
ewn If lhcrc WIIS u luck of consldcrullun, Amcndcd Compluint, Exhibit "A," p, 2,
II in, 10 suy Ihc Icusl, dlslngcnuous liJr lhc dClcndullls 10 c1ulrn Ihat thcrc wn~ no
cOII~ldcrutloll for u COl11rucl which thcy upparcnlly honorcd fiJI' ncarly Icn (to) ycurs, In UIlY
cusc, bn~cd 011 lhc laclS plcadcd In Ihc Amcndcd Complulnl, thcrc was un ugrccmcnl rclnlcd to
Ihe lalld which was, III fact, purchuscd, Thus, dclcndullls' prcllmlnury ObJCCllulI buscd 011 luck
of con~idcrulioll musl bc dcnlcd,
D. I'lulntlrr Is Suing 011 Ills Own lIehulf Not on lIehulf of the Corporutlon
And, Therefore, I>oes Not I/uve To Comply With l'u,ItClv,I'ro. 1506
III whut uppcars to bc UII uvcrubundallcc of cuullolI, dclcl1dunls preliminurlly obJccl 10
Counls III nlld IV of lhc Compluinl 011 Ihc groullds thut they do 1101 propcrly SCl lorlh lhc
prerequisites of u dcrivallve c1uim undcr Rulc 1506 of Ihc I'cnll~ylvalliu Rulcs of Civil
Proccdurc,2 While perhups plulnliff could huve broughl such UIIUClloll, he did nol.
211 i~ diflicull 10 ulldcrslund how thc dclcndunls could huvc rcud 111C Amcndcd Complulnl
10 nsscrlu dcrlvulivc c1ulm,
7
Plaintiff Iherefore failed 10 contribute Ihe $125,000,00 ullder Ihe lerms of Ihe conlract jiving
rise 10 a failure of consideraliun,
WHEREFORE. Defendanls Hooke. SUler and Auslin request lhls Honorable Courl 10
slrike Counl II of Plaintill's Compllllnl for fallure 10 81ale a cause of action, .
ur. DEMURRER..N.~~UlQf.COMPLAINT
5, Even if Plaintill's averments are true, the actions averred do nol consitule minority
shllfeholder oppression,
WHEREFORE, Defendanls requesllhis Honorable Court 10 dismiss Counllll of
Plainlil1's Complaint for failure slale a cause of aClion against Defendants,
IV, DEMURRER N.COUNT lY..Qf.COMPLAlliI
6, Even if Plainlil1's avermenls are true, the actions averred do not consitule minority
shllfeholder oppression,
WHEREFORE. Defendll/1lS requesl this Honorable Court 10 dismiss Count IV of
Plaintill's Complaint for failure stale a calise of action against Defendants,
V, DEMURRER N.COUNT Y..Qf.COMPLAINT
7, Even if Plaintil1's averments life true, Ihe actions averred do not consitule minority
shllfeholder oppression,
WHEREFORE. Defendants requesl Ihis Honorable Court 10 dismiss Counl V of
Plaintil1's Complaint for failure state a cause of action against Defendants,
VI, DEMURRER N.COUNT Y.1Qf.CQMPLAINT
8, Even if Plaintiffs avermenls are true. Ihe actions averred do not consitute minority
shareholder oppression.
... ,,'
r ,
I ..
'II'
, "
I ..
l.., ,.'" I
r I ".
.;
"
I
" I
.-' Ii)' ',/
,
9, Denied, II Is II lellal conclusiun that Exhibit A RUached to Ihe Complaint
represents 11I1 enforceablll allreement between Ihe parties, il is admiulll\ howevllr thatlhllre
exists such II wrluen document Ihat cOlllalns Ihe phl'llse referred 10 in parallraph 9,
10, Denied, 1115 II lelllll conclusion Ihlll Exhibit A auached to the Complaint
represents 11I1 enforceable IIllreemenl between the parlies, it is 0150 denied thaI the wrilinll
referred 10 "land locllled in CumberllUld Cuunl)''', mlher the wrilil1ll referred to a specific 26
acre tract of IlUld known as the "Bernard properly",
II. Denied, II is a lelllll conclusiun thllt Exhibit A llullched to Ihe Compllllnl
represenls IlJl enforceable Illlreement between Ihe pllrties, it is Ildmiued however Ihlllthere
exisls such II wriuen documenl lhlll cUlllllins Ihe IWlllulllle IIverred"
12, Denied, II is II lelllll c.:lncluslon Ihllt Exhibit A lIullched 10 the Compllllnl
represents IIlI enforcellble IIllreement between Ihe parties, II is IIlso denied Ihlll J1ll1lnliff did
conlribule $125,000,00 in connection with Ihe wrilinll described in Exhibit A aUllched to
Pllliruifl's Complllinl,
1 J, Denied in Ihal Defendlllus are unable, from Ihe phrasinll of lhe questions to
ascertllin whelher Plllintiff livers thlllthe IIl1elled Allreemenl was sillned on July ,J, 1980 or
whelher lhe corporlllion called Eallle Developmenl Corporlltion was formed July J, 1980, II
is admiued thllt II curporation clllled ElIllle Development Corpollltion was formed,
14, Denied 10 the extenlthal Exhibit A lIullched 10 Plaintiff's Complaint WIIS nollhe
bllSis for the formation of a corporlltion WId subsequentmllmbership on lllll BOllrd of
Directors,
15, Denied, The plll'ties did not purchllse 1U1)' IlU1d. 10 lhe corumf)'. ElIllle
Development Corpollllion purchased IlU1d in Cumberlllnd Count)' 1Il1d constr'Jcled II Holidll)'
Inn,
16, Denied 10 Ihe exlentthat Exhibit A allodled to I'loinliO's Complaint WlI.II not the
basis for the formation of a corpol'atiun wId subsoquent membershlll OIl the Boord of
DIreclol'5,
17, Denied, Exhibit A allllched 10 Plointifl's Complllint was notlhe bllsls fur WIY
aCllons tllken wilh reHord 10 the loler purchllse of hUlll or the formation of a corporation,
18, Denied, Exhibit A alloched 10 I'loinlll1's Cumplllint WIIS nol Ihe basis for W1Y
actions tllken wilh reHllrd to distribution of shllres of Ihe corporotiun WId membership on the
Boord of Directors,
19, Denied, Exhibll A all ached 10 Plllintiffs Complllint Wll.ll nol Ihe bllsis for II11Y
IIcllons taken with reHllrd 10 fUrlher development. It is admilled Ihot Cumberlwld Motor Inns,
Inc, did in fact lell5e and develop IWld purchll5ed by EaHle Development Corporation WId
conslrucled WId currenlly operates WI Econo.LodHe Motel.
