Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-04274 IMPAX, INC., Plaintiff v. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER,: RONALD ROSEBERRY, and PATRICK NOGA, Defendants v. B. ROBERT SNYDER and GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC., Additional Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA N0. 2001-4274 EQUITY CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE A pretrial conference was held on Thursday, April 29, 2004, before the Honorable Edward E. Guido, Judge. Present for the Plaintiff and Additional Defendants were Kimberly M. Colonna, Esquire, and Helen L. Gemmill, Esquire. Present for Defendants Pennlantic Corporation, Impaks, Inc., Larry Bixler and Ronald Roseberry was Leslie D. Jacobson, Esquire. Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, who represents Defendant Patrick Noga, did not appear. This bench trial will take one and a half to two days to try. We will commence trial ori' T'Ya~urs5~'a~~y ~~~ 1, .2Ofl'4,x, ;;, at 1 Oa~p m Tt has been related to the Court that Defendant Noga is now deceased and has no estate. We understand that Mr. Wolfson will be filing a petition to withdraw as counsel. This should be accomplished within the next 10 days. Thereafter, we will issue a rule on all other parties as to why Mr. Wolfson should not be allowed to withdraw and/or why Mr. Noga should not be dismissed. The parties are directed to exchange exhibit lists, and copies of all exhibits, if applicable, or to give the other party the opportunity to examine physical exhibits, prior to June 11, 2004. Any objections to the exhibits, other than to relevancy, must be made in the form of a motion in limine. All exhibits shall be pre-marked. All motions in limine, with supporting authority, must be filed by close of business on June 18, 2004. Any responses, with supporting authority, shall be filed by June 25, 2004. Settlement appears to be unlikely. By Edward E. Guido, J. Kimberly M. Colonna, Esquire Helen L. Gemmill, Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiff and Additional Defendants Leslie D: Jacobson, Esquire ~,JZ~~~ ~63-l9y Attorney for Defendants Pennlantic Corporation, Impaks, Inc., Larry Bixler and Ronald Roseberry ~ 1 Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire ~"" Attorney for Defendant Patrick Noga Court Administrator - ~r~~~u~,.e~ srs nb~J,[Gt4ClF1l.QNd ~Hl dQ 3QIddC~-G3lld Jt1N 1 1 2004 ~' IMF'r~,\'. IVC'.. lid` TILE COURT" OF COMMON PLL-AS 0l= _ CUb4I3ERLAND COL'NT~', PENNSYLVANIA PlaintifF NO. 01-4374 cS. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, I~~'!1'AItiS, (NC.. LARR`,' Bl\LL-R, I:ONALD ROSF:HLkR~' AND PA ~ IC1; NOGA. Defendants , ~'ti. [3. ROC3GRT S~`y`DFf. and GENIE ELEC'71tUNICS. NC'~. Cros,-C.'lain~ Defendants CIVIL AC'T[ON-EQUITY ORDER AND NOT, TO ~V1T, ~ /' day of , 2004, upon am,,ideration ~tF the I~trcgoin~ Motion, and the parties hating f.7iled to shotv_cause of ~~aje~tion as orderrd hl thi:, Court, it is hereby ordered and decreed that the appearance of Daniel h. 1~'ol~tirni. Lquire, and the lm~ tirm of ~Yolpoff ~E AUramson, L.L.P., as' counsel tur !'atrich No4~a. Oc,~rascci, is hereby withdra~~~n, and Pau'icf: Noga, Deceased, is disn~i~sed as at Dcfendnnt iu [he within matter. BY TFI J. ~~ ~~ h ~~: c ~ a~~ •~ v /I! '~ltbtb ar,~~l? t n„~, ~ -r.,P', ~;~~ .~,,. 9~ ~ . „~, .~~,;_,;~~~ ~~~ $~ ~~r ~~~z ~~~:,~n, ~]j~ ~'0 'x - - _ ~.q4 Muf:vrc ,~ :xe:w i c~~aaaaa *+re~+~1e, s+&6`^~WS~Ri4~~~M19,~ _. ,.'J [N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF C[JMBERLAND COUNTY', PENNSYLVANIA IMPALA, INC.. NO. O1--3274 Plaintiff vs. CIVIL ACTION- EQUITY PENNLANT[C CORPORATION, I`~1PAKS, NC., L.ARR1' BINLER. RONALD ROSEBI=RRY' AND PAT[CK NOG.\, Defendants V $. B. ROBL-RT SLAY"D[iR and _ GENIE ELECTRONICS. INC. _ (_'ross-Claim Defendants ~~[OTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE TO THf_ FIONORABLE. TI-IE JUDGES OF THE SAID COURT: AND NOII' this ~dav of.lrute, 2004, comes' Dathiel l=. Wolfson, Esquire, and the lalr fine of i1"~+lln+l I fi Abramson, L.L.1'., and files this Motion to Mahe Rule ,~bsohne of ~ehict tlac lollowing is a statement: A ~~Y~I~,tiota to Withdraw as Counsel was filed by Daniel P, Wolfson, Esquire on ,:\9ac I?, 200=4, requesting that this Honorable Court allow Attorney Wolfson to withrh'aw as a~unsol for llefe~udauf Pau'ick_Noga, pursuant to the within matter, due to the fact that Detcitdant ['utrick Noga is' deceased and that Mr. Noga has no Estate. A true and correct colh~' of said Petition is attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference thereto. 3. That +>r, May I R, 2004, this Honorable Court issued a Rule in regards to snid Pciition, anc pureuant !o the is;ucd Rule, fhe harries to this matter were provided ~~ ith [cn (10) day:; alter ;ercice of the Rule to file a response to Atrorney Woltson's ti4otion. A true and corroct copy of die Rule is attached as Exhibit'"B" and incorporated herci^ by reCcicncc thereto. 3. l h:u ai<i Rule was hroherly served upon the pa+Kies in this matter, and as of dte dare of the r.~ithm ~[~xion, no o~ir~=buns to Attorney Wulfson ~~idtdra«~it1s~ as counsel hu~r been tlleil ~~. i. h this hlonorable Court by the parties. ~~HPR1,_FC)RI_. A~lovant, Daniel 1=, Wolfson, Gstluire, respectfully requests that this Honorable Cot.u't male the aforementioned Rule absolute, and execute an Order stating that Anurnu~' 1~\blfson is withdrawn as counsel for the Decedent i^ this matter- Respectfully submitted, Daniel . Wolfso squire Wolpoff& Abramson, L.L.P. 267 Past Market Street 1'orl<, PA (7'403 (717)546-1252 LD. No. 20617 EXHIBIT "A" M~ , ~- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IMPAX, INC., NO. 01.4274 Plaintiff vs. CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, . IMPAKS, iNC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY AND . PATRICK NOGA . Defendants vs. B. ROBERT SNYDER and GENiE ELECTRONICS, iNC. Cross-Claim Defendants ORDER AND NOW, TO WIT, this day of 2004, it is ORDERED,AD]UDGED and DECREED that the appearance of Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, and the law firm of Woipoff 8t Abramson, L.L.P., as counsel for the Defendant, Patrick Nova, Deceased, is hereby withdrawn, and Patrick Noaa, Deceased, is dismissed as a Defendant in the within matter. BY THE COURT: A_~~--_, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IMPAX, INC., NO. 01.4274 Plaintiff vs. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY AND PATRICK NOGA DeFendanu CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY vs. B. ROBERT SNYDER and GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC. Cross-Claim Defendants n .~~ ~ cr ~- _ ~., .~' ;, -_ _' _, -r _ ' -n r,+ -:a ~„ - -_ ~.. __ .; ~~. •• t~. w :: ~: ~ MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND NOW, TO WIT, this ~ day of May, 2004, comes Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, and the law Firm of Wo(poff 8t Abramson, L.L.P., and files the within Motion for the following reasons: 1. fi early 2001, Patrick Noga, Deceased {hereinafter referred to as "Decedent"), retained Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, to represent him in connection with the above referenced action. 2. Plaintiff, Impax, Inc., commenced this action by filing a Complaint in Equity in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County in early 2001. 3. That Decedent passed away last year, and Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, has had no association with the present matter, on behalf of Decedent, since early 2002, but Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, is still listed as the attorney of record for Decedent in reference to this matter. 4. That Decedent has no Estate, and there is no legal entity for Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, to further represent in this matter, so none of the remaining parties in this matter would be unduly prejudiced by the granting of the relief requested in the within Motion. WHEREFORE, due to the aforementioned reasons,. Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, and the law firm of Wolpoff 8t Abramson, L.L.P., respectfully requesu that they be withdrawn as counsel for Decedent in this matter, and that Decedent be dismissed as a Defendant from the present matter. Respectfully submitted, Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire ~ Wolpoff st Abramson, L.L.P. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717) 846-1252 ID No. 20617 Attorney for Patrick Noga, Deceased 2 VERIFICATION I, Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Motion are true and correct to the best of my information and belief. I understand that false statemenu herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relatin; to unsworn falsification to authorit[es. Y Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire Wolpoff 8t Abramson, L.L.P. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717) 846.1252 ID No. 20617 Attorney for Patrick Noga, Deceased IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IMPAX, INC., NO. 01-4274 Plaintiff vs. CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY AND PATRICK NOGA Defendanu vs. B. ROBERT SNYDER and GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC. Cross-Claim Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 AND NOW, this ~ day of May, 2004, 1, Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing Motion to Withdraw as Counsel upon counsel of record by regular mail, postage pre-paid, and addressed as follows: Kimberly M. Colonna, Esquire McNEES WALLACE 8t NURICK, LLC t nn pins Sh' t P.O. Box 11 be~ __ ... Harrisburg, PA 17108 Leslie D. Jacobson, Esquire 8150 Derry Street Harrisbur;, PA 171 11 ~~ ~ , f ~~/, ~` 'Daniei F. Wolfson, Esquire Wolpoff st Abramson, L :P. 267 East Market Street York, PA ] 7403 (7] 7) 846.1252 ID No. 206 i 7 Attorney for Patrick Noga, Deceased BXHB[T" B" „P IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.O t -4274 1MPAX, 1NC., Plaintiff C1V1L ACTION -EQUITY vs. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY AND , PATRICK NOGA Defendant (/~ (~,y.R.,U~LE AND NOW, this'd aay of `' ~ ~J , 2004, -upon the consideration of the foregoing Motion to Withdraw, it is ORDERED that the parties to this action show cause, if any they have, why this Motion should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE !y days from the date of service hereof. BY rf~ ~R In Testimony wher~of,_~,hc~r_rariisle,tPa/ I VERIFICATION (, Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, verify that the statemenu made in the fore;oin; Motion are true and correct to the best of my information and belief. 1 understand that false statemenu herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. _' _ ~' _4 ,f ~~~~ `Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire \~ Wolpoff st Abramson, L.L.P. 267 East Market Street Yorh, PA 17403 {7]7) 84b-1252 ]D No. 20617 Attorney For Patxiclc Nola, Deceased IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IMPAX, INC., NO. Oi-4274 Plaintiff vs. C1V1L ACTION -EQUITY PENNLANTlC CORPORATION, 1MPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY AND , PATRICK NOGA Defendanu vs. B. ROBERT SNYDER and GENlE ELECTRONICS, INC. Cross-Claim Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this _ day of May, 2004, !, Danie! F. Wolfson, Esquire, do hereby certify that 1 have served a copy of the foregoing Motion to Withdraw as Counsel upon counsel of record by regular mail, postage pre-paid, and addressed as Follows: Kimberly M. Cofottna, Esquire McNEES WALLACE at NUR(CK, LLC 1 (1r1 ping Ctl' t P.O. Box 1 t ~~ _ _.......... Harrisburg, PA 17108 Leslie D. Jacobson, Esquire 8150 Derry Street Harrisburg, PA 171 I 1 Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire Wolpoff & Abramson, L~. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403- (717) 846-1252 !D No. 20617 Attorney for Patrick Nova, Deceased c~ ^~ f_ ~~ c.- --+ ' ,,.. m ~_ -~ <;, o ' . i _~ ~ ~ ~~ . sfuM~s.!a . , !go~bP@w m v^^~es Yei.,xa..~rPtsisHi _ ..-:., ~. .., _ _ _... t ~. IMPAX, INC., : IN THE COURT OF^COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 01-4274 -Equity PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, and PATRICK NOGA, Defendants v. B. ROBERT SNYDER and GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC. Additional Defendants PLAINTIFF'S AND ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO RULE TO SHOW CAUSE Plaintiff Impax, Inc, and Additional Defendants B. Robert Snyder and Genie Electronics, Inc., by their undersigned counsel, respond as follows: On May 18, 2004, the Court issued a Rule ordering the parties to this action to show cause why Daniel F. Wolfson's "Motion to Withdraw" should not be granted. 2. Plaintiff and Additional Defendants have no objection to the Motion to Withdraw. McNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC Kim . Colonna LD. No. 80362 Helen L. Gemmill I.D. No. 60661 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)232-8000 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Additional Defendants Date: May 26, 2004 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this date a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Leslie David Jacobson, Esq. 8150 Derry Street, Suite A Harrisburg, PA 17111-5858 (Attorney for Pennlantic Corp., Impaks, Inc., Larry Bixler and Ronald Roseberry) Daniel F. Wolfson, Esq. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP 267 E. Market Street York, PA 17403 (Attomey for Patrick Noga) ~X~~~ Kimberly M. Colonna Date: May 26, 2004 ,; r ~ ~ ca s' 't7 ~'~ --+ ~i~ C:.. ''. ~ "~e7~ ;= ~.. C3 t O .. ;-~ '~~ rv ~i ru °< . ~ ..... ~. ~~,~:~'@""i'ie'.iF45?l _ f !' kr:' 1 '~..v~!'y`rti'4"Rafi°#.~'.~^'FJ?5-`WKR#iP#"~IRc9i*~'I+Ui9Rr~.^}'k: .. ~i IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IMPAX, INC. NO. 2001-4274 EQUITY Plaintiff vs. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA CIVIL ACTION -LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 24th day of May, 2004, I, Philip C. Warholic, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the Rule dated May 18, 2004 upon counsel of record by regular mail, postage pre-paid, and addressed as follows: Kimberly M. Colonna, Esquire MCNEES WALLACE 8t NURICK, LLC 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Leslie D. Jacobson, Esquire 8150 Derry Street Harrisburg, PA 17111 Ily submitted, Philip C. ~/~rholic, Esquire " Wolpoff bramson, L.L.P. Attorneys n the Practice of Debt Collection 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 Phone (717) 846-1252 Fax (717) 848-1 146 I.D. No. 86341 C'a ~ t3 <_. ~ -rj ``; .. -- _w c~ ~;- N ~C7 te'S C.. ~ "' i7 - "i.,i ~ .® ~'-:s1 ~_ ,_ r ~, ~ ~: .._ ,. , ... ~-.anrts.. .. ~~" ~~cx;~, .varier ~vraus~~-ium ., ,~„n~~e +~,u;:~w~i MAY 1 4 2004 ~ ~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IMPAX, INC., Plaintiff . vs. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, . IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, . RONALD ROSEBERRY AND PATRICK NOGA Defendant NO. 01-4274 CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY RULE AND NOW, this ~O day of ~ " " p , 2004, upon the consideration of the foregoing Motion to Withdraw, it is ORDERED that the parties to this action show cause, if any they have, why this Motion should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE /® days from the date of service hereof. BY ~~ C~ \q, 6 ~~ y~~ ~ ~ t.t;~!~? ~d~OL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IMPAX, INC., . Plaintiff vs. . PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY AND PATRICK NOGA . Defendants vs. B. ROBERT SNYDER and GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC. Cross-Claim Defendants ORDER AND NOW, TO WIT, this day of 2004, it is ORDERED,ADJUDGED and DECREED that the appearance of Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, and the law firm of Wolpoff 8i Abramson, L.L.P., as counsel for the Defendant, Patrick Noga, Deceased, is hereby withdrawn, and Patrick Noga, Deceased, is dismissed as a Defendant in the within matter. BY THE COURT: NO. 01-4274 CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IMPAX, INC., NO. O 1-4274 Plaintiff vs. CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY AND PATRICK NOGA Defendants vs. B. ROBERT SNYDER and GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC. Cross-Claim Defendants MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND NOW, TO WIT, this ~~day of May, 2004, comes Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, and the law firm of Wolpoff 8i Abramson, L.L.P., and files the within Motion for the following reasons: 1. In early 2001, Patrick Noga, Deceased (hereinafter referred to as "Decedent"), retained Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, to represent him in connection with the above referenced action. 2. Plaintiff, Impax, Inc., commenced this action by filing a Complaint in Equity in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County in early 2001. 3. That Decedent passed away last year, and Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, has had no association with the present matter, on behalf of Decedent, since early 2002, but Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, is still listed as the attorney of record for Decedent in reference to this matter. 4. That Decedent has no Estate, and there is no legal entity for Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, to further represent in this matter, so none of the remaining parties in this matter would be unduly prejudiced by the granting of the relief requested in the within Motion. WHEREFORE, due to the aforementioned reasons, Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, and the law firm of Wolpoff St Abramson, L.L.P., respectfully requests that they be withdrawn as counsel for Decedent in this matter, and that Decedent be dismissed as a Defendant from the present matter. Respectfully submitted, C;- ~, ~_ aniel F. Wolfson, Esquire Wolpoff 8i Abramson, L.L.P. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717)846-1252 ID No. 20617 Attorney for Patrick Noga, Deceased 2 „~ VERIFICATION I, Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, verify that the statementr made in the foregoing Motion are true and correct to the best of my information and belief. I understand that false statementr herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire Wolpoff si Abramson, L.L.P. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717) 846-1252 ID No. 20617 Attorney for Patrick Noga, Deceased ~~ .. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IMPAX, INC., NO. 01-4274 Plaintiff vs. CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY AND PATRICK NOGA Defendants vs. B. ROBERT SNYDER and GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC. Cross-Claim Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this v `~ day of May, 2004, I, Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing Motion to Withdraw as Counsel upon counsel of record by regular mail, postage pre-paid, and addressed as follows: Kimberly M. Colonna, Esquire Leslie D. Jacobson, Esquire McNEES WALLACE 8t NURICK, LLC 8150 Derry Street 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 171 1 1 P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 G ' Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire ~i Wolpoff 8i Abramson, L 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717) 846-1252 ID No. 20617 Attorney for Patrick Noga, Deceased ~ ~._ ,~ °~ o t "Il r' ~~' ~ T ~ C^~`- Tj '~ ` ~ -r. i ~_~ i~;r G ~ --~ ~ f17 n ~.1 APR 2 3 2uoa ~' IMPAX, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO. 01-4274 -Equity PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BLYLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, and PATRICK NOGA, Defendants v B. ROBERT SNYDER and GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC. Additional Defendants PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM OF PLAINTIFF IMPAX, INC. AND ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS SNYDER AND GENIE ELECTRONICS. INC. Plaintiff hnpax, Inc. ("IMPAX") and Additional Defendants B. Robert Snyder and Genie Electronics, Inc. ("Genie Electronics"), by their undersigned counsel, submit this Pretrial Memorandum pursuant to Local Rule 212-4: 1) Statement of Facts -Liability IMPAX is engaged in the business of sales, service and leasing of office equipment, including fax machines, copiers, scanners, and printers. In Apri12001, IMPAX and Defendant Pennlantic Corporation ("Pennlantic")began negotiations regarding Pennlantic's possible purchase of certain assets of IMPAX. Pennlantic was similarly engaged in the business of sales, service and leasing of office equipment, including fax machines, copiers, scanners, and printers. On behalf of IMPAX, the negotiations were conducted by Robert Snyder, President, and Nancy Barry, Comptroller. On behalf of Pennlanfic, negotiations were conducted by Defendant ~w Larry Bixler ("Bixler"), President, and Defendant Ronald Roseberry ("Roseberry"), Secretary/Treasurer. In mid-May, while negotiations wire ongoing, Bixler and Roseberry formed a new corporation, Defendant Impaks, Inc. ("Impaks"). Bixler and Roseberry did not inform IMPAX that they had incorporated a new company with an identical sounding name. Impaks' articles of incorporation listed its registered office as 495 Maryland Avenue, York, PA 17404, the principal place of business of IMPAX. Throughout May and into early June, IMPAX continued to negotiate in good faith with Pennlantic, under the belief that Pennlantic wished to purchase IMPAX's assets. On or about June 8, 2001, IMPAX was finally informed by Pennlantic's counsel that Pennlantic did not wish to purchase the assets of the IMPAX, and IMPAX was told that Bixler and Rosebeny were interested in purchasing the assets. From approximately June 8, 2001 through approximately the end of June 2001, IMPAX negotiated in good faith with Bixler and Rosebeny. On or about June 27, 2001, because the negotiations for the sale of IMPAX's assets had been unsuccessful, the negotiations were terminated. After the negotiations terminated, IMPAX learned that during the negotiations, Bixler and Roseber•y had begun a scheme to deprive IMPAX of assets and corporate opporhtnities, in essence, acting as if they had already bought IMPAX. Bixler and Roseberry enlisted the assistance of Defendant Patrick Noga ("Noga") who was employed as the Vice President of Operations for IMPAX. Bixler and Roseberry told Noga that he would be the president of Impaks. The Defendants' scheme included the following: (a) Bixler and Roseberry represented to IMPAX that Pennlantic would assist IMPAX in selling certain office machines contained in the IMPAX's inventory to customers of Pennlantic and that Pennlantic would pay IMPAX for the office machines sold from IMPAX's inventory. In fact, office machines and parts from IMPAX's inventory were sold by Pennlantic to customers of IMPAX. IMPAX has not received payment for some of the office machines and parts taken from the IMPAX inventory. (b) Bixler, Noga and Roseberry instructed certain IMPAX employees to deposit certain payments from IMPAX customers into Bank of Hanover account # 148741, a bank account held in the name of hnpaks Ina (the "Impaks Account"). When an IMPAX employee questioned the propriety of depositing IIvIPAX funds into the Impaks Account, Defendants Roseberry and/or Noga stated that it did not matter "because if the buy-out of IMPAX does not go through, we are going to come in and take over the company [IMPAX]". Noga intercepted the mail that arrived at IMPAX's office and directed IMPAX employees to deposit certain customer payments into the Impaks Account. (c) Defendants, without the knowledge of IMPAX, sold or instructed IMPAX employees to sell office supplies, office products and/or other items from IMPAX's inventory to IMPAX customers and to perform service work for IMPAX's customers. Defendants then instructed the IMPAX employees to provide the sales orders and work orders to Pennlantic. Pennlantic then sent fraudulent invoices to IMPAX customers for the supplies, products and/or other items, which invoices instructed the customers to pay "hnpaks Inc. Division of Pennlantic." IMPAX customers made payments pursuant to those fraudulent hnpaks invoices. The payments from customers, made payable to either "hnpaks" or "IMPAX", were kept by Pennlantic or deposited into the Impaks Account. (d) During the negotiations and without notice to Snyder and Barry, Bixler, Roseberry and Pennlantic contacted IMPAX's employees to obtain confidential information about the identities and needs of IMPAX's customers. Defendants misused the confidential information and trade secrets by selling items from IMPAX inventory to IMPAX customers while misdirecting the customer payments, by selling items to them for the benefit of the other Defendants, and by issuing fraudulent invoices to IMPAX customers. Upon discovering Noga's actions as described above, IMPAX terminated Noga's employment with IMPAX on or about June 29, 2001. In Summer 2002, during the pendency of this litigation, Noga died. At all times during the negotiations for the sale of the assets of IMPAX, IMPAX, through Robert Snyder and Nancy Barry, acted in good faith and fully and properly disclosed all requested information regarding the assets. Defendants, however, improperly seized assets and corporate opportunities of IMPAX and defrauded IMPAX, all to Defendants' financial benefit. ,, .~<- 2) Statement of Facts -Damages IMPAX seeks the following damages: (a) $38,763.72 for the assets and funds of IMPAX diverted to Defendants; (b) $141,980.47 for lost profits; and (c) an award of punitive damages. A break down of the components of IMPAX's damages, including a summary chart, is contained in IMPAX's Exhibits. IMPAX, Snyder and Genie Electronics are not liable for any of the damages asserted in Defendants' counterclaim and cross claim. 3) Principal Issues of Liability and Damages (a) Whether Defendants are liable for converting assets of IMPAX? (b) Whether Defendants have been unjustly enriched? (c) Whether Defendants misappropriated IMPAX trade secrets and customer information? (d) Whether Noga breached his fiduciary duties to IMPAX? (e) Whether Defendants engaged in unfair competition? (f) Whether Defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations to IMPAX? (g) Whether Defendant engaged in an unlawful conspiracy? (h) Whether Pennlantic breached its contract to purchase certain machines from IMPAX by not paying for the machines? (i) Whether IMPAX, Snyder and Genie Electronics have any liability to Defendants Bixler, Roseberry, Impaks and Pennlantic on the claims for misrepresentation? (j) Whether IMPAX is entitled to recover punitive damages? 4) Summary of Legal Issues Regarding Admissibility 1MPAX, Snyder and Genie Electronics expect that the parties will be able to stipulate as to the authenticity and admissibility of the exhibits identified by the parties. Counsel is not aware of any particular issues as to the admissibility of any testimony, except that due to the death of Patrick Noga, his testimony will be presented by deposition testimony. 5) Identity of Witnesses The witnesses of 1MPAX, Snyder and Genie Electronics are expected to be the following persons: (a) Nancy Barry (b) B. Robert Snyder (c) Pamela L. Rudisill (d) Patrick Noga (Deceased - By Deposition Testimony) (e) Larry Bixler (adverse witness) (f) Ronald Roseberry (adverse witness) (g) Juleen O'Brien (adverse witness) IMPAX, Snyder and Genie Electronics reserve the right to call any witnesses identified by Defendants or any witnesses necessary for rebuttal. 6) Exhibit List See List of Exhibits attached hereto at Tab A. IMPAX, Snyder and Genie Electronics reserve the right to use any exhibits identified by Defendants or any exhibits necessary for rebuttal. 6 'n Settlement Negotiations The parties have not engaged in settlement negotiations since early in the litigation. At that time, Defendants proposed to release the funds in the Impaks Account as full settlement of the claims. IMPAX demanded a settlement payment of substantially more than that amount. Respectfully submitted, McNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC Kimberly M. Colonna I.D. No. 80362 Helen L. Gemmill I.D. No. 60661 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)232-8000 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Additional Defendants Date: Apri123, 2004 7 ~.~~ .: IMPAX, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-4274 PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BLYLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA Defendants v. B. ROBERT SNYDER AND GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC., Additional Defendants EXHIBIT LIST OF PLAINTIFF AND ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS 1. Summary of Transactions and Damages 2. Impax 2002/2001 Sales/Profit Comparison 3. Impax Valuation (04/24/01) 4. Impax Supplies Inventory (06/30/01) 5. Pennlantic Letter to B. Snyder (OS/Ol/Ol) 6. Pennlantic Letter to B. Snyder (OS/11/Ol) 7. Pennlantic Letter to P. Noga (05/16/01) 8. Draft Asset Purchase Agreement, Consignment Agreement and Note (05/24/01) 9. Impaks Articles of Incorporation (05/31/01) 10. Impaks Application for Employer Identification Number 11. L.D. Jacobson Letter to T. Finnerty (06/08/01) 12. T. Finnerty Letter to L.D. Jacobson (06/15/01) 13. Wooton, Reed & Associates Letter to L. Bixler (06/20/01) 14. hnpax Letter to L. Bixler (06/26/01) 15. hnpaks Account # 148741 Statement (06/30/01), Check Deposit Register, and Checks #1001 and #1002. 16. Coldwell Banker Transaction Documents) (Inv. #14037) 17. Christ Evangelical Church Transaction Documents (Inv. #13978) 18. Sackett Family Chiropractor Transaction Documents (Inv. #13977) 19. Commonwealth Business Tech Transaction Documents (Inv. #13984) 20. Klinge Corporation Transaction Documents (Inv. #13955) 21. Kathleen Lucas Transaction Documents (Inv. #13979) 22. Kinsley Contraction Transaction Documents (Inv. #13980) 23. EK McConkey Transaction Documents (Inv. #13983) 24. Minuteman Press Transaction Documents (Inv. #14033) 25. West York Inn Transaction Documents (Inv. #14032) 26. Compare Mortgages Transaction Documents (Inv. #13975) 27. Erie Financial Group Transaction Documents (Inv. #13985) 28. Winter Gazden Transaction Documents (Inv. #13986) 29. Stanton Lebouitz Transaction Documents (Inv. #14031) 30. Sesame Temps, Inc. Transaction Documents (Inv. #13992) 31. Richazd Oare Transaction Documents (Inv. #14042) 32. Commonwealth Business Tech Transaction Documents (Inv. #13993) ' "Transaction Documents" may contain a combination of some or all of the following, invoices, sales orders, purchase orders, packing slips, checks, and other documentation regarding payment. 2 ~„~.. 33. Promobile Alignment Transaction Documents (Inv. #14030) 34. Triangle Automotive Transaction Documents (Inv. #14026) 35. Coldwell Banker Transaction Documents (Inv. #14028) 36. York College Transaction Documents (Inv. #14029) 37. Eveler &Eveler Transaction Documents (Inv. #??????) 38. Kinsley Construction Transaction Documents (Inv. #14025) 39. Colonial House Transaction Documents (Inv. #14024) 40. Sherman Property Management Transaction Documents (Inv. #14023) 41. Beechtree Podiatry Transaction Documents (Inv. #13921) 42. Hanover Home & Garden Transaction Documents (Inv. #14021) 43. M. Potteiger, Ina Transaction Documents (Inv. #14019) 44. Winter Garden Transaction Documents (Inv. #14011) 45. AAA Transaction Documents (Inv. #14013) 46. Minuteman Press Transaction Documents (Inv. #14015) 47. Centurty 21 Dale Realty Transaction Documents (Inv. #14017) 48. Richazd Laurino Transaction Documents (Inv. #?????) 49. Century 21 Action Realty Transaction Documents (Inv. #13924) 50. Century 21 Action Realty Transaction Documents (Inv. #14016) 51. Arlington Evangelical Church Transaction Documents (Inv. #13931) 52. York College Transaction Documents (Inv. #13932) 53. Winter Gazden Transaction Documents (Inv. #13922) 54. Aldersgate UMC Transaction Documents (Inv. #13928) 55. Joseph Machine Company Transaction Documents (Inv. #13920) 56. Perrydell Farms Transaction Documents (Inv. #13919) 3 57. M. Potteiger Transaction Documents (Inv. #13925) 58. Capital Telecommunications Inc. Transaction Documents (Inv. #13917) 59. Coldwell Banker Transaction Documents (Inv. #?????) 60. Business Information Group, Inc. Transaction Documents (Inv. #13933) 61. Kathy's Consignment Transaction Documents (Inv. #13940) 62. Coldwell Banker Transaction Documents (Inv. #13941) 63. Kinsley Construction Transaction Documents (Inv. #13936) 64. Triangle Automotive Transaction Documents (Inv. #14001) 65. Penn-Air & Hydraulics Transaction Documents (Inv. #14002) 66. York College Transaction Documents (Inv. #14004) 67. Gastroenterology Associates Transaction Documents (Inv. #14006) 68. Geiple Funeral Home Transaction Documents (Inv. #14005) 69. Erie Financial Group Transaction Documents (Inv. #13844) 70. Community First Fund Transaction Documents (Inv. #13999) 71. Business Information Group, Inc. Transaction Documents (Inv. #13976) 72. American Cooling Technology, Ina Transaction Documents (Inv. #13997) 73. Documentation of Pennlantic's Purchase and Sale of Impax Machines (Inv. #4199C0) 74. Documentation of Pennlantic's Purchase and Sale of hnpax Machines (Inv. #4111C0) 75. Documentation of Pennlantic's Purchase and Sale of Impax Machine (Inv. #4276MR) 76. Documentation of Pennlantic's Purchase and Sale of Impax Machines (Inv. #4213C0) 77. Impax, Inc. Aged Recievables for Pennlantic and L. Bixler (06/30/01) 4 ~~ 78. Compaq UK Transaction Documentation 79. Impax Check from Minuteman deposited to Impaks Account 80. Documentation of checks deposited to hnpaks Account on 06/19/01 81. Documentation of checks deposited to Impaks Account on 06/19/01 82. Documentation of checks deposited to hnpaks Account on 06/21/01 83. Documentation of checks deposited to Impaks Account on 06/25/01 84. Documentation of checks deposited to Impaks Account on 06/27/01 85. Transaction Documentation for transactions for which hnpax recovered payment (Inv. #14036, #14035, #13981, #13982, #14034, #14040, #13987, #13991, #13930, #14027, #14022, #14020, #14018, #14009, #14012, #14014, #13929, #13927, #13923, #13990, #13926, #13934, #13935, #13939, #13937, #13928, #13916, #13996, #13995) 86. Copies of hnpax Customer Leases 87. Summary of Impax In House Leases as of 05/31/01 88. hnpax General Ledger Detail Report 04/01/01 through 06/01/01 89. Defendant Patrick Noga's Answers to Impax, Inc.'s Interrogatories 90. P. Noga Memo to B. Snyder (07/02/01) 91. P. Noga Memo to B. Snyder (07/07/01) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this date a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Leslie David Jacobson, Esq. 8150 Derry Street, Suite A Harrisburg, PA 17111-5858 (Attorney for Pennlantic Corp., hnpaks, Inc., Larry Bixler and Ronald Roseberry) Daniel F. Wolfson, Esq. Wolfson & Associates, P.C. 267 E. Market St. York, PA 17403 %~~/~~ Kimberly . Colonna Date: Apri123, 2004 .,~, „ . APR 2 3 2604 IMPAX, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO. 01-4274 -Equity PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD RO5EBERRY, and PATRICK NOGA, Defendants v B. ROBERT SNYDER and GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC. Additional Defendants PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM OF PLAINTIFF IMPAX, INC. AND ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS SNYDER ANTD GENIE ELECTRONICS. INC. Plaintiff Impax, Inc. ("1MPAX") and Additional Defendants B. Robert Snyder and Genie Electronics, Ina ("Genie Electronics"), by their undersigned counsel, submit this Pretrial Memorandum pursuant to Local Rule 212-4: 1) Statement of Facts -Liability IMPAX is engaged in the business of sales, service and leasing of office equipment, including fax machines, copiers, scanners, and printers. In Apri12001,1MPAX and Defendant Pennlantic Corporation ("Pennlantic") began negotiations regarding Pennlantic's possible purchase of certain assets of IMPt~X. Pennlantic was similarly engaged in the business of sales, service and leasing of office equipment, including fax machines, copiers, scanners, and printers. On behalf of 1MPAX, the negotiations were conducted by Robert Snyder, President, and Nancy Barry, Comptroller. On behalf of Pennlantic, negotiations were conducted by Defendant Larry Bixler ("Bixler"), President, and Defendant Ronald Roseberry ("Roseberry"), Secretary/Treasurer. In mid-May, while negotiations were ongoing, Bixler and Roseberry formed a new corporation, Defendant Impaks, Inc. ("hnpaks"). Bixler and Roseberry did not inform 1MPAX that they had incorporated a new company with an identical sounding name. hnpaks' articles of incorporation listed its registered office as 495 Maryland Avenue, York, PA 17404, the principal place of business of 1MPAX. Throughout May and into early June, IMPAX continued to negotiate in good faith with Pennlantic, under the belief that Pennlantic wished to purchase IMPAX's assets. On or about June 8, 2001, IMPAX was finally informed by Pennlantic's counsel that Pennlantic did not wish to purchase the assets of the IMPAX, and IMPAX was told that Bixler and Roseberry were interested in purchasing the assets. From approximately June 8, 2001 through approximately the end of June 2001, IMPAX negotiated in good faith with Bixler and Rosebeny. On or about June 27, 2001, because the negotiations for the sale of IMPAX's assets had been unsuccessful, the negotiations were terminated. A$er the negotiations terminated,lMPAX learned that during the negotiations, Bixler and Roseberry had. begun a scheme to deprive IMPAX of assets and corporate opportunities, in essence, acting as if they had already bought IMPAX. Bixler and Roseberry enlisted the assistance of Defendant Patrick Noga ("Noga") who was employed as the Vice President of Operations for IMPAX. Bixler and Roseberry told Noga that he would be the president of Impaks. 