20, Admilled that the avermenls stated in paraHroph 20 ore correct to the eXlentthat
lhe development hl15 occurred on IWld laler purchl15ed by Eagle Development Corporalion,
21. Admilled that each of the Individual Parlies served on the !loard of Directors of
DefendWll Corporations for the period In question. denied lhat they 011 participated in 011
l1lajor declslolos involving the developmcnl of the LWld, to the contrary "the LWld" 115 referrcd
to by Plaintiff was never purchosed WId therefore never developed, Addilionally, while
Plainliff allended Boord meetinHs, he did not pOrlicipate in manogemenl discussions,
22, Admilled that Plaintiff provided minimal or no IISslstwlce Wilh the I1lwlagel1lent of
the Holiday Inn and the Econo.Lodge, It Is d~nled however lIS to Hooke. Suter and Auslin,
To the cu/mary, Hooke, Suter WId Austin provided Substwllial assistance with the
management of the Ilollday Inn WId the Econo-LodIlCl, II Is adll1ll1ed IhBllhClY received 110
compensallon for their work,
23, Adll1illed lhat payments were made to the shareholders, It is denied Ihalthe lorIlI
"distribution of income" applies to the paymClnts,
24, AdmittCld 05 to the meeting of shareholders and vote to amend by-laws, Ills
denied 05 to W1Y vote or motion 10 remove Plainliff from the Board of Directors,
25, Denied, Plnintiff is still a shareholder WId 15 nol ellcluded from shareholder
meetings,
26, Admitted,
27, Admilled,
28, Admllled,
29, Denied, The management functions are performed by Central MWlagement
Services W1d notlhe two corporations or lhelr employees, It i~ further denied that the
functions require unly minimal time, 10 the contra/)', Central MWlagement Services provides
valuable mW1ngcment services,
30, Admiued that payment ocr.urred, Denied that the services provided lacked the
requisite value 10 support the payment.
31, Admitted that payment occurred, Denied that the services provided lacked lhe
requisite value to supportlhe payment.
32, Admitted that payment occurred, Denied thotthe services provided lacked the
requisite value to support the payment.
33, Admitted that payment occurred, Denied that the services provided lacked the
requisite value to Supporlthe payment,
34, Admlllud,
35. Denied, II1IYIlIenls were made In Ihe ordinary course of business for valuable
services provided,
COUNT 1
36, -39. Count I Isseverud from the Complalntllll per Court Order IIIld no IIIlswer 'I
required,
COUNT II
40, The IIIlswers conlalned In parllgraphs one (I) through lhlrty.llve (35) abovllarll
Incorporated herein by reference as If fully set forth herein,
41, Denied. The avenuent is II legal conclusion wld requires no Wlswer.
42, Denied, The averment Is II legal conclusion IIIld requires 110 IIIlBwer,
Furthermore, there is no ogreemenl betweell Ploinliff WId the Corporate Defendllllll,
43, Denied, The avenuelll is a lellol conclusion WId requires no Wlswer,
Furthermore. the individuals have 110 prollls to share, Prollts made by lhe Corporallons Inure
to the benellt of the Corporations which hove no agreement with Plaintiff lIIl to distribution of
said prolltl,
COUNT III
44,-45. Count III is severed from lhe Complalntllll per Court Order IIIld no IIIllwer il
required,
COUNT I.y'
46.-47, Count IV 15 severed from lhe Complaintllll per Court Order IIIld no answer
Is required.
COUNT V
48.-49. Counl V is sovored from Iho Compluinl WI per Courl ardor IIl1d no IIII1WOr Is
required.
COUNT VI
50.-51. COUIll VI is severed fromlhe ComplllinllLl por Courl Ordor IIIld no II/Iswor is
roqul red.
WHEREFORE, Ihe Dofendullls reque5tlhls Honorublo Courllo dls,"11I Iho Plulnliff's
Complulnt. Further, Ihe DefendwllS re5pond 10 Plulntiff's pruyers for relief ILl follows:
u. Pluintlff is nol cnlltled 10 Judllmcnt Blluinst the IndlvlduDl Defendw1l5 for dUlllUllC5
becuuse Plulntlff hILI nol allelled u proper lellul bB5ls for 5uch uwurd. Moreover, the unduled
documenl ullelled by Pluinliff B5 WI enforceuble conlrucl between him5elf wId the Individuul
Plulnllff5 15 void, improper WId lellully unenforceable for Ihe reD50n5 set forth hereinabove wId
in the New MUller infm....
b. Plulnllff 15 nol enlilled 10 Judllment allllJnsl Ihe Corporule Defendwlls for dUfllalle5
because Plainllff has nol allelled a proper lellBI basis lor such llward. Moreover, lhe
Corporulions ure nol parties 10 the unduted documenl allelled by Pluintiff as WI enforceable
conlruct.
WHEREFORE, the Defendwlls requesllhls Honorable Courllo dl5mlss the PluinllfCs
Complaint In ils enllrety Wilh costs of sui I.
NfW MA rrER
As . furlhor IIIld moro specific WIswer, Defendrulls aver Ihe followlnll:
52. Parallruphs I lhroullh 51 UfO Incorporaled by referenco horelnlLl tlloullh II10y woro
sol forlh In Ihelr ofllirety.
n The wrltlnl! deslllnuled B5 Exhlbll "A" onl'luhlllfl's Complainl is u null WId void
becuuse Ihe IWld referr~d 10 lhercin was never purchB5ed,
~4. The wrllinll deslllnated as Exhibit" A" on Plalnliff's Complaint Is unduled. II
CWlIlol be assumed thatlhe addendum clause which bears lhe dale of June 12, 1980 Is also
tho dale of the document. The writinll is queslion is unenforcoable because il Is vallue WId
ulIliblIlUOUS,
55. The writlnll de5illnated as Exhibll "A" on Plainllll's Complaint is void because no
considerulion WD5 Illven 10 Ihe Individual Defendwlls for Ihe purchase of the IWld referred 10
tile Ihe wrillnll.
56. The wrltinll deslllnated in Exhibil "A" on Plainli l1's Complainl is not reB50nable
in thai il is overly broud In its scope, fallinll 10 sufficienlly define the duties WId
responslbllltes of the parlles which renders II unenforcellble..
57. The wrilinll deslllnated in Exhibit" A" on Plaintill's Complwnl Is unenforceuble
due 10 unconscionablitiy in Ihalthe terms of the Allreel1lent were dictated solely by Plaintiff
BIld presented 10 the Individual Defendwlls for sillnatore at Ihe instillalion of Plaintiff wilhoUl
givlnll Ihe Individual DefendDJlls Ihe opportunily 10 have Ihe documenl reviewed bylheir
attorney', which Iluve Plainliff unfair barllwnlnll power over the IndivlduDl Defendunls.
Addilionally, DefendBllts had no opporlunitylo modify said Allreement, nor 10 huve the
wllhllUI KivlllK Ihe Jlldlvlduul J}elClldulIlS lhe llppllrlulllty tll huvc lhe ducumelll revlewcd by
lhelr 1I11orneys. II I~ furthcr delllcd lhul thc IlclclldulIlS hud IIU llPPlll'IUlllly III mlldll')' suld
Allreemelll lI11r III huvc the Al!rccmcllt prcpurcd III prlll1cr lel!ul I,mll. It I~ udmltlcd Ihul lhe
wrlthll! desll!lIUh:d III E>lhlblt "A" did CUlIstltule UII ul!reemClI1. The remullIllIll UllellUllllm
cOlllulncd III l'urllllrllph 57 clll1~l~t lit' ICIlUI CUllcllI~lulI~ which rcqulre 110 re~pulI~c. If,
however, they are dccmcd lilctlJlIl. IhcYllre dClllcd.
58, It 15 IIdllllllcd lhul ElIglc IlcvcluPIIICIll Corpul'IIllulI ulld ClJlllberlulld Mulor 111115,
Inc, ure 1101 purlle~ tll the writing dCNll!nutcd 115 Exhlhlt "A," The rClllllllllnl! ullcllullom
contalllcd III I'lIrul!l'IIph 58 con~I~1 lit' IClllI1 cunclu~lon~ which rcqulre nll re~ponsc, If,
however, IheYllre deemed luctuul, they urc denlcd.
59. The ullegalloll~ cunlullled In Pllrllgruph 59 conslNt of ICllul concluNlons which
require 110 re~pollse. If, hllwevcr, IheYllre dcelllcd t'ucluul, thcyure denied.
60. Dellled. II 15 denied thul plulntlff wus Invltcd 10 ull meellnl!~ In connectloll
wllh Corporatloll~ ulld glvcn the SUIIIC righls us evcry olhcr ~hllreholder. The remullllllll
allcllallons cOlllullled III 1'1I1'lll!ruph 60 consist of lelllll conclusions which rcqulre no response.
If, however, they lire deemcd fllctuul, they ure dcnled.
.2-
II. Jllrlldl~lIon
7. Thl6 Cllllrt hils JlIrl6dlctlllll llvcr this millieI' becuu6e ull of the parlles re61de and
wllrk In Cumbcrlund ClluntYllnd becuuse lhe CllU6e Ill' uctlllns 1I1'll6e In l'umberlund COUllty,
III, 11uclUIII Sllll~munl
Il, OIl June 12, IlJIlO, I'lulnlllr IInd Defendants Ilook, SUler ulld AUSlhl (herellluf\er
thc "Indlviduull'artlcs") cmcrcd Into an Allrcemenl of I'rlnclpall'0lnl6 ullKKue Betweenllooke,
SUlCI', AU6tln und Thllkrur (herclnlll\cl' "thc Agrccmcnt"), A lrue IIlld cllrrccl copy of thul
Agrecmelltl6 IIltachcd hcrcto Ulld mlldc u purl hcrcof U6 Exhibit "A."
lJ. In thc Agrccmclll, thc Indlviduul I'urlles ugrccd Ihal lhe POhll6 conlalned In Ihe
Agreemelll would con~tilule Ull ugrccmcnl bClwccn Ihem und 1111I1 euch of lhem Intended 10 be
legally boulld by the Agrecmcnt.
10. lnlhc Agrccmclll, lhe Indlvlduull'IIrlle6 stuled lhclr Intenllo form a corporutlon
for lhe pUl'pOSC of dcveloplng lund loclltcd In Cumbcrlund Counlyulld lhelr ugreementthal eoch
of the purtlcs to thc Agrccment would rccclvc u 25% Interest In Ihe velllure by 16suallce of
cquul share6 of 610ck.
II. The Agrccmcntalso pl'llvldcs Ihutull future development of the lund, "Includlllll
Indebtedne6s and prollls, llwnership und rcsPllnslbilltles shall be shurcd cquully byulllhe parties
to this Allreemcnt" IInd lhlll "[lln uddilion cuch purty 10 Ihls ugreemcnt shull be Illvlted to ull
meellngs alld 6hull havc u votc on ullmuJor dccislons conccrnlnll dcvclopmcl1tof the slle."
12. Undcl' thc Allrccmcm, I'lulnlllr Thukrur ugrccd 10 al1d did cOl1lrlbule $125,000 In
return tar becoming UI1 "cquul, 25% purtl1cr/shurcholdcr In the vcnture." It was further ugreed
that that would be the fullllnd llnnlmol1lcs he would bc expccted 10 contribute.
- 2 -
13. Shol'lly uncI' Sllllllllll lhc Agrccmcnl, 011 July 3, 1')80, the Illdlvldual Partlcs
limned a corporlllloll callcd Eallle Devclopmcllt Corporlllloll.
14. Pur~ulIlll II) the AgrCCI11Clll, cuch or lhc pllrlles rccelwd 25% or lhe shllrcs of
Delclldulll Ellgle Devclopl11CIll Cl)I'/lorilli'.lIllllld cllch orlhe IlldlvldulIlPurtlcs becllme a mcmbcr
or Ihc Ilounlor Dlrcctor~ or Ihc CorporrlllUll.
15. PlIrslIunl III thc Agrccl11clIl. thc JlUrlle~, lhrough Defcndlllll Ellgle Developmellt
Corporullon, purchuscd lund In Cumbcrlund CIHlnly (Ihe "I.und") und dcvelopcd purl of Ihut
IUlld, conslructlllll ulid opcrullll!! 1I "olidny Inn. The lIuliduyllln bcgun operullolI III 1983.
16. L.lIlcr, on D,:ccmhcr 12. 1985, ulso pursuunlto the Agrccmcnt, the Illdlvldual
Pllrtlcs limn cd IInothcr corpol'llllon, culleJ ClImbcrlund Mlllllr Inns, Inc.
17. While thc Lllnd which \\'US llclUully devclopcd WIIS dlfrcrcnllhun the lund which
the Jlurtles hlld orlglnully illtcndcd to purchuse und develop, thc purtles underslood and agrccd
thut the Allrcemcnt would continue to govern lhclr rclullonshlp, Including Ihe development of
lhe Lund IInd the declslon-mukllig, munugcmclllund opcrlltlon or Dcfcndunl EUllle Devclopmcllt
Corporation und Dclcndunt Cumbcrlund MOlor Inll, IIIC,
\8. Purslllllll 10 thc ^grccmclll, cllch of the Indlvldulll Purrles received 25% of lhe
shures of Defcndunl Cumbcrlund Motor Inn. Inc. und cuch of the Illdlvidual Pm'tlcs bccume a
mcmbcr of thc /loard of Dlrcctors.
\9. Pursuant to thc Agrccmcnl, thc IndlvldulIlPartles, lhroullh Defcndant Cumberland
Motor Inn, Inc. leuscd und devclopcd unlllhcr purl of lhe Lund, cllllslructlng llnd operutlng an
Econo-Lodlle M01C!. The Econo-I.odllc Motel bcgun opcrlltlon In 1986.