2 The Defendants' scheme included the following: (a) Bixler and Roseberry represented to IMPAX that Pennlantic would assist IMPAX in selling certain office machines contained in the IMPAX's inventory to customers of Pennlantic and that Pennlantic would pay IMPAX for the office machines sold from 1MPAX's inventory. In fact, office machines and parts from IMPAX's inventory were sold by Pennlantic to customers of IMPAX. IMPAX has not received payment for some of the office machines and parts taken from the IMPAX inventory. (b) Bixler, Noga and Rosebeny instructed certain IlVIPAX employees to deposit certain payments from IMPAX customers into Bank of Hanover account # 148741, a bank account held in the name of Impaks Inc. (the "Impaks Account"). When an 1MPAX employee questioned the propriety of depositing IMPAX funds into the Impaks Account, Defendants Roseberry and/or Noga stated that it did not matter "because if the buy-out of IMPAX does not go through, we are going to come in and take over the company [1MPAX]". Noga intercepted the mail that arrived at IMPAX's office and directed 1MPAX employees to deposit certain customer payments into the hnpaks Account. (c) Defendants, without the knowledge of TMPAX, sold or instructed IMPAX employees to sell office supplies, office products and/or other items from IMPAX's inventory to IMPAX customers and to perform service work for IMPAX's customers. Defendants then instructed the IMPAX employees to provide the sales orders and work orders to Pennlantic. Pennlantic then sent fraudulent invoices to IMPAX customers for the supplies, products and/or other items, which invoices instructed the customers to pay "Impales Inc. Division of Pennlantic." IIvIPAX customers made payments pursuant to those fraudulent Itnpaks invoices. The payments from customers, made payable to either "Impales" or "IMPAX", were kept by Pennlantic or deposited into the Impales Account. (d) During the negotiations and without notice to Snyder and Barry, Bixler, Rosebeny and Pennlantic contacted 1MPAX's employees to obtain confidential information about the identities and needs of IMPAX's customers. Defendants misused the confidential information and trade secrets by selling items from IMPAX inventory to IMPAX customers while misdirecting the customer payments, by selling items to them for the benefit of the other Defendants, and by issuing fraudulent invoices to IIvIPAX customers. Upon discovering Noga's actions as described above,lMPAX terminated Noga's employment with IMPAX on or about June 29, 2001. In Summer 2002, during the pendency of this litigation, Noga died. At all times during the negotiations for the sale of the assets of 1MPAX, IMPAX; through Robert Snyder and Nancy Barry, acted in good faith and fully and properly disclosed all requested information regarding the assets. Defendants, however, improperly seized assets and corporate opportunities of IMPAX and defrauded IMPAX, all to Defendants' financial benefit. 4 ~.~ _. 2) Statement of Facts -Damages IMPAX seeks the following damages: (a) $38,763.72 for the assets and funds of IMPAX diverted to Defendants; (b) $141,980.47 for lost profits; and (c) an award of punitive damages. A break down of the components of IMPAX's damages, including a summary chart, is contained in 1MPAX's Exhibits. IMPAX, Snyder and Genie Electronics are not liable for any of the damages asserted in Defendants' counterclaim and cross claim. 3) Principal Issues of Liability and Damages (a) Whether Defendants are liable for converting assets of IMPAX? (b) Whether Defendants have been unjustly enriched? (c) Whether Defendants misappropriated IMPAX trade secrets and customer information? (d) Whether Noga breached his fiduciary duties to 1MPAX? (e) Whether Defendants engaged in unfair competition? (f) Whether Defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations to 1MPAX? (g) Whether Defendant engaged in an unlawful conspiracy? (h) Whether Pennlantic breached its contract to purchase certain machines from 1MPAX by not paying for the machines? (i) Whether 1MPAX, Snyder and Genie Electronics have any liability to Defendants Bixler, Roseberry, Impaks and Pennlantic on the claims for misrepresentation? (j) Whether IMPAX is entitled to recover punitive damages? 4) Summary of Legal Issues Regarding Admissibility IMPAX, Snyder and Genie Electronics expect that the parties will be able to stipulate as to the authenticity and admissibility of the exhibits identified by the parties. Counsel is not aware of any particular issues as to the admissibility of any testimony, except that due to the death of Patrick Noga, his testimony will be presented by deposition testimony. 5) Identity of Witnesses The witnesses of 1MPAX, Snyder and Genie Electronics are expected to be the following persons: (a) Nancy Barry (b) B. Robert Snyder (c) Pamela L. Rudisill (d) Patrick Noga (Deceased - By Deposition Testimony) (e) Larry Bixler (adverse witness) (f) Ronald Roseberry (adverse witness) (g) Juleen OBrien (adverse witness) IMPAX, Snyder and Genie Electronics reserve the right to call any witnesses identified by Defendants or any witnesses necessary for rebuttal. 6) Exhibit List See List of Exhibits attached hereto at Tab A. IMPAX, Snyder and Genie Electronics reserve the right to use any exhibits identified by Defendants or any exhibits necessary for rebuttal. 7) Settlement Negotiations The parties have not engaged in settlement negotiations since early in the litigation. At that time, Defendants proposed to release the funds in the Impaks Account as full settlement of the claims. IMPAX demanded a settlement payment of substantially more than that amount. Respectfully submitted, McNEE5 WALLACE & NURICK LLC BY ~~""""""Y ' l Kimberly M. Colonna I.D. No. 80362 Helen L. Gemmill I.D. No. 60661 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)232-8000 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Additional Defendants Date: Apri123, 2004 7 IMPAX, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-4274 PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IIVIPAKS, INC., LARRY BD~LER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA Defendants v. B. ROBERT SNYDER AND GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC., Additional Defendants EXHIBIT LIST OF PLAINTIFF AND ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS 1. Summary of Transactions and Damages 2. Impax 2002/2001 Sales/Profit Comparison 3. Impax Valuation (04/24/01) 4. Impax Supplies Inventory (06/30/01) 5. Pennlantic Letter to B. Snyder (OS/Ol/Ol) 6. Pennlantic Letter to B. Snyder (OS/11/Ol) 7. Pennlantic Letter to P. Noga (05/16/01) 8. Draft Asset Purchase Agreement, Consignment Agreement and Note (05/24/01) 9. Impaks Articles of Incorporation (05/31/01) 10. Impaks Application for Employer Identification Number 11. L.D. Jacobson Letter to T. Finnerty (06/08/01) 12. T. Finnerty Letter to L.D. Jacobson (06/15/01) 13. Wooton, Reed & Associates Letter to L. Bixler (06/20/01) 14. hnpax Letter to L. Bixler (06/26/01) 15. Irnpaks Account # 148741 Statement (06/30/01), Check Deposit Register, and Checks #1001 and #1002. 16. Coldwell Banker Transaction Documents (Inv. #14037) 17. Christ Evangelical Church Transaction Documents (Inv. #13978} 18. Sackett Family Chiropractor Transaction Documents (Inv. #13977) 19. Commonwealth Business Tech Transaction Documents (Inv. #13984) 20. Klinge Corporation Transaction Documents (Inv. #13955) 21. Kathleen Lucas Transaction Documents (Inv. #13979) 22. Kinsley Contraction Transaction Documents (Inv. #13980) 23. EK McConkey Transaction Documents (Inv. #13983) 24. Minuteman Press Transaction Documents (Inv. #14033) 25. West York Inn Transaction Documents (Inv. #14032) 26. Compare Mortgages Transaction Documents (Inv. #13975) 27. Erie Financial Group Transaction Documents (Inv. #13985) 28. Winter Gazden Transaction Documents (Tnv. #13986) 29. Stanton Lebouitz Transaction Documents (Inv. #14031) 30. Sesame Temps, Inc. Transaction Documents (Inv. #13992) 3 L Richard Oare Transaction Documents (Inv. #14042) 32. Commonwealth Business Tech Transaction Documents (Inv. #13993) ' "Transaction Documents" may contain a combination of some or all of the following, invoices, sales orders, purchase orders, packing slips, checks, and other documentation regarding payrr-ent. 2 33. Promobile Alignment Transaction Documents (Inv. #14030) 34. Triangle Automotive Transaction Documents (Inv. #14026) 35. Coldwell Banker Transaction Documents (Inv. #14028) 36. York College Transaction Documents (Inv. #14029) 37. Eveler &Eveler Transaction Documents (Inv. #??????) 38. Kinsley Construction Transaction Documents (Inv. #14025) 34. Colonial House Transaction Documents (Inv. #14024) 40. Sherman Property Management Transaction Documents (Inv. #14023) 41. Beechtree Podiatry Transaction Documents (Inv. #13921) 42. Hanover Home & Garden Transaction Documents (Inv. #14021) 43. M. Potteiger, Inc. Transaction Documents (Inv. #14019) 44. Winter Garden Transaction Documents (Inv. #14011) 45. AAA Transaction Documents (Inv. #14013) 46. Minuteman Press Transaction Documents (Inv. #14015) 47. Centurty 21 Dale Realty Transaction Documents (Inv. #14017) 48. Richard Laurino Transaction Documents (Inv. #?????) 49. Century 21 Action Realty Transaction Documents (Inv. #13924) 50. Century 21 Action Realty Transaction Documents (Inv. #14016) 5 L Arlington Evangelical Church Transaction Documents (Inv. #13931) 52. York College Transaction Documents (Inv. #13932) 53. Winter Garden Transaction Documents (Inv. #13922) 54. Aldersgate LTMC Transaction Documents (Inv. #13928) 55. Joseph Machine Company Transaction Documents (Inv. #13920) 56. Perrydell Farms Transaction Documents (Inv. #13919) 3 57. M. Potteiger Transaction Documents (Inv. #13925) 58. Capital Telecommunications Inc. Transaction Documents (Inv. #13917) 59. Coldwell Banker Transaction Documents (Inv. #???7?) 60. Business Information Group, Inc. Transaction Documents (Inv. #13933) 61. ICathy's Consignment Transaction Documents (Inv. #13940) 62. Coldwell Banker Transaction Documents (Inv. #13941) 63. Kinsley Construction Transaction Documents (Inv. #13936) 64. Triangle Automotive Transaction Documents (Inv. #14001) 65. Penn-Air & Hydraulics Transaction Documents (Inv. #14002) 66. York College Transaction Documents (Inv. #14004) 67. Gastroenterology Associates Transaction Documents (Inv. #14006} 68. Geiple Funeral Home Transaction Documents (Inv. #14005) 69. Erie Financial Group Transaction Documents (Inv. #13844) 70. Community First Fund Transaction Documents (Inv. #13999) 71. Business Information Group, Inc. Transaction Documents (Inv. #13976) 72. American Cooling Technology, Inc. Transaction Documents (Inv. #13997) 73. Documentation of Pennlantic's Purchase and Sale of hapax Machines (Inv. #4199G0) 74. Documentation of Pennlantic's Purchase and Sale of hapax Machines (Inv. #4111C0) 75. Documentation of Pennlantic's Purchase and Sale of hapax Machine (Inv. #4276MR) 76. Documentation of Pennlantic's Purchase and Sale of hapax Machines (Inv. #4213C0) 77. hapax, Inc. Aged Recievables for Pennlantic and L. Bixler (06/30/01) 4 78. Compaq iTK Transaction Documentation 79. Impax Check from Minuteman deposited to Impaks Account 80. Documentation of checks deposited 4o Impaks Account on 06!19101 81. Documentation of checks deposited to Impaks Account on 06/19/01 82. Documentation of checks deposited to Impaks Account on 06121!01 83. Documentation of checks deposited to Impaks Account on 06/25/01 84. Documentation of checks deposited to Impaks Account on 06/27/01 85. Transaction Documentation for transactions for which Impax recovered payment (Inv. #14036, #14035, #13981, #13982, #14034, #14040, #13987, #13991, #13930, #14027, #14022, #14020, #14018, #14009, #14012, #14014, #13929, #13927, #13923, #13990, #13926, #13934, #13935, #13939, #13937, #13928, #13916,#13996,#13995) 86. Copies of hnpax Customer Leases 87. Summary of Impax In House Leases as of 05/31/01 88. Impax General Ledger Detail Report 04/01/01 through 06/01/01 89. Defendant Patrick Noga's Answers to Impax, Inc.'s Interrogatories 90. P. Noga Memo to B. Snyder (07/02/01) 91. P. Noga Memo to B. Snyder (07!07/01) ~' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this date a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Leslie David Jacobson, Esq. 8150 Derry Street, Suite A Harrisburg, PA 17111-5858 (Attorney for Pennlantic Corp., Impaks, Inc., Larry Bixler and Ronald Roseberry) Daniel F. Wolfson, Esq. Wolfson & Associates, P.C. 267 E. Market St. York, PA 17403 ~ ~' ~.--- Kimberly . Colonna Date: Apri123, 2004 r~- M~Nees Wallace & Nurick LLC attorneys at law APR 2 3 1004 KIMBERLY M. COLONNA DIRECT DIAL: (717) 237-5278 E-MAIL ADDRESS: KCOLONNA@MWN.COM April 23, 2004 Via Hand Delive Honorable Edward E. Guido Taryn N. Dixon Gumberland County Court of Common Court Administrator pleas Cumberland County Court of Common pne Courthouse Square Pleas Garlisle, PA 17013-3387 One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 RE: Genie Electronics, Inc. Impax, Inc. Our file: 09598-0002 Dear Judge Guido and Ms. Dixon: Enclosed for filing are the original and one copy of the Pretrial Memorandum of plaintiff and Additional Defendants. An extra copy of the Memorandum is enclosed which we ask that you time-stamp and return in the enclosed envelope. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, McNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC l~`--~ By y Kimberly M. Colonna KMC/je Enclosures cc/enc.: Leslie David Jacobson, Esquire Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire P.O. Box 1166 • 100 PINE STREET • HARRISBURG, PA 17108-1166 • TEL: 717.232.8000 • FAX: 717.237.5300 • WWW.MWN.COM HAZLETON, PA • STATE COLLEGE, PA • COLUMBUS, OH • WASHINGTON, DC .~.._~ _ - ~.r. ___ _._ ~s. _~ ~ ~~ -~ _. APR 2 3 2004 IMPAX, INC. Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER RONALD ROSEBERRY,AND PATRICK NOGA, Defendants v. B. ROBERT SNYDER AND GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC. Cross-C/aim Defendants CASE N0. 01-4274 CNIL ACTION -EQUITY I PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM i I. STATEMENT OF THE BASIC FACTS OF LIABILITY While negotiating to purchase the assets of Plaintiff, Plaintiff and Cross-Claim Defendant Snyder made material misrepresentations to Defendants, including misrepresentation of the valuation of Plaintiff s assets, misrepresentation of the guaranteed monthly income of the Plaintiff, misrepresentation of the type of leases provided by the Plaintiff, the equipment leased under those leases, and the costs and obligations of those leases. While negotiating in good faith, Defendants took such actions as were required to make a smooth transition when the sale was consummated. These actions included forming Impaks, Inc. ("Impaks'~ as a vehicle to own the assets purchased from IMPAX, contacting customers to sell certain items in IMPAX inventory, servicing existing accounts in the Harrisburg area, invoicing for products and services under Impaks name, and collecting funds and depositing such funds into an account in Impales name. Once negotiations failed, Defendants offered to make full payment to IMPAX for any amounts owing, and to endorse any checks still arriving in the name of Impales. II. STeTFMENT OF THE BASIC FACTS AS TO DAMAGES Defendants suffered financial losses as a result of those misrepresentations, including the cost of a Gestetner color copier for a customer Plaintiff indicated ordered said copier, but that customer refused to accept the machine, the cost to install the machine, the cost to send employees to Philadelphia for training to use the machine, and fees for legal and accounting fees during the negotiations. III. PRINCIPAL ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND DAMAGES 1. Liability: (a) Defendants contend that all actions taken during negotiations were in good faith, and based upon their belief that the sale would be consummated. Defendants provided a check for Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) to Plaintiff to reimburse for funds collected and deposited into Impaks' account. However, Plaintiff returned said check uncashed. (b) Plaintiff and Cross-Claim Defendant Snyder made fraudulent misrepresentations to Defendants which they relied upon to their detriment, causing damages. (c) Punitive damages may be appropriate due to the egregious conduct of the Plaintiff and Cross-Claim Defendant Snyder. N. LEGAL ISSUES RE: ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE Defendants may introduce all or parts of the transcripts from the deposition of the Defendant, Patrick Noga, who is now deceased (Pa R.C.P. 4020). 2 V, WITNESSES 1. Ronald Roseberry 2. Larry Bixler 3. B. Robert Snyder 4. Nancy Barry 5. Ben T. Wootten VI. LIST OF EXHIBITS 1. Letter dated July 6, 2001 from Timothy Finnerty 2. Uncashed check provided to IMPAX to reimburse for funds collected 3. Letter dated July 11, 2001 from Timothy Finnerty 4. IMPAX Leases 5. Tax Returns of IMPAX for 1998, 1999 and 2000 6. Financial Statements of IMPAX for the year ended December 31, 1998 7. Letters dated June 20, 2001 and August 26, 2002 from Ben T. Wootten 8. Wootten Invoice 9. Deposition transcripts of Patrick Noga 10. Letter dated June 26, 2001 from Nancy Barry and IMPAX evaluation 11. Savin invoice dated 4/27/2001 12. Bixler expense report for week ended April 3 VII. ~ATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS As of this time the Parties have been unable to reach any type of Settlement. Keslip D. Jacobson ID# 52673 8150 Derry Street Harrisburg, PA 17111 Phone: 717.909.5858 FAX: 717.909.7788 3 IMPAX, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS P/aintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA, Defendants v. B. ROBERT SNYDER AND GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC. Cross-C/aim Defendants CASE N0. 01-4274 CNIL ACTION -EQUITY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 23r° day of April, 2004, I, Carolyn Smith, legal assistant at the Law Offices of Leslie D. Jacobson, attorney for the Appellee/Cross Appellant, hereby certify that on this day I served the within Pre Tria/Memorandum, upon the person indicated below, by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure: Kimberly M. Colonna, Esquire McNees, Wallace &Nurick, LLC 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Delano M. Lantz, Esquire McNees, Wallace &Nurick, LLC 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Daniel Wolfson, Esquire Wolfson & Associates, PC 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 LAW OFFICES OF LESLIE D. ]ACOBSON By: Carol S th, Legal Assistant 8150 Derry Street, Harrisburg, PA 17111.5260 PHONE: 717.909.5858 FAX: 717.909.7788 4 n APR 2 3 2004 ~/ IMPAX, INC. P/aintilf v. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA, Defendants v. B. ROBERT SNYDER AND GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC. Cross-Claim Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CASE N0. 01-4274 CIVIL ACTION - EQUIIY PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM I, ,STATEMENT OF THE BASIC FACTS OF LI_ABILn'Y While negotiating to purchase the assets of Plaintiff, Plaintiff and Cross-Claim Defendant Snyder made material misrepresentations to Defendants, including misrepresentation of the valuation of Plaintiffs assets, misrepresentation of the guaranteed monthly income of the Plaintiff, misrepresentation of the type of leases provided by the Plaintiff, the equipment leased under those leases, and the costs and obligations of those leases. While negotiating in good faith, Defendants took such actions as were required to make a smooth transition when the sale was consummated. These actions included forming Impaks, Inc. ("Impaks'~ as a vehicle to own the assets purchased from IMPAX, contacting customers to sell certain items in IMPAX inventory, servicing existing accounts in the Harrisburg area, invoicing for products and services under Impaks name, and collecting funds and depositing such funds into an account in Impaks name. Once negotiations failed, Defendants offered to make full payment to IMPAX for any amounts owing, and to endorse any checks still arriving in the name of Impaks. II. ~'ATEMENT OF THE BAS*G FACTS AS TO DAMAGES Defendants suffered financial losses as a result of those misrepresentations, including the cost of a Gestetner color copier for a customer Plaintiff indicated ordered said copier, but that customer refused to accept the machine, the cost to install the machine, the cost to send employees to Philadelphia for training to use the machine, and fees for legal and accounting fees during the negotiations. III. PRINCIPAL ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND DAMAGES 1. Liability: (a) Defendants contend that all actions taken during negotiations were in good faith, and based upon their belief that the sale would be consummated. Defendants provided a check for Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) to Plaintiff to reimburse for funds collected and deposited into Impaks' account. However, Plaintiff returned said check uncashed. (b) Plaintiff and Cross-Claim Defendant Snyder made fraudulent misrepresentations to Defendants which they relied upon to their detriment, causing damages. (c) Punitive damages may be appropriate due to the egregious conduct of the Plaintiff and Cross-Claim Defendant Snyder. IV. LEGAL ISSUES RE: ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE Defendants may introduce all or parts of the transcripts from the deposition of the Defendant, Patrick Noga, who is now deceased (Pa R.C.P. 4020). 2 y, WITNESSES 1. Ronald Roseberry 2. Larry Bixler 3. B. Robert Snyder 4. Nancy Barry 5. Ben T. Wootten VI. ~ TST OF EXHIBITS 1. Letter dated July 6, 2001 from Timothy Finnerty 2. Uncashed check provided to IMPAX to reimburse for funds collected 3. Letter dated July 11, 2001 from Timothy Finnerty 4. IMPAX Leases 5. Tax Returns of IMPAX for 1998, 1999 and 2000 6. Financial Statements of IMPAX for the year ended December 31, 1998 7. Letters dated June 20, 2001 and August 26, 2002 from Ben T. Wootten 8. Wootten Invoice 9. Deposition transcripts of Patrick Noga 10. Letter dated June 26, 2001 from Nancy Barry and IMPAX evaluation 11. Savin invoice dated 4/27/2001 12. Bixler expense report for week ended April 3 VII. ~ATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIQN~ As of this time the Parties have been unable to reach any type of Setliement. R ctfu y sub itt , sli D. Jacobson ID# 52673 8150 Derry Street Harrisburg, PA 17111 Phone: 717.909.5858 FAX: 717.909.7788 3 TMPAX, INC. ~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS P/aintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA, Defendants v. B. ROBERT SNYDER AND GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC. Cross-Claim Defendants CASE N0. 01-4274 CNTL ACTION -EQUITY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 23r0 day of April, 2004, I, Carolyn Smith, legal assistant at the Law Offices of Leslie D. Jacobson, attorney for the Appellee/Cross Appellant, hereby certify that on this day I served the within Pre Tiia/Memorandum, upon the person indicated below, by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure: Kimberly M. Colonna, Esquire McNees, Wallace &Nurick, LLC 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Delano M. Lant2, Esquire McNees, Wallace &Nurick, LLC 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Daniel Wolfson, Esquire Wolfson & Associates, PC 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 LAW OFFICES OF LESLIE D. ]ACOBSON By: Carol Si th, Legal Assistant 8150 Derry Sdeet, Harrisburg, PA 17111.5260 PHONE: 717.909.5858 FAX: 717.909.7788 4 v IMPAX, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA N0. 2001-4274 EQUITY CIVIL ACTION - LAW ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 14TH day of APRIL, 2004, a pretrial conference in the above-captioned matter is SCHEDULED for THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 2004, at 8:30 a.m. in Chambers of the undersigned judge, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Pretrial memorandum shall be submitted by counsel in accordance with C.C.R.P. 212-4, at least five (5) days prior to the pretrial conference. TRIAL in the matter will be scheduled at the pretrial conference. Counsel are directed to have their calendars available. ~Y.IMBERLY M. COLONNA, ESQ. ~ESLIE D. JACOBSON, ESQ. ~ANIEL F. WOLFSON, ESQ. ~/5_5~f.5_~~~1~ J TARYN DIXON COURT ADMINISTRATOR a~~'~ ~ ~J~~l~,'~%'+'~rnr ~n n 1f~j~7~^~ ;'' t ~ ~,:~V; ~J ~,y .~,... Gr'F1";%~'L.i ~i;~r Q.~3 :4 ter ~ )~ `' ~ t `"~;~~ h~~7Z '~vr{(~i'-'d _~ ~.,~ ~.,., a ~~ t1 F~.~, !-]a _,. -. .. ... _ ._ ~J~~ ;. mvm~x,~N v~Exr ,.nskttF~ ~'ne~~-~~, r .mar~?,vs°ar+awt`x.~A~yb4 OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Taryn N. Dixon Phone Court Administrator (717) 240-6200 (717)697-0371 (717) 532-7286 (717)240-6460 FAX MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Edward E. Guido FROM: Melissa H. Calvanelli, Assistant Court Administrator DATE: March 30, 2004 IN RE: 01-4274 Action in Equity IMPAX, INC. v. Melissa H. Calvanelli Assistant Court Administrator PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGG The above case is assigned to you for a non jury trial. Please provide me with copies of your scheduling orders and final disposition date so that I can monitor the case for statistical purposes. Attachment 1 PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted iri duplicate) TD THE PROTHONC+PARY OF CUMBERLAPID COUNTY Please list the fallowing case: MAR 2 6 2004 (Check one) ( ) for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. i X ) for trial without a jury. CAPTION OF CASE w (entire caption must be stated in full) (check one) IMPAX, INC. ( ) Civil ACti ._ ( ) Appeal f ;~bit~'ati " 't- (X ) y ~ (Plaintiff) vs. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA The trial list will be called on and Trials cortmence on vs. ( Defendant ) Pretrials will be held on (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials.) (The party listing this case for trial shal provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 214.1.) No. E3v}} O1^4274 Equity -}9- Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: Kimberly M. Colonna. McNees Wallace & Nurick, 100 Pine Street Harrisburg PA 17108 Indicate trial pounsel for other parties if known: Leslie D.Jacobson, 8150 Derrv Street., Harrisburg, PA Daniel F. Wolfson, 267 E. Idlarket Street, York, PA 17403 This case is ready fob trial Date: 3 Q`~--_ Signed: ~~/~..' Print Nacre: Sj,:pbor~~, M. !'nlnnna Attorney for: _Plaintiff IMPAX, INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. EQUITY ACTION NO. 01-4274 PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA Defendants AGREED ORDER ENTERING PRELIMINARY INNNCTION Upon agreement of the Plaintiff and Defendants Pennlantic Corporation, Impaks, Inc., Larry Bixler, Ronald Rosebeny and Patrick Noga, the following Order is hereby entered: 1, Defendants are enjoined and restrained from using or revealing IMPAX's confidential information and trade secrets, including but not limited to information regarding the identities and needs of Plaintiffs customers as long as Plaintiff and/or its successors and assigns continue to engage in the business of sales, service and leasing of office equipment; 2. Defendants shall return all originals and all copies of all documents obtained from Impax, Inc., its officers, or employees, which contain or otherwise reflect information about the customers of Impax, Inc., including but not limited to, customer lists, leases, contracts, invoices, checks, sales orders, work orders, or statements of accounts receivable; 3. Defendants are enjoined directly or indirectly soliciting or attempting to solicit, obtaining or attempting to obtain, or in any way transacting, business with any of the customers of Plaintiff or engaging in any other method of unfair competition as long as Plaintiff and/or its assigns continue to engage in the business of sales, service and leasing of office equipment; and 4' The funds in Bank of Hanover Account #148741, (an account held in the name of Impaks, Inc.) are frozen, and Defendants are enjoined from withdrawing or dissipating the funds in that Account, including but not limited to withdrawals by check, wire transfer, or electronic debit. 5. This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until further order of Court. Plaintiff shall post a bond in the sum of One Hundred ($100.00) within five days of of this Order or the Order shall be deemed dissolved until a bond is posted. sPe David Jacobs 50 Derry Street, u to A urisbure. PA 171 -5858 (717)909-5858 For Defendants Pemrlantic Corporation Impaks, Inc., Larry Bixler, and Ronald Rosebeny Delano M. antz Helen L. Gemmill Kimberly M. Colonna McNees Wallace & Nurick, LLC 100 Pine Street, P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)232-8000 For Plaintiff Impax, Inc. .aAf~ : 7-i9- o/ J'~~ llllll~~~~~~ Daniel F. Volfson Wolfson & Associates, P.C. 267 E. Market St. York, PA 17403 (717)846-1252 For Defendant Patrick Noga rp/ji eS (n n ~leol -fo 2 and Persanr~ lor/ 1f -/~~ ~co~n~ ~ot~3Qn J VPn ~rJ Of _.~ .. . SO ORDERED. -- _ ~ ~_ ~'- -, _- `; ; . r~; -- - -, c, 4 MCNEES WALLACE &NURICK LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW loo PINE STREET P. O. BOX 1166 HARRISBURG, PA I71o6-1166 TELEPHONE 17171232-8000 Fnx 171 71 2 3 7-5 300 http://www.mwn.com KIMBERLY M. COLONNA DIRECT DIAL: (717) 237-5278 E-MAIL ADDRBS: KCOLONNA@MWN.COM July 19, 2001 VIA HAND DELIVERY Honorable Edward Guido Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Impax, Inc. v. Pennlantic, et al. Equity Action 01-4272 Dear Judge Guido: In the above-captioned matter, Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction was scheduled for hearing at 1:00 P.M. on Friday, July 20, 2001. The parties have agreed to the entry of the enclosed order which will negate the necessity for the hearing. Enclosed are two copies of the parties' "Agreed Order Entering Preliminary Injunction." We have enclosed two original orders for the Court's signature because we would prefer to serve an original order on the Bank of Hanover to effect the freeze on Account # 148741. If Your Honor prefers not to sign both original orders, we will request a conformed copy of the Order from the Prothonotary. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Respectfully, MCNEES WALLACE &NURICK LLC By '~ i' Kimberly M. Colonna Enclosures c: Leslie David Jacobson, Esq. Daniel Wolfson, Esq. • COLUMBUS, OH HAZLETON, PA WASHINGTON, D.C. IMPAX, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CASE NO.Ol-4274 PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA, Defendants DEFENDANTS'. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION. IMPAKS. INC.. LARRY BIXLER, and RONALD ROSEBERRY, FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF. IMPAX, INC. Please take notice that you are hereby required, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4001, et seq. to serve upon the undersigned, within thirty (30) days after service of this notice, your Answers in writing under oath to the following interrogatories. Definitions and Instructions: Defmitions: The following definitions are applicable to these standard interrogatories: "Document" means any written, printed, typed, or other graphic matter of any kind or nature, however reproduced, including photographs, microfilms, phonographs, video and audio tapes, punch cards, magnetic tapes, discs, data cells, drums, and other data compilations from which information can be obtained. "Identify" or "Identity" means when used in reference to: A natural person, his or her: 1. full name; and 2. present or last known residence and employment address (including street name and number, city or town, and state and/or country); 2. A document: 1. its description (e.g., letter, memorandum, report, etc.), title, and date; 2. its subject matter; 3. its author's identity; 4. its addressee's identity; 5. its present location; and 6. its custodian's identity; 3. An oral communication: 1. its date; 2. the place where it occurred; 3. its substance; 4. the identity of the person who made the communication; 5. the identity of each person to whom such communication was made; and 6. the identity of each person who was present when such communication was made; 4. A corporate entity: 1. its full corporate name; 2. its date and place of incorporation; 3. its present address and telephone number; 5. Any other context: a description with sufficient particularity that the thing may thereafter be specified and recognized, including relevant dates and places, and the identification of relevant people, entities, and documents. "Incident" means the occurrence that forms the basis of a cause of action or claim for relief set forth in the complaint or similar pleading. "Person" means a natural person, partnership, association, corporation, or government agency. "The Lawsuit" means Impax, Inc. v. Pennlantic Corporation, Impaks, Inc., Larry Bixler, Ronald Rosebeny, and Patrick Noga, Civil Case No. 01-4274. Standard Instructions. The following instructions are applicable to these standard interrogatories. 1. Duty to Answer. The interrogatories are to be answered in writing, verified, and ~9.. . served upon the undersigned within 30 days of their service on you. Objections must be signed by the attorney making them. In your answers, you must furnish such information as is available to you, your employees, representatives, agents and attorneys. Your answers must be supplemented and amended as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. Claim of Privilege. With respect to any claim of privilege or immunity from discovery, you must identify the privilege or immunity asserted and provide sufficient information to substantiate the claim. 3. Option to produce documents. In lieu of identifying documents in response to these interrogatories, you may provide copies of such documents with appropriate references to the corresponding interrogatories. These Interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing Interrogatories. Between the time of your Answers to said Interrogatories and the time of the trial, if you or anyone acting in your behalf learns the identity or whereabouts of other witnesses not disclosed in your Answers, or if you obtain or learn of additional information requested herein, but not suppled on you Answers, then you shall promptly furnish a Supplemental Answer under oath containing the same. Please provide names, addresses, respective positions, and work histories of all officers, directors, and shareholders of the company (Impax, Inc.) ~._~ 2. Please list names of all employees of the company (Impax, Inc.) and their annual earnings. 3. On what basis did Plaintiff and Mr. Robert Snyder represent the net worth of the assets of the company (Impax, Inc.) to be approximately Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($900,000.00)? 4. Have you prepazed or caused to be prepazed any financial statements (audited or unaudited) for the company (Impax, Inc.) in the last three (3) years? If so, by whom and for whom? Y '3loi ~.eslie D. Jacobson ID# 52673 8150 Derry Street Harrisburg, PA 17 1 (717)909-5858 Attorney for Defendants 1MPAX, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CASE NO.Ol-4274 PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY,AND PATRICK NOGA, Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned legal assistant employed by the Law Offices of Leslie D. Jacobson, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the attached DEFENDANTS ; PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRYBLI'L'LER, and RONALD ROSEBERRY, FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF, IMPAX, INC. has been duly served on this day, by depositing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Kimberly M. Colonna, Esquire McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK, LLC 100 Pine Street POB 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire Wolfson & Associates, PC 267 East Mazket Street York, PA 17403 Date: '2~'~O~ lA• to K. Shultz, Legal sistant Law Offices of Leslie D. Jacobson 8150 Derry Street Harrisburg, PA 17111 (717)909-5858 r" ~. ~. __ ~,• IMPAX, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA, Defendants CASE NO.OI-4274 CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY DEFENDANTS', PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, and RONALD ROSEBERRY, FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF, IMPAX, INC. DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS A. Definitions As used herein, the terms "you" and "your" and "Plaintiff' refer to Plaintiff, Impax, Inc. and their employees, agents, and representatives. 2. The terms "Defendant" and "Pennlantic Corporation, Impaks, Inc., Larry Bixler, Ronald Roseberry, and Patrick Noga" refer to Pennlantic Corporation, Impaks, Inc., Larry Bixler, Ronald Roseberry and Patrick Noga, their employees, agents and representative. The words "person" or "persons" include not only natural persons, but also public and private corporations, proprietorships, partnerships, cooperatives, associations, organizations, groups or divisions, governments, or any other entities, and any departments or units thereof. 