20. Also locutcd on thc Lund wcre scvcral urcus which, lit VllrloUS times belwcell lhe
- 3 -
purchasl1 of Ihl1 propl1rly by Deli:nuunl Eugll1 Developmenl Corporullon unu the preHl1nl. huvc
hl1en Il1used to olher pl1rHOnS or I1ntllil1H Jill' II vurlelyol' purpoHeH. IlIcluulll~ lhe llperation of u
IlIlnlulUre lloll' courHe nnu thl1 opel'lltion or u gus Hlullon.
21. During Ihe perlllu belwecllthl1 limllullonol' lhc IWo corporullons unllllule Murch
or 1995, eUl1h of lhc IlIulvluuul PIU'Iil1H HCI'VCU on lhe 1I0urd of Dlreclors of blllh Deli:nuant
Eugll1 Dl1vclopml1nl ClIrpllrullon ulld l)elcndul1l CUlllberland Motor Inn, Inc. and, us such,
purliclpUll1U Inull muJol' decisions Invl)lvlnlllbl1 developmenl or the I.unu.
22. Durlnlllhc period betwecnlhc lill'lnutlon or tbc two corporutlons unllllute Mnrch
or 1995, euch or the Indlvluuul PUrlles provldcd mlnlmulusslslonce with lhe llIunUllell1ent of Ihe
1I0llduy Inn unu the Econo-I.odgc Inn IOCUlCU on lhe Lond, but rl1celvcd no cOll1pcnsatlon for
lhm work.
23. In 1I10SlOl' lbc ycurs hClwcen lbe IOl'lI1ullon of lhe two corporations unlll 1995,
cuch or the Indlvlduul I'UI'Iil1s rcceiveu un cquulund usuully a slgnll1canl dlslrlbutlon of Income
I'rom cuch of thc corporullons.
24. On Murch 27, 1995, Deli:ndunls I-look, SUler und Austin (herelnnner the
"Individual Delcndants") vOlcd, alll1ccllng or the shat'choldcl'S, 10 amend the by-laws of cuch of
Ihe corporulions 10 reduce lhe number of direclors from four to Ihrec nnd to remove Plaintiff
from the lIoards III' Dlrcclors or Dclcndunl Euglc Developmcnt Corporation and Defelldant
CUlI1berlund MOlor Inll, Inc.
25. As or Murch 27, 1995, lhe Indlvldunl Defendal1ls excluded Plaintiff frorn nny
purtlclpllllon in lhe dcclslon-muklng, lI1anullcll1enl und operallon or lhe two corporations, He
hus nol partlclpatcu In lhe dl1c1slon-llIuklng, mllllagemcnt or operation of the lWO corporntions
- 4 -
since thlll dute,
26. On Mnrch 30, 191}5, lhe delcndnnls limncd u corporntlon bYlhe nnllle of Cenlrnl
Mnnngel1\enl Services, Inc. of which Iheynre lhe sole shureholders.
27. On April 2, 1995, Delcndnlll Engle Development COl'porllllon und Delcndllnl
CUlllberlnnd Motor Inn, Inc. cuch cnlcl'cd Inlll MUllugcmcnt ^Hreclllcnls with Centrnl
Munullemcnt Scrvlces, Inc.
28. Under lhc MunUI!Cmcnl ^I!rccmcnts cntcrcd Inlo bctwccn Ccnlrul Munugelllel\l
Services, Inc. und Defcndunl Euglc Dcvelopmcnl Corporutlon und ))elcndunt CUlllberlund Molor
Inn, Inc" Centrul MunUllCI11Cnl Scrvlccs, Inc. wus to pcrlimn ccrluln mUlll1llcl1\cnt functions for
the two corpornlllJlls.
29. Most of Ihc mUllUl!CI1\CIll funcllons which Ccnlrul Mnllugemcnl Scrvlccs, Jnc,
ullreed to pcrlimn undcr Ihc Munugcmcnl ^grcclllcnts hud prcvlously bcen perforll1cd nnd
conllnuc to the prcscnllo bc pcrl'ormcd by cl1\ployces of lhc lWo corporutlons, The remulnder
of those functlolls, those nOl pcrformcd hy cmployccs of the lWo corpol'llllons, require only
II1lnlll1ullllllC und wcrc prcvlously pcrlimncd byl'lulntlff und thc Indivlduul Dcfendnnls wlthoul
nny cOlnpensluion.
30, In 1995, Delcndunt Engle Dcveloplllcnt Corporutlon puld Centrul Munullclllcnl
Scrvlces. Inc, oppl'oxill1utely $139,000.00, un IIInounl which 15 fur Ilrelller lhun the vulue of Ihe
uctuul scrvlces providcd 10 Dclcndunt Euglc Dcvelopll1ent Corporution by Ccnlrul Manugcll1enl
Services, Inc.
31. In 1995, Delcndullt ClIlI1bcrlund Molor Inn, Inc. pnid Cerllml Munnllclllcnt
Services, Inc. upproxll11ulcly $51,000.00, un Ull10Unl which is lur I!rcnler thnn Ihe value of Ihc
- 5 -
uCluul services provided Defendanl Cumberland Molor Inn, Inc. by Cenlral Managemenl
Services, Inc.
32. III 19<J6, Defcndunl Euglc Dcvelopment Corporallon paid Cenlrlll Manullement
Services, Inc. a slgnlt1calll umounl of mOllcy, UII amount which Is lur IlI'eUlcr limn lhe vulue of
Ihe uctuul services provldcd to llcfclldullt Eagle Development Corporllllon by Cenlrul
MunUllel1lenl Services, Inc.
33. In 11)1)6, Dcfendunl Cumbcrlund Motor Inn, Inc. puld Cenlrul Munagemenl
Services, (nc. u signilkunlumount of money, an umountfur Ilreuter Ihonthe value of the uctuul
services provldcd Defendunt Cumbcrland MOIOI' Inn. Inc. by Central Management Servlccs, Inc.
34. (n 11)95 and 1996, nellhcr Dcfcndanl Eagle Developmenl Corporulion nor
Defendant Cumbcrland Motor Inn. (nc. puld nny dlvldcnds or othcl' dlstrlbullons of income 10
Plalnllff.
35. Thc Indivldunl Dctcndants f(lI'Illcd Central Manullcmcnt Services, Inc. and cuused
Dcfendunl Englc Developmcnt Corporulion and Defcndant Cumbcrland Inn. (nc. 10 enter Into
Munugel1lenl Agreements with Central Munugcmcnl Services, (nc. In order to be ublc 10 make
Indlrecl dlslributlons 10 lhemselvcs of the prot1ls of lhc IWo corporalions without havlnll to
lIlake such distributions 10 Plulntlff.
IV. CIIUSCS of Aellon
COUNT I -- IJrellch of Contrlld
36. The allcgutlons contulncd in purallraphs one (1) Ihrough Ihlrly-five (35) above ore
incol'poraled herein by reference us If fully sel forth herein.
37. Thc Agrcemenl of Principal I'olnls 111 (ssue l3etwcen Hooke, SUler, Auslin und
- 6 -
Thukrur WB5 n binding conlrnCI which Nurvlveo thc lill'll1utlon of Derendunt cuglc Development
Corporutlon und Delcndnnt Cumberlllno Motor Inn, Inc.
3H. The Allrc1)IlICnl or Prlnclpnl PolnlN III INNuc Belween J looke, Sutcr, AU51in und
Thnkrnr contlnue5 10 IIpply 10 the dcclslon-llIllklng, nlllnugclllent llnd operllllon of Defendalll
ElIllle Devclopmenl Corpol'Utlon 11110 Ilcfcn<lllnt CUllIbcrlulld MOlor lilli, Inc.
39. The InolvldulIl IlclcllduntN hllve hrcuchcd Ihe AgrcemeJ:t of Prlnclplll Point5 at
Issuc Betwccn Ilookc, SUlCI', Austin Iln<l Thllkrur In lhllt lhcy hllve excludcd Plaintiff from lhe
declslon-llIllklng, nllll1ll11Clllenlllnd opcl'llllon of lhc two Dctcndont corpornllolls.
WHEREFORE, Pllllnllff reNpcclfully rC'lucNtS lhlll Ihls Court:
(I) ordcr Ilelcndllnls to rCSlore Pllllntlff to the BOllrds of Dlrcclors of DefendBJII
EUllle Developmellt CorporUllon IInu Dcl'cnullnl CUllIbcrlllnd Inn, Inc. and
(2) llrnl1l such othcr relicI' IIN the Court OCCJllN upPl'oprlate.
COUNT II .. n,'cllch of COlllrllcl
40. The ullegutlonN contllincd in pllrugruphN one (I) through thirty-five (35) above are
Incorporaled hercIn by relcrencc UN If fully NCl Illl'lh hcrcln.
41. Thc Allrcclllcnl of PrlnclPll1 PointN III bNUC Bctwccn Hooke, Suter, Austin and
Thukrur wos II binding conlruct which Nurvivcd lhc fOl'l1111110n of Defendunl EUllle Dcvclopmenl
Corporatlonlln<l Delcndllnl CUllIberlund Motor Inn, Inc.
42. The Agrcelllcnt of Prlnclpul PointN III Issue llctwccn Hookc, Suter, Austin BJld
Thukrnr continues 10 Ilpply 10 the dcclNion-llIllklng, IlIlInllllclllent and operntlon of Defendanl
Eugle Devcloplllem Corporullon and Dclcndllnt CUl11berlllnd MOlor Inn, Inc.
43. The Indivlduul DelcndllntN hllve brcllchcd the Allrcement of Prlnclpall'oinls at
- 7 -
Issue l3elweell Hooke, SUlCI', AUsIl1l ulld Thukl'lll' III 111111 lhey huve refused ulld fulled to
dislrlbule prol1ts uccrullll!. fromlhc opcrnllollof Ihe developlllelllof lhe L.und OIlUIl equul busls
UllIOlI1l the Ilurlles to thut Agrccmcllt.
WHEREFORE, Plullltll'f respcclfully rCllUCSl1l lhutthls COul't:
(I) elller jud~l11elll III hill lilvor und IIl!ulnlll the Illdlvlduul Dcfelldullls III UII amoullt
III excess of $50,000; und
(2) Ilrllllt such olhcr I'cllef ns Ihc Court dccms upproprlule.
COUNT 1\1 .. MhI1IrllY.,.5lIlU:Ul!J.I!kr..!lllJlI.ruJ'1II ..Enw~ I)evellll/lllcnt C'lrIwrllllon
44. Thc Ullel!Ullons cOlllulllCd III pnrnl!rnphs olle (I) lhroullh thlrty-l1vc (35) ubove are
IllcorporUlcd hcrcln by refcrcllce liS If fullYllct Illl'th hcrclll.
45. The Illdlviduul Defcndllnlll und IJcfclldunl EUl!lc Developmellt Corporutloll huve
Improperly oppresscd Pllllnllff und dcprlved him of his r1l!llls us Ilmlnol'lly shureholder or Eugle
Develllpmcnl Corporation III thut they have cxc1udcd Plulllliff frol1l the decision-making,
rnanallement lllld opcralloll of Defendunt Eal!le Dcvelopmcllt Corporatloll.
WHEREFORE, Plullltlff n'spcclfully rcqueMs thutlhls Courl:
(I) ordcr lhe Individual Dclclldunts und Dcfendullt Eugle Dcvelopmcnt Corporation
to restore Pllllnliff to thc HourI! of Dircctors of
Defendant Eugle Dc vclopmcllt Corporutlon IInd
(2) gram such othcr relief us the Court dccmll upproprlate.
~UNT IV -- Mlnorllv Shurchllldcr Ol/Ilrmllln .. Cumherlllnd Motor Inn. Ine.
46. The allegutlons contllined In puragruphs one (I) Ihroullh thirty-five (35) above are
incorporulcd herelll by refercl'ce us If fully set t'orlh hcrclll.
- 8 -
47. The Individual Delcndunts und LJelcndunl Cumberlund MOlor Inn, Inc. huve
Improperly oppressed Plalntlll' and dcprlvcd him 01' his rlghls liS 11 mlnorlly shareholder 01'
Cumberland Motor Inn, Inc. In lhut thcy hllve excluded I'lulnlll'l' from lhe declslon-mllklnll,
manallemenlund opernllon of Delcndunt Cumberlund MUlor Inn, Inc.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectl'ullyrc'lllcsts lhut this Cuurl:
(1) order Ihe Indlvlduul lJelclldants and IJcI'endunl Cumberland MOlor Inn, Inc. 10
reSlore Plalnlifl' to thc BOllrd 01' Dlreclors 01'
Defendalll Cumberland MotuI' Inn, Inc. and
(2) grunt sllch other rcllef us the COllrt deems upproprlate.
!:PUNT V -- Mlnorllv Shnl'ehQhlcr OJlllrcsshlll .. Enure I>cvehmlllcmt ClIrnorlltlon
48. Thc ullcglltlons conluincd In purngrnphs olle (I) through lhlrly-nve (35) ubove are
Incorporated herelll by refercnce us If fully set liJl'lh herein.
49. Defendants huve improperly oppressed Plulnlll'l' and deprived him of his rlBhlS us
u minority sharcholdcr In Ihut they have refused and follcd 10 dislrlbutc pro filS accruinll from
thc opcratlon of EUllle Developmcnt Corporlltlon Oil a fall' or equal busls amonB the
shureholders.