4. The word "document" includes, without limitation, any paper, writing, tape, computer disc or other thing or record of any kind upon which information is recorded, of any type or source of authorship, in defendant's possession, custody or control, wherever located, however produced or reproduced, however recorded, and whether a draft, original, or copy. The word "document" or "documents" specifically includes any and all drafrs of the requested document(s). By way of illustration and not of limitation, the word "document" includes notes, reports, records, data, memoranda, insurance policies, correspondence, notebooks, scrapbooks, diaries, minutes, summaries, memoranda of telephone conversations or interviews, summaries or other records of meetings or discussions or conferences, financial statements, ledgers, magnetic tape or other sound recordings, telegrams, letters, potographs, drawings, plans, studies, manuals, instructions, bids, specifications, graphs, sketches, blueprints, charts, curves, calculations, motion picture film, microfilm, computer printouts, computer records, compter discs, computer tapes, photographs, photograph negatives, photocopies, photostats, descriptions, purchase orders, agreements, contracts, invoices, bills of lading, published or unpublished speeches, manuscripts or articles, transcripts, affidavits, depositions, printed matter, publications, videotapes, videodiscs, and any other retrievable intellignece, however recorded, memorialized, or preserved. Any original or copy containing thereon or having attached thereto any alterations, notes, comments, or other material not included in each other original or copy shall be deemed a spazate document within the foregoing definition. The word "document" or "documents" specifically includes documents kept by individuals in their desks, at home or elsewhere. The term "communication" means any manner or means of disclosure or exchange of information, whether in oral, written, video, audio or electronic form and whether face to face, by telephone, by mail, by facsimile, by personal delivery, or otherwise. B. So as to require the broadest response in all cases, and where the context allows, the words "and" and "or" shall mean "andlor"; the plural of a word shall include the singulaz' the singular of a word shall include the plural; the past tense of a verb shall include the present; the present tense of a verb shall include the past; and the masculine shall include the feminine. C. The terms "refers to", "relate to", "relating to" and "with regard to" shall mean any document that relates to, mentions, concerns, reflects, discusses, analyzes, records, reports, or studies a particular subject or some aspect of the subject, or transmits, accompanies, forwazds or is attached to documents relating to a particular subject; or which describes a particular subject regardless of whether the proper name, designation or title of the subject is specifically mentioned. Nonverbal documents relate to a subject if they depict or represent in any fashion the indicated subject. D. Where documents in possession of a party aze requested, such request includes documents in the possession of the party's agents, representatives, and, unless privileged, its attorneys. E. If any document requested is claimed to be privileged or otherwise not producible or subject to disclosure, identify with specificity the information or document and state the basis for the claim of privilege or other ground for exclusion in sufficient detail so as to pernut a court to adjudicate the validity of the refusal to provide the information or document; and in the case of a document, identify all persons who have had access to such document or the information contained therein and all persons who have possession of such document. F. "All documents" means every document, as above defined, known to you, and every document which can be located or discovered by reasonably diligent efforts. G. These requests admit no exception because documents are classified as "private", "personal", "sensitive", "proprietary", "confidential", or the like. H. Where documents responsive to these requests have been lost or destroyed, state the date, last known location of the document, the last person in control or custody of the document and the reason for the document's loss or destruction. I. Documents called for herein include all documents relating to the indicated subject regardless of whether a particular document has been superceded, amended, revised, rewritten, redrafted, rejected or rendered obsolete. J. Documents, or copies of documents, otherwise identical, should be each individually produced if individual documents contained any communication, notation or recording that does not appear in another copy or that does not appear in the original. K. In these requests, a general or categorical request is in no way limited to or qualified by specific items that aze provided as examples of the general category. The enumeration of specific items is for illustrative purposes only and is not considered as a limitation. L. These requests are continuing in nature so as to require you to file supplementary responses and provide any add°ational documents that you obtain or discover. REQUESTS 1. Copies of Impax, Inc.'s Federal Income Tax Returns for the tax years 1998, 1949, and 2000, and if Impax, Inc. is an "S" Corporation, copies of Officers' Federal Income Tax Returns for 1998 , 1999, and 2000. 2. Copies of all Financial Statements issued by the company (Impax, Inc.), audited or unaudited, for the last three (3) yeazs. 3. Copies of Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws for the company (Impax, Inc.) IMPAX, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY,AND PATRICK NOGA, Defendants CASE NO.OI-4274 CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned legal assistant employed by the Law Offices of Leslie D. Jacobson, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the attached DEFENDANTS ; PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS; INC., LARRYBIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF, IMPAX, INC. has been duly served on this day, by depositing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Kimberly M. Colonna, Esquire McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK, LLC 100 Pine Street POB 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 Daniel Wolfson, Esquire Wolfson & Associates, PC 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 Bate: ~~ ~~ Julie K. Shultz, Legal sistant Law Offices of Leslie D. Jacobson 8150 Derry Street Harrisburg, PA 17111 (717)909-5858 SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2001-04274 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND IMPAX INC VS PENNLANTIC CORPORATION ET AL R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT to wit: NOGA PATRICK but was unable to locate Him deputized the sheriff of YORK serve the within COURT ORDER to On July 25th 2001 this office was in receipt of the attached return from YORK Sheriff's Costs: So answe -~ Docketing 6.00 / Out of County 9.00 -~~- -- ' ="z" Surcharge 10.00 R. homas Kline Dep York Co 37.52 Sheriff of Cumberland County .00 62.52 07/25/2001 MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK Sworn and subscribed to before me this ~ day of ~ ,Zoo % A./D. ~u/~=2 Lg~ ~2 Df J Prothonot~r~ in his bailiwick. He therefore County, Pennsylvania, SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2001-04274 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND AX INC VS PENNLANTIC CORPORATION ET AL ROBERT FINK Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COURT ORDER PENNLANTIC CORPORATION DEFENDANT at 30 N 5TH ST the at 1745:00 HOURS, on the 18th day of July 2001 LEMOYNE, PA 17043 by handing to RONALD ROSEBERRY ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COURT ORDER together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 10.40 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 38.40 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ~ day of F o'L/ro/ A.D. Pro ono "`~ was served upon So Answers: /J~/"~ ~ig~ eta p '~E R. Thomas Kline 07/25/2001 MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK By: ~~ti%-~ Xg ~ '~ ~~a Deputy f ~~~ SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2001-04274 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND IMPAX INC VS PENNLANTIC CORPORATION ET AL ROBERT FINK Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COURT ORDER was served upon IMPAKS INC the DEFENDANT at 30 N 5TH ST at 1745:00 HOURS, on the 18th day of July 2001 LEMOYNE, PA 17043 by handing to RONALD ROSEBERRY ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COURT ORDER together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ~ day of ~eo~ A.D. r thonotary ~ So Answers: .1t' R. Thomas Kline 07/25/2001 MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK By._-{~ e ut eri SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE N0: 2001-04274 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND IMPAX INC VS PENNLANTIC CORPORATION ET ROBERT FINK Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COURT ORDER was served upon ROSEBERRY RONALD the DEFENDANT at 1745:00 HOURS, on the 1Sth day of July 2001 at 30 N 5TH ST LEMOYNE. PA 17043 by handing to RONALD ROSEBERRY a true and attested copy of COURT ORDER together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ~ ~ day of .~- a-a~1 A.D. ~Z P othonotary So Answers: ~~~~~ R. Thomas Kline 07/25/2001 MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK By: S Deputy heriff SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2001-04274 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND IMPAX INC VS PENNLANTIC CORPORATION ET AL ROBERT FINK Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COURT ORDER was served upon BIXLER LARRY DEFENDANT at 30 N 5TH the at 1745:00 HOURS, on the 18th day of July 2001 LEMOYNE, PA 17043 by handing to RONALD ROSEBERRY ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COURT ORDER together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriffs Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this 9 °-~` day of o2trv/ A . D . o honotary So Answers: ~~ R. Thomas Kline 07/25/2001 MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK By: d Deput eriff / COUNTY OF YORK OFFICE OF THE SHER! FF S~ ~ ;i 9 o L 28 EAST MARKET ST., YORK, PA 17401 SHERIFF SERVICE INSTRUCTIONS PROCESS RECEIPT, and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN PLEASE TYPE ONLY LINES 1 TO 12 DO N_ OT DETACH ANY COPIES. 1. PLAINTIFFlS/ 2. COURT NUMBER Impax, Inc. O1-4274 civil 3. DEFENDANT/S/ 4. TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT jQ~ICE & COMP. r Pennlantic Corporation, et a1. Court Order ) SERVE 5. NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC. TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED, ATTACHED, OR PATRICK NOGA PE125QNAL 6. ADDRESS (STREET OR RFD WITH BOX NUMBER, APT O., CI , BOR , TWP., STATE AND ZIP CODE pT 2460 Hartford Road, York, pA 17402 7. INDICATE SERVICE: XI PERSONAL ^ PERSON IN CHARGE ^ DEPUT~ptje~ MAIL ^ 1ST CLASS MAIL ^ POSTED O OTHER NOW Julv 17 , 2001 Xis{ 1, SHERIFF OF'-COUNTY, PA~,r do he eby deputize the sheriff of Ycrk COUNTY to execute 4 fi return ther o rding 40 law. This deputation being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff. _ -~ r;Gy, Please attelTlpt service as soon as possible. Hearing is 7/20/01. NOTE ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN -Any deputy sheriff levying upon or anaching any property under within writ may leave same without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notitying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction, or removal of any property before sheriff's sale thereof. ~ _ 9. TYiPE/NAME AND ADDRESS of ~ORNEYfOR~D7~®Sand SIGNATURE 10. TELEPHONE NUMBER 17. DATE L(.f71v-~fu.~., ~ ~~"~-aw~~ Kimberly M. Cclonna 717-232-8000 7/13/01 Kimberly M. C P.O. Box 1166 area must oe compieteq tt no[tce is to ae m es, Wallace & Nurick 13.1 acknowletlge receipt of the writ SlurvwiuRE DF AuitlDHrzEU cteRrc 74. Date Receivetl 16. ExpiratioNHean~g Date or complaint as indicated above. ~ J. LUDWIG 7/19/01 7/20/01 1e00 PN 16.1 hereby CERTIFY and RETURN that I have personally served, ^ have posted property, O have legal evidence of service as shown fn 'Remarks', O have executed as in "R ", the writ or complaint described on the indivltlual, company, cor- poration, etc, at the address insertetl below by bantling a TRUE and ATTESTED COPY thereof. 17.0 I hereby certify and return a NOT FOUND because I am unable [o locate the indivitlual, company, corporation, etc, named above. (See remarks below.) 18. NAfytE ANDfyT_I,E.QP7NDIVIDUAL SERVED /,LJST ADDRES,$ HERE IF NOT SHOWN ABOVE (Relationship to Defendant) 19. 4ate of Servlcel 2(1. Time of Service C'0.~~~~ ,0.loC~/i 17 /~/° 1 I ~Y3~t Int. Date Time Miles Int. Date Tfma MIIes Int ]Date Time Miles Int- Date Time Miles Int 75.00 RO-nn I 5.52 I I 2.00 137.52 (35.52) .~///,73~.3 33.AFFIRMED and subscdbetl to before me this L3Kp -36. Signature of 39. Da 34. day of JULY -' Dep. Sheriff [ ~ b /,'/ mes V Vengreen, Nofary Public - 3ZSfgdaWre of York 40. Date 36. ~ '~~ ~ G County Sheriff '] 23 Ol r9pbE»splrAS Mar. 21, 20D5 38. Signature of Foreign 41. Date MY C MMISSION EXPI ES CountySheriff 42.1 ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE ERIFF'S RETURN SIGNATURE ., 43. Date Receivetl OF AUTHORIZED ISSUING AUTHORITY AND TITLE ` - r 1. WHITE -Issuing Authority 2. PINK -Attorney 3. CANARY-Sheriffs Office 4: BLUE --Sheriff's Office ~-- L- o ,-i w r~ = a4. E > cn ~ ~~~ ~o~ m w ~ o ~ ~ U N Ci ~ W ~ C7 r-1 C7 __ _~® pmlmM~.w+i€e~~;.+Hex'1 '+... ypid'~3$§%~.w~?V.ph~~A.i"qlie#$~o?~RlilG4~caz'41FQCrew:~~»ti5%$' .. ._ '" ~, COUNTY OF YORK -= OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF S;R;~; ~96ar - ~ 28 EAST MARKET ST., YORK, PA 17401 . ~' SHERIFF SERVICE -__ [NSTRUCT[ONS PROCESS RECEIPT, and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN PLEASE TYPE ONLY LINES 1 TO 12 DO NOT DETACH ANY COPES. 7 PLA NTIFF/S/ - - . - - _ 2. GOUR7 NUMBER Impax, Snc. Oi-4274 civil 3. pEFENDANT/S/ 4. TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAIN '!j'7{„'~^ & „ ~' Pennlantic Corpnratinn, et al. ~ Cc*3rt Greer ,f T . ,S) SERVE 5. NAME OF INOIVIDUAC,AOMPANY. CORPORATION, E7C. TU'SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO SE LEVIED, ATTACHED, OASOLD. Fi~TRICR NGGA PER5047AIr B. A DRE S (STREET OR RFp WITH eOX NUMBER, APT NO.. CITY, BORO, TWP., TATE AND ZIP C DE A'I' 2~&0 Hartford Road, York, PA 17402 '7. INDICATE SERVICE: ~Q PERSONAL ~ PERSON IN CHARGE Q DEPU$ZECf?P,LQXiER'G M0.1L ^ 1ST CLA MAIL ^ POSTED D OTHER NOW `-~ ~~ Y ~ ~ - _ 1, SHERIFF OE" COUNTt; PA, ~ o ~ by deputize th riff of ~ ' ,~, ~nrx < ... ~ .. _, . COUNTYTO execute thi - eke a th ' cor ing to law. This deputation being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff. sea a oeNr. & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE: (.'13P. S' ZiT3t3 Please%at:te~t aen7ice as socxf as mssiiDle. Hear".Ina is 7,';;G%6I. - Lr-r. - NOTE ONLY APPLICABLE ON Wp O~EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN -Any deputy shedff levying upon or attaching any property under w'rfhfb writ may leave ~""- saine wiNouta-watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, aher noHfyfng parson of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff here)-ri for any loss, destruction, or removal of any property before sheriffs sale thereof. '. 9, TY}PE~NAME AND ADDRESS of ATTOrRN EY OR and SIGNATURE ~ t0-TELEPHONE NUMBER 71. DATE i~Gt ~-~-~-; t~ ~-~~'^f-a.. r isib~r:Ly t~, Colonna 717-232-8000 7r 13%01 ,SE D NO CE OF SERVtC COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: crhis area must be compleMtl ff notice is to he mailed). ~itn~D~r~.y i`i. ~ oEionna, a~quira of McNees, i"iallace & Nurick P.Q`. Box 1165, Harrisburg, PA 17108 >~:= ;,. __ - .SPACE BELOW FOR SE FTHE SHERIFF ONLY- DO NOT WRIT -BELOVV'fHIS UNE SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED CLERK 14. Gate Received 15. Ex imtionttiearin Date 13. i ackriow(edge receipt of the writ P 9 ar cainPlaim as fntlicatetl above. t ~T. Ii(JDWIG 7J 191 Gi 7t'2+~101 1?'~G PM iH.l hereby CERTIFY and RETURN Nat I . _ nave personally served, l] have posted progeny, O have tagaf eTidence of service as shown fn ; 'RemarHS", O have executed as in' marks", the writ or complaint described on the individual, company, cor- _. porai(`oh, etc, at the address Inserted below by hantlfng a TRUE and ATTESTED COPY thereof. 17.01 hereby certify and return a NOT FOUND beeause'1 am unable f6locafe the individual, company, corporation, etc, named above. (See remarks below.) 18. NAME ANO~TLE-OF INDIVIDUAL SERVED! LIST ADDRESS' HERE IF NOT SHOWN ABOVE (RelaNonahip to Defendant) 19. Date of Service 20. Time of Service S 22. Advance Costs 23. Service Costs 24. Not:Found 25. Mileage 26. Postage 27. Poundage 28. Notary Fee 29. Succharga - 30. Total Cdst 31. Cost Due or Refund ' 75.00 30.00 ~=52 2.44 37.52 s3:~?5 ~32.REMARKS: - - (35.52) - -. i'/ l~ ?~' 3 , i _. r ~- - ~~ ~ 23R p _-.,... SO ANSWER . ~ - - , 33.AFFIRMED and subscribed to before me this ~ I ~ ' 34.tlaY Of ~IaY ~9 3001 38. Signature of ~ DeP, Sheriff ~^-j""„'-t !~ ~ - 3g. Daf - ~i ~~,f ~ S - ~ - - - - . ~ +..:ai-f. ~/. ~.f-:>-;r+.C'-Fr- _ _ ~ 37. Signature of Vork Counh'SheriRit2L~IAEf 1+4. !-7V~ - ~ 40. Date' 7/Z3/G1. - - "~PrathonotaryMmary Pubfc - ~ ~ 38. Signature of Foreign ~ 41. Date " 1!-' r~ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES County Sheriff 42.1 ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE SHERIFF'S RETURN SIGNATURE - a3. Date Received OF AUTHORIZED ISSUING AUTHORITY AND TITLE _ t. WHITE -Issuing Authority 2. PINK - Anorney - 3. CANARY - Sheriff's Office 4. BLUE -Sheriffs Office IMPAX, INC. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, ]MPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY,AND PATRICK NOGA, Defendants v. B. ROBERT SNYDER AND GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC. Cross-Claim Defendants CASE NO.Ol-4274 CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice aze served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are wazned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment maybe entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. DAUPHIN COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE 213 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717)232-7536 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomaz accion dentro de los proximos viente (20) dies despues de la notification de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personahnente o por medio de un abogado una compazecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defenses de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que se usted fella de tomaz accion como se describe anteriormente, el case puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier soma de dinero reclamada en la demands o cualquier otra reclamation o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dicado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes pare usted. USTGEDDEBELLEVARESTEDOCUMENTOASUABOGADOIIdMEDIATAMENTE. SIUSTEDNO TIENE UN ABOGADO O NO PUEDE PAGARLE A UNO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUlENTE OFICINA PARR AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. DAUPHIN COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE 213 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717)232-7536 IMPAX, INC. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BD{I,ER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA, Defendants v. B. ROBERT SNYDER AND GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC. Cross-Claim Defendants CASE NO.Ol-4274 CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY DEFENDANTS' ANSWER, NEW MATTER, COUNTERCLAIM, AND CROSS-CLAIM AND NOW come Defendants, Pennlantic Corporation, Impaks, Inc., Larry Bixler, and Ronald Roseberry, by and through their attorney, Leslie D. Jacobson, and file this Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim and in support thereof state as follows: Parties Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied that hapax used the address of Impax without authorization, as the authorization was implied based upon negotiation of the parties. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. The statement made in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint is information solely within the knowledge of the Plaintiff, and after reasonable investigation, Defendants Pennlantic, Impaks, Inc., Bixler and Rosebeny, are unable to form an opinion as to the truth or falsity of statement and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that Defendants Bixler, Roseberry, and Noga filed Articles of Incorporation for Impaks, Inc. Denied that Pennlantic was involved in any way. 12. Denied. During negotiations, B. Robert Snyder, believed to be CEO of Impax, and owner of the premises, offered those premises for rent at a rate of $1195/month. 13. Denied that Impax negotiated in good faith, as false information was used in negotiations. Impax asked for personal guazantees and pledges of Pennlantic assets, which were unacceptable terms. 14. Admitted. 15. Denied that Impax negotiated in good faith, as information Impax provided was still false. 16. Admitted in part, denied in part. Denied that Impax was not awaze that a new company was being formed, and denied that Impax did not know that Defendants intended to use Impax's principal place of business (see Answer to Paragraph 12, which is incorporated herein). 17. Admitted. Misappropriated Office Machines 18. Admitted. 19. Denied. Defendants were willing to sell office machines to any paying customers. 20. The statement made in Pazagraph 20 of the Complaint is information solely within the knowledge of Defendant Noga, and after reasonable investigation, Defendants Pennlantic, Impaks, Roseberry and Bixler are unable to form an opinion as to the truth or falsity of statement and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 21. Denied. Pennlantic was to be billed for anything purchased. 22. Denied. Noga had no authority to act for other Defendants. 23. Denied. The machines were sold to anyone who wanted to purchase them. 24. The statement made in Pazagraph 24 of the Complaint is information solely within the knowledge of Defendant Noga, and after reasonable investigation, Defendants Pennlantic, Impaks, Roseberry and Bixler are unable to form an opinion as to the truth or falsity of statement and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 25. The statement made in Pazagraph 25 of the Complaint is information solely within the knowledge of Plaintiff, and after reasonable investigation, Defendants aze unable to form an opinion as to the truth or falsity of statement and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 26. Admitted. However, by way of further response, a payment in the amount of twenty thousand dollazs ($20,000.00) was sent to Impax, and the payment was refused and returned to the Defendants. (See Exhibit "E" attached hereto.) Misappropriated Customer Payments 27. Admitted. However, by way of further response, these payments were received for invoices generated by Impaks. 28. Denied that Defendant Roseberry made this statement. The statement made in Pazagraph 28 of the Complaint is information solely within the knowledge of Defendant Noga, and after reasonable investigation, Defendants Pennlantic, Impales, Roseberry and Bixler are unable to form an opinion as to the truth or falsity of statement and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 29. Admitted. By way of further response, there is currently an injuction on this account, which places it in control of the Court. 30. Denied. The only money deposited into Impales' account were payments for Impales invoices. Denied that customer payments (in the form of checks) were provided directly to Defendant Bixler. 31. Denied that Defendants Noga and Roseberry acted at the direction of the other Defendants or with the authorization and/or consent of the other Defendants. 32. Denied. The payments made were sent in response to invoices issued by Impales. 33. Denied that any payments were misdirected. 34. Denied that customer payments were misappropriated. The remainder of the statement made in Pazagraph 34 of the Complaint is information solely within the knowledge of Plaintiff (the statements in question aze in the Plaintiff's possession), and after reasonable investigation, Defendants Pennlantic, Impaks, Rosebeny and Bixler aze unable to form an opinion as to the truth or falsity of statement and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 35. Admitted. Fraudulent Service and Supply Invoices 36. The statement made in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint is information solely within the knowledge of Defendant Noga, and after reasonable investigation, Defendants Pennlantic, Impaks, Roseberry and Bixler are unable to form an opinion as to the truth or falsity of statement and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 37. Denied that Pennlantic sent fraudulent invoices, admitted that invoices were sent for legitimate sales. 38. The statement made in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint is information solely within the knowledge of Defendant Noga, and after reasonable investigation, Defendants Pennlantic, Impaks, Roseberry and Bixler aze unable to form an opinion as to the truth or falsity of statement and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 39. Denied that invoices were fraudulent. 40. Denied that Noga acted at the direction of the other Defendants. 41. Denied that invoices were fraudulent, as either the Defendants were puchasing the goods sold, or payment to Impax was to be made. 42. Denied that the invoices were fraudulent. 43. Denied that the invoices were fraudulent. 44. Denied that the invoices were fraudulent. Admitted that the invoices total at least Fourteen Thousand One Hundred Ninety-six and 74/100 Dollars ($14,196.74). 45. Denied that the invoices were fraudulent. Admitted that payments totaled at least Five Thousand Three Hundred Eighty-Eight and 56/100 Dollars $5,388.56). 46. Denied that payments were misdirected from Impax. Admitted that Impax was entitled to payment for their portion of the billing. 47. Denied that there was any wrongdoing. Admitted that Impax demanded payment. Denied that Defendants refused to pay the full amount owed, as payment in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollazs ($20,000.00) was sent to Impax and refused. (See Exhibit "A" attached hereto.) 48. Denied that invoices were fraudulent. The remainder of the statement made in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint is information solely within the knowledge of Plaintiff, and after reasonable investigation, Defendants Pennlantic, Impaks, Rosebeny and Bixler are unable to form an opinion as to the truth or falsity of statement and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 49. Denied. Defendants offered to cooperate by endorsing checks which represent payments that belong to Impax. However, such cooperation was refused. 50. The statement made in Pazagraph 50 of the Complaint is information solely within the knowledge of the Plaintiff, and after reasonable investigation, Defendants Pennlantic, Impaks, Roseberry and Bixler aze unable to form an opinion as to the truth or falsity of statement and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 51. The statement made in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint is information solely within the knowledge of Defendant Noga, and after reasonable investigation, Defendants Pennlantic, Impaks, Roseberry and Bixler are unable to form an opinion as to the truth or falsity of statement and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 52. The statement made in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint is information solely within the knowledge of Defendant Noga, and after reasonable investigation, Defendants Pennlantic, Impaks, Roseberry and Bixler aze unable to form an opinion as to the truth or falsity of statement and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 53. The statement made in Pazagraph 53 of the Complaint is information solely within the knowledge of Defendant Noga, and after reasonable investigation, Defendants Pennlantic, Impaks, Roseberry and Bixler aze unable to form an opinion as to the truth or falsity of statement and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 54. Denied that Defendants obtained trade secrets. Admitted that some customer names were made known to Defendants. 55. Denied that customer payments were misdirected. The remainder of the statement made in Pazagraph 55 of the Complaint is information solely within the knowledge of Defendant Noga, and after reasonable investigation, Defendants Pennlantic, hnpaks, Roseberry and Bixler aze unable to form an opinion as to the truth or falsity of statement and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 56. Denied that Noga had authorization to act for the other Defendants. 57. Denied that there was any misappropriation. 58. The statement made in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint is information solely within the knowledge of Plaintiff, and after reasonable investigation, Defendants Pennlantic, Impaks, Roseberry and Bixler are unable to form an opinion as to the truth or falsity of statement and proof thereof is demanded at trial. Count I -Conversion (against all Defendants) 59. The answers contained in Paragraphs 1 through 58 above are incorporated herein by reference. 60. Denied that Defendant Noga acted with authorization of other Defendants. The remainder of the statement made in Paragraph 60 of the Complaint is information solely within the knowledge of Defendant Noga, and after reasonable investigation, Defendants Pennlantic, Impaks, Roseberry and Bixler are unable to form an opinion as to the truth or falsity of statement and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 61. Admitted. However, by way of further response, Defendants offered a payment in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) to Impax, which Impax refused. (See Exhibit "E" attached hereto.) 62. Denied that Defendant Noga acted with direction and/or authorization of the other Defendants. The remainder of the statement made in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint is information solely within the knowledge of Defendant Noga, and after reasonable investigation, Defendants Pennlantic, Impaks, Rosebeny and Bixler are unable to form an opinion as to the truth or falsity of statement and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 63. Admitted that some payments were deposited into the Impaks account. Denied that Defendant Bixler received any payment. 64. Admitted. However, by way of further response, this was done during negotiations, under the assumption that a deal would be made. 65. Denied that Defendants denied hapax its property rights or the ability to possess items, as the Defendants' offer to pay was refused. (See Exhibit "A" attached hereto.) 66. Denied that Defendants acted without consent or lawful justification. 67. Denied that Defendants' actions constitute conversion. 68. Denied that the invoices were fraudulent. Denied that conversion has occurred. Byway of further response, Defendants have attempted to make payment to Plaintiff, which has been refused. (See Exhibit "E" attached hereto.) 69. Denied that Impax has been damaged by Defendants' actions. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against the Plaintiff, and for any other relief this Court deems appropriate. Count II -Unjust Enrichment 70. The answers contained in Paragraphs 1 through 69 aze incorporated herein by reference. 71. Denied that payments were misdirected or that Defendants received any benefit. 72. Denied that Defendants have been unjustly enriched. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand that judgment be entered in its favor and against the Plaintiff and for any other relief this Court deems just and appropriate. Count III - Misapprouriation of Trade Secrets and Confidential Information Lgainst all Defendants 73. The answers contained in Pazagraphs 1 through 72 are incorporated herein by reference. 74. The statement in Pazagraph 74 is a conclusion of law and therefore requires no response. 75. The statement in Pazagraph 75 is a conclusion of law and therefore requires no response. 76. The statement made in Paragraph 76 of the Complaint is information solely within the lrnowledge of the Plaintiff, and after reasonable investigation, Defendants Pennlantic, Impaks, Roseberry and Bixler aze unable to form an opinion as to the truth or falsity of statement and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 77. The statement in Pazagraph 77 is a conclusion of law and therefore requires no response. 78. Denied that Defendants intend to use any information obtained from Plaintiff, Impax. 79. Denied that Impax has been harmed in any way. 80. Denied that Impax will continue to suffer losses. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against Plaintiff, and for any other relief this Court deems just and appropriate. Count IV -Breach of Fiduciary Duty (against Patrick No~al 81-83. Paragraphs 81-83 required no response by Answering Defendants. Count V -Unfair Competition (against all Defendants) 84. The answers contained in Pazagraphs 1 through 83 aze incorporated herein by reference. 85. Denied that Defendants' actions constitute unfair competition. 86. Denied that Defendants' actions constitute unfair competition. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against Plaintiff and for any other relief this Court deems just and appropriate. Count VI -Fraudulent Misrepresentation Lagainst all Defendants) 87. The answers contained in Paragraphs 1 through 86 are incorporated herein by reference. 88. Denied that Defendants made any material misrepresentations. a Pennlantic had intention to explore the possibility of purchasing the assets of Impax when they so stated. However, this was prior to being told by Impax that they would have to provide personal guarantees and pledge Pennlantic assets. This change in terms on the part of Impax caused Defendant, Pennlantic, to terminate negotiations. b Pennlantic always intended to pay and still intends to pay for the office machines in question. c Pennlantic expressed that they would sell equipment to anyone who would buy them, and did not make a statement that they were only going to sell them to current Pennlantic customers. d At that time, Defendants believed that payments made to Impaks were being made to the proper vendor. 89. Denied that there were any misrepresentations. 90. Denied that there were any misrepresentations. 91. Denied. The statement made in Pazagraph 91 of the Complaint is information solely within the knowledge of the Plaintiff, and after reasonable investigation, Defendants Pennlantic,,Impaks, Roseberry and Bixler are unable to form an opinion as to the truth or falsity of statement and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 92. Denied that Plaintiff suffered any losses. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against Plaintiff and for any other relief this Court deems just and appropriate. Count VII - ConsQiracy 93. The answers contained in Pazagraphs 1 through 92 are incorporated herein by reference. 94. Denied that answering Defendants conspired to commit any of the alleged actions. 95. Denied that Impax has been damaged. WI-IEREFORE, Defendants demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against Plaintiff and for any other relief this Court deems just and appropriate. Count VIII -Breach of Contract (against Pennlantic~ 96. The answers contained in Paragraphs 1 through 95 are incorporated herein by reference. 97. Denied. This invoice is incorrect, as the only item purchased by Pennlantic was one (1) FX10 @ $1253.81. Balance of the items were sold to other customer by Impax. 98. Denied. Payment was indeed sent to Impax, but was refused. (See Exhibit "A" attached hereto.) Paperwork to invoice the customer was also refused. 99. Denied that Pennlantic owes any additional amounts for service work, delivery costs, and other administrative costs. 100. Denied that Impax has suffered losses. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against Plaintiff and for any other relief this Court deems just and appropriate. Count IX -Equitable Relief Lgainst all Defendants) 101. The answers contained in Pazagraphs 1 through 100 aze incorporated herein by reference. 102. Denied that Defendant committed wrongful actions. Admitted that Impaks' Account has a balance of twenty-six thousand seventy-nine and 48/100 Dollars ($26,079.48). 103. Admitted that funds in Impaks Account belong to Impax, except for approximately one thousand four hundred dollars ($1,400.00). 104. Admitted. By way of further response, there is currently an injunction on the account, which places it in the control of the Court. 105. Denied. Defendants tried to make payment to Tmpax, but Impax refused the payment. (See Exhibit "A" attached hereto.) 106. Admitted. Denied that Impaks owes hapax anything. 107. Denied that Impax is being irrepazably harmed. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against Plaintiff and for any other relief this Court deems just and appropriate. NEW MATTER 108. The responses contained in Paragraphs 1 through 107 are incorporated herein by reference. 109. Defendant, Noga, asVice-President of Impax and B. Robert Snyder (Snyder), representing himself to be either the majority stock-holder or the Chief Executive Officer of Impax, contacted Defendants Bixler and Roseberry in the winter of 2000-2001, regarding the possibility of selling Impax to Bixler and Roseberry. 