WHEREFORE, Plalllllll'respcctl'ully requcsts thBlthls Court:
(I) enter judglllentln his favor and agulnstlhc Individual Del'endanls and Defendll/ll
Euglc Developmelll Corporation In an llmounl in cxcess of $50,000; and
(2) Brant such othcr relief as Ihe COUl'l deems appropriate,
- 9 -
ANIL THAKRAR,
Plain Uti,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
NO. 96.6233 Civil Term
WILLIAM H. HOOK, JR,;
CURT E. SUTER; and
JEFFREY A. AUSTIN;
Delendonts.
NOTICE
You hove been sued In oourt. If you wish to delend against the ollllms sot
lorlh In tho following pegos, you must tllko lIotlon within twonty (201 dnys IIIter this
Compllllnt ond Notlco ore sorvod, by onterlng II writton oppeorllnce porsonelly or by
on ottorney ond IllIng In wrlllng wllh Iho court your dofensos or objecllons to Iho
claims sot forth ogolnst you. You ore wornod that II you fall to do so tho cose rnoy
procood without you ond 0 judgmont moy bo onlorod ogolnst you by tho court
without lurthor notice for ony monoy clolmod in Iho Complolnt or lor ony othor clolrn
or rollof roquostod by tllll Plolntltl. You moy lose monoy or proporty or othor rights
Irnport/Jnt to you.
VOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWVER AT ONCE. IF VOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE
OFFICE SET FORTli BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
~OTICIA
Lo hon domondodo 0 ustod on 10 corto. SI ustod qulere dofondorso de ostos
demondos expuoslOS on los pllglnos slgulentos, ustod tleno vlonto (201 dlos do plozo
01 portir do 10 focho de 10 demondo y 10 notlflcoclon. Usted dobe presentllr uno
oporlenclo escrlto 0 on poroono 0 por obogodo y nrchlvor on 10 corto on lormo oocrltn
ouo defonollo 0 suo obj3clones 0 100 domondoo en contra do au persono. Soo ovloodo
quo 01 usted no so deflondo, 10 corto tomoro rnodldoo y puedo ontror uno ordon
contro usted oln provlo ovloo 0 notlflcoclon y por cuolquler quejo 0 ollvlo quo 00
podldo on 10 potlclon do dornendo. Uotod puodo pl1rdllr dlnoro 0 sus porplodode6 0
otros derochos Importontes poro usted.
LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE
ABOGADO 0 SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO,
VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE
ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR
ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
Court Administrator
4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse
Carllslo, PA 17013 (717) 240.6620
-.
'..
III, FllctulIl Stlltlmlnt
6. On Juno 12, 19BO, Plllntltt end Dofondants (heralnafter the "Partles"l
ftntored Into en Agroement of Principal Points ot Issue Between Hooke, Suter, Austin
end Thekrer (herelnstter "thft Agreoment"). A truo and corroct copy of that
Agroement Is ettoched hereto ond medo 0 port horeof os Exhibit "A."
7. In the AgreelTlent, the Psrtlos ag,'oed thet the points contolned In the
Agreement would constitute on ogreement between them ond thot each of them
Int.onded to be legolly bound by the Agrooment.
8. In the Agreemont, the Porllos stotod their Intent to form 0 corporstlon
for the purposo of dovoloplng lond locatod In Cumborland County and their
ogroomont thot oech of the portles to tho Agreemont would recelvo 0 25% Intorest In
tho vonture by Issuonco of oqual sharos of stock.
s. Tho Agroomont also provldos thet 011 future developmunt of the lond,
"Including Indobtodnoss and profits, ownarshlp and rosponslbllltlos shall bo eharod
oqually by all tha portlos to this Agroomont" and thot "[I)n addition each party to this
agreament sholl be Invited to all mootlngs and shall hove 0 vote on all mojor
daclslons concerning development of tho site."
1 O. Under tho Agrooment, Plaintiff Thakror agraed to contribute $125,000
In rllturn for bacomlng on "equal, 25% portnllrlshareholdar In tha ventura." It was
furthar agreed that that would be the full and final monies he would be axpected to
contribute.
11. Shortly after signing tha Agreement, on July 3, 1980, the Parties
.2.
formed II corporotlon celled Eegle Development Corporation.
12. Pursusnt to the Agroernont, eoch of the portles recelvod 26% of the
shoros of Eogle Development Corporollon end eech of the Parties bocome 0 member
of the Boord of Directors of Ihe Corporollon.
13. Pursuant to the Agreement. the parties, through Eegle Development
Corporotlon, purchesed lond In Cumberlend County (the "Land"l end developed port
of thot lond, constructing and operBllng 0 Holiday Inn. The Holldoy Inn began
operation in 1983.
14. Later, on December , 2, , 986, elso pursuant to the Agreement, tha
Pertln formed another corporallon, called Curnberlond Motor Inns, Inc.
, 6. Pursuant to Ihe Agreement, each of the Portlos rocelved 26% of Ihe
sheres of Curnberland Motor Inn, 111C. and eech of the Portlos becama 0 mamber of
the Boerd of Directors.
, 6. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Parties, through Cumberlend Motor Inn,
Inc. leased and developed another pert of tha Land, conslructlng and operating an
Econo-Lodge Motel. Tha Econo-Lodge Motel began operation In '986.
'7. Also located on Ihe Land were several areas which, et various tlmas
batween the purchase of the property by Eagle Davelopment Corporation and the
prflsent, hove been loosed 10 other persons or entltlfls for 0 varloty of purposes,
Including the operation of 0 mlnlalure golf course and the operation of 0 gas station.
, 8. During the period between the forrnatlon of the two corporetlons until
late March of , 996, each of the Parties sorved on the Boord of Directors of both
- 3 -
Eagle Devaloprnent Corporation and Cumbo/lond Motor Inn, Ino. and, 00 ouch,
portlolpatod In 011 moJor declolono Involving tho dovelopmont of the Lond.
19. During tho period bolw/len tho formotlon of tho two oorporotlono until
lete Moroh 01 1995, ooch of tho Portloll provldod mlnlrnol ooolotonce with the
monogomont of the Holiday Inll and tho Econo-Lodgo Inn locotod 011 tho Land, but
reoolvod no oomp.3/1l9otlon for that work.
20. In moot of Iho yooro botwoon tho lormotlon of tho two corporotlono
until 1996, each of tho PartieD rocolvod on oqualond uouolly 0 olgnlllcont dlotrlbutlon
of Income from oooh 01 tho corporotlono.
21. On Morch 27,1996, Dofondontll votod, ot meeting of the ohoreholdero,
to omond the by-Iowo 01 ooch of the corporations to reduce tho number of dlrectoro
from four to threo ond to romovo Plolntlff from the Boords of Dlroctors of Eogle
Developrnent Corporotlon and Cumberland Motor Inn, Ino.
22. As of Morch 27, 1996, Defendents excluded Plolntlff from eny
portlclpetlon In the doclslon-maklng, monegement ond operotlon of the two
corporetlono. He has not partlclpatad In tho daclslon-maklng, menegomant or
operetlon of tho two corporetlons since thot dote.
23. On Merch 30, 1995, the dofendants formod e corporation by the name
of Centrel Management Servloos, Inc, of which they ero tho sole sharaholders.
24. On April 2, 1996, Eagle Development Corporation and Cumberlend
Motor Inn, Inc. flach ontered Into Manegement Agreements with Central
Monagernent ServiceD, Inc.
- 4.
25. Under the Menegement Agreements entered Into between Centrol
Monagement Services, Inc. end Eogle Development Corporetlon end Cumberlond
Motor Inn, Inc., Central Menegement Services, Inc. wes to perform cortaln
management functions for the two corporations.
26. Most of the management functions which Central Managament
Services, Inc. egreed to perform under the Management Agreements hod previously
baen perforrned and continue to the prosent to be performed by employees of tho
two corporations. The remainder of those funcllons, those not perforrned by
employees of the two corporations, rl3qulre only mlnlrnal time and were previously
periormed by Plelntlff end Defendants without any compensation.
27. In 1995, Eagle Development Corporation peld Central Management
Services, Inc. opproxlrnotl3ly 3139,000,00, on emount which Is for greater than the
value of the actual services provided to Eagle Development Corporetlon by Centrel
Menegement Services, Inc.
28. In 1995, Cumberland Motor Inn, Inc. peld Central Menagement
Servlcas, Inc. approxlmetely $51,OOO.OU, en amount which Is fer greater then the
value of the actual services provided Cumberland Motor Inn, Inc. by Centrel
Menagement Services, Inc.
29. In 1996, Eagle Developrnent Corporation paid Centrel Menegement
Services, Inc. a significant emount of money, on emount which Is far greater then
the value of the actuel services provided to Eegle Development Corporetlon by
Centrel Menegement Services, Inc.
- 5 -
30. In 1996, Cumberlend Motor Inn, Inc. paid Central Management
Sorvlces, Ino. 0 slgnlllcont amount of money, on amount for greater then the velue of
the ectuel services provided Cumberlend Motor Inn, Inc. by Centro!l Monegement
Sorvlcos, Inc.
31. In 1996 and 1996, neither Eagle Developrnent Corporation nor
Curnberlond Motor Inn, Inc. peld any dividends or other dlslrlbutlons of Income to
Plaintiff.
32. Defendants formed Centrol Management Services, Inc. and causad
Eagle Development Corporation and Cumberland Inn, Inc. to sntar Into Managemant
Agreements with Central Managament Sarvlces, Inc. In order to be able to make
Indlreot distributions to themselvas of tho profits of the two corporations without
having to make such dlstrlbutlollS to Plaintiff.
IV. Ceu8es of Aotlqn
A. Breaoh of Contraot
33. The allagatlons contained In paragraphs one (11 through thirty-two (32)
above are incorporatad haroin by raference as if fully set forth herein.
34. The Agreement of Principal Points at ISGue Between Hooke, Suter,
Austin and Thal<rar was a binding contract which survived the forrnl3tlon of Eagle
Devalopment Corporation and Cumberland Motor Inn, Inc.
36. The Agreemant of Principal Points at Issue Between Hooke, Suter,
Austin and Thakrar continues to apply to the decision-making, rnanagament and
- 6 -
operetlon of Eegle Development Corporation and Cumberland Motor Inn, Inc.
36. Defendents heve breoched the Agreement of Prlnclpol Points et Ie sue
Between Hooke, Suter, Austin ond Thokrar In that:
e. They heve excluded Plolntlff frorn the doclslon-meklng,
menegement ond oporatlon of the two corporatlona; ond
b. Thoy hove refused and follod to distribute profits eccrulng from
the operation of the development 01 the Lond on 011 equal boals among the
pertles to thet Agreement.
B. Minority Shere holder OODrellllon
37. Tho allogatlons contained In poragraphs one III through thirty-six (361
ebov'l are Incorporated heroin by reference as If fully setlorth heroin.
38. Defendants heve Irnproperly oppressed Plaintiff and deprived him of his
rights as a minority shareholder In thet:
a. They hava excluded Plaintiff from tho decision-making,
management and operation of the two corporations; and
b. Thay hove refused and failed to dlstrlbuta profits accruing from
the operation of the devaloprnent of the Lend on an equal basis among the
parties to that Agreement.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
(11 ental' Judgrnent In his favor end against the Defandants In an amount In
excess of $50,000; and
- 7 .
r
./
--.. .,,-..--- - '--" 1
I,
^,J/IE1o:M"H'I'IW 1'IIII1CII'A" "Olll'l'/J A'I' 11I1ll1ll 111,'1'111<1'11
1I'X1'Oi, /;U'l'I!lI, AUIl'I'III !.till '1l1A1UIAII
'l'llb: hJlJ.oWrHtI IIIO"IIJ11',,1 Jlllalll. lJiJlllfllUitll nil DI....OJnUnt hUt.W""I) WUll.tI It,
IIJJ'lklJ, Jr" Ih"'l fir till l,,,. , JUlla'lI)' ^I A"Nl1l1 Illld All'" o. 'J11I.k....., ^U ,JU'lh.
to till. IlUl'UUhlUIIL IIILQItII It. LII hu lU"1I11y IIll1,JIIIII \lIHJII thum,
11m l'^lI'I'lItli IIIJ)'utl), II)'U 111 th.. 1Il'IJlJlH:lH tIt tu~'m1H1I n lUH'llorllUIUl kJh)Wn ..
Mhhlllllfox 1)lJvd)LJlllnullt c''''IUU'11lhUl, III' ulima' ISlhlh UIJI'P"U"Ulu nllJIW III mn)' IHI tlJJJH'uv.d
by lhu C'JtrIl111U1wunllh III 11ulllllfylV'lllllu,
",K l~IUlc)tm of HlIlIl r:'U'j)lJl'IILllJlI will hu \,1' .lunl unll lnvdllt In IlI'n1 H.tat.,
IllId utlllU' allull ullllllln ru)nl1l1K UlIJrul,'1 III1IJ CII 11lU'UlJUlnr tlUJ "uqUi.IUol) ul
lhu twulI ty tlllt 1111)'1J ~IIH\lHul'1J11J 11 Y 'UlIutJ IJU)llll)'IJ IlrLJIIIJI't)' 11)tJ1ILt1lJ III LhlJ nurth ....t
l.t1tul'/tUL:l1tJ1l lit IJ,n, IIIHllu 11, unit Iltlu)'UlIl., IH 1n MllhUl/NUX 1'1)'I\'IINh1", O,UlllJ..'hllll
Count)', ]'unll"yh"llllo. 'J1lll IIHI1' ImJtnIHln 1)( Iwld lJOrlllll'IlUon, 0111'01'1:11)" to thl.
nR)'ulJlJ1l.1nl, 1l1lIJIIIJ lo dQYulalJl tilt) twullty uh: IHlrll h'llQt 01 hUI' lit .t...." IJYur tho
IJlUtl; '"YuI'nl )'Ull"", wllh Lhu tll'lfL ll"t1JL ll) OiJlILllln II Ilt)Utlll)' lnn, OIot, \;....ut
Wl, IlllrUQlllullt I)f lJuhlux-lIC\lloil "/n/llu, l'dUJ'J'UI' tl) II/l)'n., 2, 11Il1lt) :.I,)
MeH l'AIt'l'V to thlu IIIJJ'l.Iulnl!lll Jfhnll .'UlJu1IJ1I R :lb7. lnllJl'llllt 111 thu YlllltUI'U,
by ttll) h.IIIIIlOU ul UIIlJu1 /thlll'ON of Nloolt tl) unch IJf lho tlJUl' lJOI'jliJ)'lllu IJIIIlllbQrll,
Kurt K. thUl/I', l'I"'1I11IuI1L, ^1I1l c. 'nllllwll1', V11.1u JlI'ull1lJullt, ,'uftl'u)' ^uIIUn, tJlJlJ'y
nl1ll WilU"m II. IIJoluJ, JI"I 1'),UI&JfUI'IJI".
AJ.JI l"U1'tJIU! duyohJIUIIGIIL OOllouI'nll1K tho :to DQI'U LI'IUlt ot lnnd, llllJlullln.
1ndubtutJnIJu nuil IlJ'otitlS, 1)\Io'nQI',,1I1I' nl\ll l'OIIJ)lJlllI1bll1UoN .hnll hu 111..,".11 .'lua11)'
hy nll I'llJ'ttr.Ut to thlll 1llll'lJlIJlInnt, In 11Ihl1tJ,OlJ QII.IJh JIO)'ly to thh ngl"QUUlQnt
Bhnll bo ll1Vltul1 tn flll J1\1toL1IlMrt /11111 "'llIll h.vlI 11 votu nil All IMJOI' 1181:hlol111
r:ollclJrll1l1K IhJ\II)!IJIlJ1llJlIt 01 Lhu rtltu. MuJQr ,1U1.l11101\1I dlll,ll l.h)llNt1tlJtu IIUlJh
"UI.]1I101111 'Ut lfll1u8 1)1 tllJl "rl.J!>uJ't;y, \\"hnf; w1l1 hu buUt OIl thu IlJ'r)jlOl't)', IlIlJOunh
or llldllblIJIJI1IJ~H. llllnrl)ftt J'IIll'", Illld J,}lll~I' KlllIlJl'''l IMJU)' l)ul1l.J1u IIIWll11 to tJo
with Lhu tJIlOl'lll1ulI I)t tho "!tu 111111 !Lit Vnl'loUII 1mpl'llYoaool1l.s,
WIUilU':Ati Uooltn, HUf;ol', IIIld AUIIUn hnYo obtA1nod uPlJroVJ11 fIJI' . It.JUday lml
fl'III\01l1111) 111 Lhull' nlll/lllll, hnyu 1ll\lUNtUtJ cOll1ll1dlJJ'rlblu t1~u nUl! IUOIlUY l.lurlne tho
J>IUt tWI) ,VIWI'" 111 ",) l.hHIIK, IIl1d h"\II) I.Inllft13lt 1""lJUflIlI1B)'Y lIuglJt1nt11U111 wlth U.olldR)I
111I11'1 of A/IIul'l':n 111111 lhlJ IlllU'NOIl K. MUllll' llunll!Htnto AIIJIIIJ)', Jno" nn tho 2<<1
'HlrlJ u'nfJt, nbovfJl1luI1Uulll,III," t;r> l)l)I1W tl} tl'\tlt1llU, IIIIYI) UllllhliJtJ Lilli )lrolUHlOd t..n...
"uUol~ La) 1m I'ulldy tin' thll llnllhlllulltlltlllll of lhu nbuYo tJhto,J J.lltQlltluntl of
CUlUI'O l!1)\'QltJj>mnntl ANn
WllJilWtJ, ILooko, Butur, LInd Austin wUl hy lutul'o lJolltrlbutlon. .tf'Qtuate
ttllnll1J11111 to hQ Qhtnlnull fiJI' Illl l)rIJJllo!.;1'I 1111 n11 IIuhd1YlcJfld troot. .Hhln tho
:In na.:ru ll"ncl, "lid Innll/lMU nllll OVOI',WlI 1111 1;'JIlIILl'ucl1nn tJutlllh ot 1111 llnlll'OVU-
monel l'J hn plnuotJ 1m 1:II111J land, AIm
WllF.IU~MI, to frlcil1tnlll 1111 lHlrl1lH' nCllul.1l1t1un uf I:In11J :Ill /lCI'U trnlJt Ilnd to
rodut:1.) thulr I)WfI cll~l1tn) 'lIlllI\Y, ltuohQ, ti1iLoI', DIIII AUIIUn a!orlh'lI to Lnlllua!u ono
IIdtJLl1o"nl, oqlJlIl pnl'\.lI')J'/Jnvll"l;lll',
'l111tIUU10lm, Anll C. '1",lu'nr, hnYlnK huon IQIIIl'lItQIJ by IIlJokQ, tlntul', und Au.tin
of lho LI'111l1lIlCl1I111, nlta! nf tho Jlun1C1Yu Jlnd nUllntlvo 11111011, 111\11 ,mlJlful11luntly
hnvlllK ilium invlluII to Jllln lho IIrl)UI) I)f 1L.)Qlto, liULiU', nllll AII,1Il111, 1n tlndol'tn)Hnll
thu Bbow dUf!lorlholt \ll.Inlul...., Anll 0. 1'lnkJ...I" hn. lIK'rQod to bocollkJ nil aqunl, 2D"
l)nl'lnur/ahnl'nholdul' ln tho Y.)flturo for till' lJontrlbuUon of tho BUill of IOOIU')I' of
$120,000,00,
NOW 11lf.1U-:VOlllt, 1111 pnrt1lJlI I,r> tlllll ftlCI'QQIIIQIlt mutUAlly ..r.. tho 'l:U~,OOO.OO
to bo conLrllJULl)d by Anll c~ 'l'llllcrar wlli bo tho tuU Rnd tlnal PlOI11UII ho .hall
hu 0)(1100LI)IJ 1I) COllLl'lblllu townl'IJ thl) iJlltlru J))'oJoot uncr>ml)AIIHlI1K Lhu :ld nUl'.
IH'Op'JIUJtJ Iluvu11)llmunt, ANU tor Lhh '''l1ount ha IIhall bll lnl.llul1.... fill . tull Rnd
o'1lJR 1 I'll rlnor/llihRI'fJholi.Jol' wUh "hch of If.>o)co, Butor, .",at A,".tLn for .11 ')h....
1)1 thu ,lrol'l)l1ull IJr'lJu,)t,