110. Defendant, Bixler, met with Snyder on or about March 8, 2001 at the offices of Security Fence Company in Red Lion, PA. Also present at that meeting was Defendant Noga. At that meeting, Snyder represented the value of Impax to be Two Million Dollazs ($2,000,000.00) and offered to sell to Bixler and Roseberry, the company for Two Million Dollazs ($2,000,000.00). 111. A subsequent meeting took place in April at the same location. At that meeting, in attendance were Nancy Barry, who represented herself to be the Comptroller, as well as Snyder, Bixler and Roseberry. Amore specific breakdown of the net worth of Impax was represented to Bixler and Rosebeny as follows: $1,300,000.00 in receivables, $500,000.00 in inventory and other hard assets, $200,000.00 in good will. It was further represented that Impax had a guazanteed monthly income of $30,000.00 per month. 112. A tltird meeting was held at the offices of York Industrial Tool Company. In attendance at the meeting was Nancy Barry, Snyder, Bixler and Rosebeny. At that meeting, Bixler and Rroseberry indicated their desire to further investigate the potential purchase of hapax, and at that point requested that they receive copies of all back-up documentation to verify the statements made by Snyder and Barry. 113. Based upon those discussions and representations, and in anticipation of receiving the back-up documentation which would be reviewed during due diligence, Pennlantic generated the May 11, 2001 letter attached to the Complaint as Exhibit ..A.. 114. Sometime on or about May 11, 2001, a meeting took place with Bixler and Snyder to obtain copies of the documentation, more specifically leases which were represented to be the major asset of Impax. 115. Pennlantic then hired Wootten Reed & Associates, P.C., Certified Public Accountants, to undergo a thorough review of the documentation and determine and develop an opinion as to the net worth of Impax. 116. Based upon the information received, Pennlantic determined that it had been misrepresented to regarding the value of Impax. On or about June 27, 2001, Snyder, Barry, Bixler and Roseberry met again at the York Tool location, at which time Rosebeny and Bixler made a new proposal verbally, which reflected more accurately the true value of Impax. Said proposal was rejected by Snyder. 117. At all times during the negotiation and due diligence period, Defendants Pennlantic, Bixler and Rosebeny acted in good faith. 118. When Snyder required that Bixler and Roseberry sign personal guarantees and pledge Pennlantic assets as terms which needed to be included in any agreement, Pennlantic withdrew as potential and buyer, and instead, Bixler and Rosebeny offered themselves individually as potential buyers. 119. At all times during the negotiation and due diligence period, Defendants Pennlantic, Bixler and Roseberry, acted in good faith, including but not limited to taking the following actions: a Causing to be formed, a new corporation known as Impaks, in order to be a vehicle through which any purchase would take place; and b Contacting customers in an attempt to sell certain items in Impax's inventory which were of no use or value to the new entity; and c In servicing existing Impax accounts in the Ilarrisburg area; and d In invoicing under Impaks for new sales made in anticipation of a deal being made; and e In collecting funds or directing funds into the account controlled by Impaks; and f In offering to make payment in full to Impax for any amounts rightfully owing; and g In offering to cooperate in full by endorsing any checks which were still arriving in the name of Impaks after negotiations had broken down completely. 120. Plaintiff fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted. 121. Defendants assert the affirmative defense of estoppel. 122. Defendants assert the affirmative defense of latches. 123. Defendants assert the affirmative defense of unclean hands. 124. Defendants assert the affirmative defense of fraud. 125. Defendants assert the affirmative defense of justification. 126. Defendants assert the affirmative defense of payments made. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Court to dismiss Plaintiff s case in its enfirety and instead enter judgment in favor of all Defendants, and for any other relief deemed just and appropriate. COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST IMPAX COUNT I: FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AGAINST IMPAX 127. The responses contained in Pazagraphs 1 through 126 aze incorporated herein by reference. 128. Impax, through its agents made material misrepresentations to Defendants Pennlantic, Bixler and Roseberry, including, but not limited to the following: a. Statements that the assets of Impax were worth $2,000,000.00, when in fact the assets were worth somewhere between $100,000.00 and $250,000.00; and b. Statements that Impax had a guazanteed monthly income of $30,000.00; and c. Statements that there were $1,300,000.00 in receivables represented by long-term leases, which were, in fact, short-term rentals with out clauses; and d. Statement that new equipment was supplied to lessees, when, in fact, used equipment was supplied to lessees; and e. Statements that hazdwaze costs averaged 50% on said leases, when in reality, hazdwaze costs averaged 10%; and £ Statements regazding service obligations were much greater than represented. ' 129. The misrepresentations were material and fraudulent. 130. The misrepresentations were made with intent to induce Pennlantic, Bixler and Roseberry to continue negotiating for the purchase of Impax's assets. 131. Pennlantic, Bixler, and Rosebeny justifiably relied upon the misrepresentations. 132. Pennlantic, Bixler and Roseberry suffered financial losses as a proximate result of its reliance on Impax's fraudulent statements as follows: Pennlantic was induced to purchase a Gestetner color 213 copier for $20,000.00 which was represented to have been sold to B.I.G., according to a representative of Impax at a cost of $20,000.00. Subsequently, B.I.G. refused to accept said machine; and b Installation costs on said machine were $1,000.00; and c Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry spent professional fees in the amount of $5,000.00 for legal fees and accounting fees as a result of the negotiations; and d Pennlantic, Bixler and Roseberry suffered incidental damages in an amount of $500.00 sending Impax's employees on a training trip to Philadelphia. WFIEREFORE, Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry demand judgment in an amount of $26,500.00 and for any other relief this Court deems just and appropriate, including the imposition of punitive damages. 133. The responses/statements made in Pazagraphs 1 through 132 are incorporated herein by reference. 134. B. Robert Snyder is an adult individual believed to have an office address at 1087 Valley View Road, York, Pennsylvania 17402. 135. Defendant Genie Electronics Company, Inc. is a corporation believed to be duly incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania, having a business address at 1087 Valley View Road, York, Pennsylvania 17402. 136. At all times during the negotiations for the sale of Impax, Inc., Defendant Snyder represented himself to be Chief Executive Officer and stockholder of Impax. Alternatively, Defendant B. Robert Snyder represented himself to be the President of Genie Electronics Company, Inc., which alternatively owned all the shazes of Impax. 137. Plaintiff pleads alternatively against Defendants Snyder and/or Genie Electronics based on information it has at this time that either(or would have benefitted from the misrepresentations made to Bixler, Roseberry and Pennlantic, as follows: 138. Counterclaim Defendants made material misrepresentations to Defendants Pennlantic, Bixler and Roseberry, including, but not limited to the following: a. Statements that the assets of Impax were worth $2,000,000.00, when in fact the assets were worth somewhere between $100,000.00 and $250,000.00; and b. Statements that Impax had a guaranteed monthly income $30,000.00; and c. Statements that there were $1,300,000.00 in receivables represented by long-term leases, which were, in fact, short-term rentals without clauses; and d. Statement that new equipment was supplied to lessees, when, in fact, used equipment was supplied to lessees; and e. Statements that hazdwaze costs averaged 50% on said leases, when in reality, hazdwaze costs averaged 10%; and f. Statements regarding service obligafions were much greater than represented. 139. The misrepresentations were material and fraudulent. 140. The misrepresentations were made with intent to induce Pennlantic, Bixler and Roseberry to continue negotiating for the purchase of Impax's assets. 141. Pennlantic, Bixler, and Rosebeny justifiably relied upon the misrepresentations. 142. Pennlantic, Bixler and Roseberry suffered financial losses as a proximate result of its reliance on Impax's fraudulent statements as follows: a Pennlantic was induced to purchase a Gestetner color 213 copier for $20,000.00 which was represented to have been sold to B.I.G., according to a representative of Impax at a cost of $20,000.00. Subsequently, B.I.G. refused to accept said machine; and " b Installation costs on said machine were $1,000.00; and c Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry spent professional fees in the amount of $5,000.00 for legal fees and accounting fees as a result of the negotiations; and d Pennlantic, Bixler and Roseberry suffered incidental damages in an amount of $500.00 sending Impax's employees on a training trip to Philadelphia. WHEREFORE, Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry demand judgment against E. Robert Snyder, individually and/or Genie Electronics Company, Inc. in an amount of $26,500.00 and for any other relief this Court deems just and appropriate, including the imposition of punitive damages. Y SUBMITTED, Date: 17 ` ~~ eslie D. Jacobson Attorney for Defendants Bixler and Roseberry ID# 52673 8150 Derry Street Harrisburg, PA 17111 (717)909-5858 Impaks, Inc., IMPAX, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff .CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BDG,ER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA, Defendants CASE NO.OI-4274 CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing documents are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ~'~] -op L ler IMPAX, INC. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA, Defendants v. B. ROBERT SNYDER AND GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC. Cross-Claim Defendants CASE NO.OI-4274 CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned legal assistant employed by the Law Offices of Leslie D. Jacobson, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the attached DEFENDANTS' ANSWER, NEW MATTER, COUNTERCLAIM, AND CROSS-CLAIM has been duly served on this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid; addressed as follows: Kimberly M. Colonna, Esquire McNees, Wallace & Nurick, LLC 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Daniel Wolfson, Esquire Wolfson & Associates, PC 267 East Mazket Street York, PA 17403 Date: 2 zcx~i Delano M. Lantz, Esquire McNees, Wallace & Nurick, LLC 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 ' K. Shultz, Le Assistant Law Offices of Leslie D. Jacobson 8150 Derry Street Harrisburg, PA 17111 (717)909-5858 07lgf{/20At 15: SA PAX 7172575300 Mr~Nges Wal.lii~e brick nU2 ~~, MCNEES WALL,AGE SI NURICK LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW +oo PINE STREET P. p. BO% ue6 NARRI59URG, PA +t+o9-ue6 Tc+.sPl,mdc 17171 2 3 2-9000 Fwc 17171237.5300 http:/Aryww.mwn.c9m TIMDTFIT 171NNH2TT DIi~CT Dlil: fT17} 23T-6384 E-Mal ADDRESS: lFf~ W EMiv~MYM.CON Lesi"le David Jacobson, Esq. 8150 Derry Street. Suite A Harrisburg, PA 17111-5260 RE_ Genie Electronics, lnc. Impax,lnc. Our Tile: 09583-OOD2 Dear Les: July 6, 2001 VIA FAX - (717) 561-1616 As a foNow-up to our corner.ation earlier today regarding my request for the funds im the fMPAK3, Inc., bank account at the Bank of Hanover, i request these funds be directed fo rry attention in certified funds. Please send the funds to my attention at 100 Pine Street, P. O. Box 1166, Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 On Monday, July 9, 2001. In addition, my client informs me that approximately $2D,000 is owed by Pennlantic Corporation for merchandise purchased from IMPAX, inc., from as far baGc as April. We also request that these amounts be paid immediately. 2001. FF(ck cc Robert Snyder Very truly yours, MCNE:ES YVALLACE B~ NUWCK~LLC ey -~-- ~ Timotny Finnerty COLUMBUS. OH NAZLETON. PA - WASHINGTON. D.C, EXHIBIT "E" -- Page I of 4 I look forward to hearing from you and receiving funds for the above on Monday, July 8, Y IMPAKS INC. 495 MARYLAND AVE. VORK, PA 77404 1004 so-sta13 313 DATE PAY ~~~p®~ ~ ~ ~[ ORDER OF ~Y~'®f ~W+ZIL~-~ /'~!L C. L. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~I,~O BANKOFHANOVEIt FOR.:~ ML~C %N/OfI~S ' ~~~{/~_ ~ ~~'00 i004~r ':0 3 i 306 i00~: 8 ~ ~~ 7~'di4 874 lir E&FIIBIT "E" -- Page 2 of 4 MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW loo PINE STREET P. O. BOX II66 HARRISBURG, PA I~los-II66 TELEPHONE 17171232-5000 Fnx 17171237-5300 http://www.mwn.com TIMOTHY FINNERTY DIRECT DIAL: (717) 237-5394 E-MAILAOORESS: TFINNERTY(O~MWN.COM Leslie David Jacobson, Esq. 8150 Deny Street, Suite A Harrisburg, PA 17111-5260 RE: Genie Electronics, Inc. Impax, Inc. Our file: 09598-0002 Dear Les: July 11, 2001 I am in receipt of a check in the amount of $20,000 from the'IMPAKS, Inc., bank account at the Bank of Hanover. Your client's letter purports to pay in full, invoices from IMPAX, Inc. to Pennlantic, yet the check utilized to make such payment is drawn from the IMPAKS Inc. bank account. This is unacceptable. Pennlantic has been invoiced a total of $20,448.07 as shown on the attached summary. This total amount is owed to IMPAX, Inc. by Pennlantic and is overdue. As such, payment of this full amount is again demanded, and must be paid with Pennlantic funds. The letter from Pennlantic purports to tender the check to '°satisfy all outstanding invoices from Genie Electronics." Plainly, this is unacceptable. Furthermore, I once again demand that all funds in the IMPAKS bank account at the Bank of Hanover be turned over to IMPAX. These amounts were wrongfully diverted to this account. The bank statement showed a total of $29,407.23 in deposits. The balance on the statement at the end of June was $26,079.48. The balance must be turned over immediately. The money belongs to Impax, Inc. Further restitution for the difference must be made promptly. Based upon the above, I am returning to you check number 1004 drawn on the. IMPAKS, Inc. account at the Bank of Hanover in the amount of $20,000 which was forwarded to me along with your clients letter. • COLUMBUS, OH HAZLETON. PA WASHINGTON, D. C. EXHISST "E" -- Page 3 of 4 u^.• Leslie David Jacobson, Esq July 11, 2001 Page 2 I look forward to receiving full payment of these amounts at once. Very truly yours, MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC BY ~ ~~ Timothy Finnerty TF/ck Enclosure cc Robert Snyder EXHIBITC"E" -- Page 4 of 4 --~~.,~- n.~ -:. ~ ~-mrx lemae~my. _. _ *ra^~,.°m~~ .'r- ~:'zati+.ar~wr axm-rt '(~fVY~S!W^i. ,, .. ,.'~'~ a IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IMPAX, INC., Plaintiff vs. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY AND PATRICK NOGA Defendant NO. O l -42 74 CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY DEFENDANT, PATRICK NOGA'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, TO WIT, this 21~` day of August, 2001, comes the Defendant, Patrick Noga, by and through his attorney, Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, and the law firm of Wolfson 8t Associates, P.C., and files the following Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, and in support thereof avers as follows: Admitted. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at d•iai. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or Imowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient . C information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or Imowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at ts-ial. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 1 I . Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Articles of Incorporation were filed with the Pennsylvania Department of State on or about May 31, 2001. As for the remainder of Paragraph 1 1, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 2 ~+. 12. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the Articles of hxorporation listed a registered office at 495 Maryland Avenue, Yorl<, PA 17404. As for the remainder of Paragraph 12, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or Knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or Knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 3 .~ .r 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient 4 . t ,~. or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 25. Denied. After reasonable irvestigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth a• veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 27. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 28. Denied. After rei~sonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or Imowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at u•ial. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or Imowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 5 ~ ~ , z 31, Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belieff as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 32. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 34 (a) - (d). Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or Imowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of these allegations. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at n•ial. 35. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict pi°oof is demanded at trial. 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 37. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient 6 i ~ l . ~ information or knowledge to form a belieff as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 38. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 39. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the q•uth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 40. Denied. After aeasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at b•ial. 41. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 42. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 43. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 7 q _ ._. . . i 1 44. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 45. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 46. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 47. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 48. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 49. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 50. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient 8 1 ~ ~ . . ~ ~ information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 5 I . Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief arto the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 52. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 53. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 54. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 55. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 56. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 9 r ~ ) ~ ~ ~ 57. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 58. Admitted. 59. Paragraph 59 of Plaintiff's Complaint is an incorporation paragt-aph [o which i~o response is required. To the extent that a response is necessary, same is denied and the allegations contained in Paragraph 59 of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 60. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. b 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or Knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 62. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or Irnowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 63. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 10 • r 64. Denied. After oeasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the Guth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 65. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 66. Denied. Aftee• reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 67. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 67 of Plaintiff's Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is necessary, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 68. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 69. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 70. Paragraph 70 of Plaintiff's Complaint is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is necessary, same is denied and the ~~w allegations contained in Paragraph 70 of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 71. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 72. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 72 of Plaintiff's Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is necessary, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 73. Paragraph 73 of Plaintiff's Complaint is an incorporation paragraph to wl~icli no response is required. To the extent that a response is necessary, same is denied and the allegations contained in Paragraph 73 of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 74. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 75. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 76. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient 12 a 1 ~ IT 9 information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 77. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 77 of Plaintiff's Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is necessary, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 78. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 79. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 80. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 81. Paragraph 8 I of Plaintiff's Complaint is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is necessary, same is denied and the allegations contained in Paragraph 81 of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in fill. 82. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient 13 a ~i ~ 1 ' +~ information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 83. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 84. Paragraph 84 of Plaintiff s Complaint is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is necessary, same is denied and the allegations contained in Paragraph 84 of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 85. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 86. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 87. Paragraph 87 of Plaintiff's Complaint is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is necessary, same is denied and the allegations contained in Paragraph 87 of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 14 s ., . 88 (a) - (d). Denied. Aftei° reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of these allegations. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at p-ial. 89. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 90. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 91. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or Knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 92. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 93. Paragraph 93 of Plaintiff's Complaint is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is necessary, same is denied and the allegations contained in Paragraph 93 of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 94. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient 15 ~_ ~ v i •k i information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 95. Denied. After- reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 96. Paragraph 96 of Plaintiff's Complaint is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is necessary, same is denied and the allegations contained in Paragraph 96 of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 97. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 98. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to fa-m a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 99. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or Imowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 100. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient 16 ~ ~ f r z information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 101. Paragraph 10 i of Plaintiff's Complaint is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is necessary, same is denied and the allegations contained in Paragraph 101 of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 102. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 103. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 104. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 105. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and sb•ict proof is demanded at trial. 106. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient 17 !. „ . information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 107. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice and enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff along with the allowable costs of this action. Respectfully submitted, I -/ .,-.. ~~% Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire WOLFSON st ASSOCIATES, P.C. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717)846-1252 I.D. No. 20617 Attorney for Answering Defendant 18 k. ~ 1.,r Y ~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IMPAX, INC., NO. 01-4274 Plaintiff vs. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY AND PATRICK NOGA Defendant CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 21~` day of August, 2001, I, Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, do hereby certify that (have served a copy of the foregoing Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint upon counsel of record by regular mail, postage pre-paid, and addressed as follows: Kimberly M. Colonna, Esquire McNEES WALLACE $t NURICK, LLC 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 11 bb Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquir WOLFSON 8t ASSO TES, P.C. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717) 846-1252 ID No. 20617 Attorney for Answering Defendant r e w~ ' -~ t. J -~ !7 C. n i :.. C; J - _ _ C - . ~ i.11 a ~~ p~pA}{,1NC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. EQUITY ACTION NO.Ol-4274 PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA Defendants AGREED ORDER ENTERING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Upon agreement of the Plaintiff and Defendants Pennlantic Corporation, Impaks, Inc., Larry Bixler, Ronald Roseberry and Patrick Noga, the following Order is hereby entered: 1. Defendants are enjoined and restrained from using or revealing IMPAX's confidential information and trade secrets, including but not limited to information regarding the identities and needs of Plaintiffs customers as long as Plaintiff and/or its successors and assigns continue to engage in the business of sales, service and leasing of office equipment; 2. Defendants shall return ail originals and all copies of all documents obtained from Impax, Inc., its officers, or employees, which contain or otherwise reflect information about the customers of Impax, Inc., including but not limited to, customer lists, leases, contracts, invoices, checks, sales orders, work orders, or statements of accounts receivable; 3. Defendants are enjoined directly or indirectly soliciting or attempting to solicit, obtaining or attempting to obtain, or in any way transacting, business with any of the customers of Plaintiff or engaging in any other method of unfair competition as long as Plaintiff and/or its assigns continue to engage in the business of sales, service and leasing of office equipment; and r. 4. The funds in Bank ofHanover.Account #148741, (an account held in the name of Impales, Inc.) are frozen, and Defendants are enjoined from withdrawing or dissipating the funds in that Account, including but not limited to withdrawals by check, wire transfer, or electronic debit. This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until further order of Court. Plaintiff shall post a bond in the sum of One Hundred ($100.00) within five days of of this Order or the Order shall be deemed dissolved until a bond is posted. slie David Jacobs 50 Derry Street, u'te A u7isbure. PA 171 -5858 (717) 909-5858 For Defendants Peimlantic Corporation Impales, Inc., Larry Bixler, and Ronald Roseberry ~~ Delano M. antz Helen L. Gemmill Kimberly M. Colonna McNees Wallace & Nurick, LLC i00 Pine Street, P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)232-8000 For Plaintiff Impax, Inc. .aA~E: 7-i9- o/ i'Z~ ~~ - Daniel F. olfson Wolfson & Associates, P.C. 267 E. Market St. York, PA 17403 (717)846-1252 For Defendant Patrick Noga s SO ORDERED. IMPAX, INC., v. Plaintiff PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CC~Ltt i~~ ACTION NO. 01-''1~~7 ~ ~~ ORDER AND NOW, thisL~" day of ~N.. 2001, IT IS HEREBY _ F2'dA y ORDERED that a hearing is scheduled for p.m. n u(,~/~ j~~, 2001, in Coumoon~, in the Cumberland County Courthouse, so that Defendants may show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Motion of Plaintiff, pending trial on the merits. TRUE COP' In Tectmoay where and tt,>q s~al_of said FROM R.~~ORD J tiers: unto se' my hand ~ouYt at Ca lisle,`Pa. IMPAX, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. CIVIL ACTION NO. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY,AND PATRICK NOGA Defendants AND NOW, this day of ORDERED that a hearing is scheduled for a.m/p.m. on 2001, in Courtroom , in the Cumberland County Courthouse, so that Defendants may show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Motion of Plaintiff, pending trial on the merits. BY THE COURT: 7. ORDER 2001, IT IS HEREBY IMPAX, INC., v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff Diu ~~y :-`"~L-ACTION NO. Ol- ~~<f- ~~~ PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA Defendants 'INJUNCTION „t, , ~.~ :., '_ <~ i~~ Plaintiff, Impax, Ina ("IMPAX"), hereby moves, pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1531, for a preliminary injunction bamng Defendants from using IMPAX confidential customer information and bamng Defendants from dissipating funds that properly belong to IMPAX. IMPAX moves the Court to enter a Preliminary Injunction in the form set forth in the attached proposed Order and, in support of said Motion, avers as follows: Simultaneously with this Motion, Plaintiff Impax, Inc. ("IMPAX") has filed a Complaint against Defendants Pennlantic Corporation, Impaks, Inc., Larry Bixler, Ronald Roseberry, and Patrick Noga. 2. As stated in the complaint, Defendants, acting individually or together, wrongfully obtained possession of IMPAX's property and funds, misappropriated IMPAX's confidential information and trade secrets, and engaged in unfair competition, and breached their fiduciary duties to IMPAX. 3. As set forth in the complaint, Defendants have wrongfully obtained confidential information and trade secrets regarding the identities and needs of IMPAX's customers. 4. IMPAX reasonably believes that Defendants have wrongfully used confidential information and trade secrets to engage in unfair competition. 5. IMPAX reasonably believes that Defendant will continue to use IMPAX's confidential information and trade secrets to engage in unfair competition. 6. IMPAX will be irreparably harmed if Defendants are not restrained from using and revealing IMPAX's confidential information and trade secrets and from engaging in unfair competition. 7. As set forth in the complaint, Defendants, individually or together, deposited funds that properly belonged to IMPAX into Bank of Hanover Account #148741, an account held in the name of Impaks, Inc. (the "Impaks Account"). 8. Impaks is a recently formed corporation and IMPAX reasonably believes that hnpaks has no assets other than the funds in the Impaks Account. 9. IMPAX reasonably believes that the hnpaks Account is subject to the control of the Defendants. 10. IMPAX will be irreparably harmed if the funds in the Impaks Account, which properly belong to IMPAX, are dissipated by the Defendants and IMPAX is unable to recover the funds that properly belong to it. 11. IMPAX has a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits of its claims against the Defendants. 12. The balancing of the harms favors the grant of the injunction. 13. The public interest favors the grant of the injunction. WHEREFORE, IlVIPAX requests that this Court grant a preliminary injunction pending trial on the merits: (1) barring Defendants from using orrevealing IMPAX's confidential information and trade secrets; (2) barring Defendants from soliciting or attempting to solicit the customers of Plaintiff or from engaging in any other method of unfair competition; and (3) freezing the funds in the Impaks Account and barring Defendants from dissipating the funds in that account. IMPAX further requests that the Court grant such other relief as is just and proper under the circumstances and in light of the evidence presented at the hearing. McNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC By__ ~ V ~l . G~~tvwsl Delano M. Lantz, Esq. I.D. No. 21401 Kimberly M. Colonna I.D. No. 80362 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)232-8000 Attorneys for Plaintiff IMPAX, INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. CIVIL ACTION NO. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER; RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA Defendants ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND NOW, this day of , 2001, upon consideration of the Complaint, the Motion of Plaintiff for Preliminary Injunction, and Memorandum submitted in support thereof, and the testimony presented at a hearing on Plaintiffs request, and having determined that: 1. Plaintiff 7mpax, Inc. will suffer irreparable harm aqd loss if Defendants are permitted to use or reveal Plaintiffs confidential information and trade secrets, including information regarding the identities and needs of Plaintiff s customers; 2. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law; 3. Greater injury will be inflicted upon Plaintiff by the denial of temporary injunctive relief than would be inflicted upon Defendants upon the granting of such relief. 4. The grant of injunctive relief will restore the parties to the status quo as it existed prior to Defendants wrongful conduct; and 5. The injunction sought by Plaintiff is reasonably suited to abate the wrongful activity identified by Plaintiff. ,. ,. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED THAT: 1. Defendants are hereby enjoined and restrained, pending trial on the merits from: (a) using or revealing IMPAX's confidential information and trade secrets, including but not limited to information regarding the identities and needs of Plaintiff s customers; (b) directly or indirect]y soliciting or attempting to solicit, obtaining or attempting to obtain, or in any way transacting, business with any of the customers of Plaintiff or engaging in any other method of unfair competition; and (c) freezing the funds in Impaks, Inc.'s Bank of Hanover Account (Account Number 148741), and barring Defendants from withdrawing or otherwise dissipating the funds in Bank that account. 2. This Order is effective immediately. Plaintiff shall post a bond in the sum of within five days of receipt of this Order or the Order shall be deemed dissolved until a bond is posted. 3. This Order shall remain in full force and effect until such time as this Court specifically orders otherwise. BY THE COURT: J. IMPAX, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff ~ / C'I ' v. : '~I~LLL, ACTION NO. E7 ~ ' ~ Z~ `1 (~^"~ PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, (/ IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA Defendants BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiff Impax, Inc. ("IMPAX"), by its attorneys, McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC respectfully submits this brief in support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction. I. Procedural History This case was initiated by the filing of a Complaint on July 11, 2001. Accompanying the Complaint was Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction. This brief is submitted in support of Plaintiff s Motion. II. Factual History IMPAX is engaged in the business of selling, servicing, and leasing office machines, including copiers, fax machines, scanners and printers in the York County Area. Defendant Patrick Noga was the Vice President of Operations for IMPAX and one of IMPAX's key employees. In May 2001, IMPAX began negotiating with Defendant Pennlantic Corporation ("Pennlantic") for Pennlantic to purchase the assets of IMPAX. IMPAX consistently negotiated in good faith with Pennlantic. In the process of the negotiation, however, the principals of F~~ Pennlantic and Patrick Noga developed a plan or scheme directly contrary to the good faith negotiation. At the end of May 2001, and with no notice to IMPAX, Defendants Larry Bixler and Ronald Roseberry, respectively the President and Secretary/Treasurer of Pennlantic, and Noga incorporated "Impaks, Inc." Impaks articles of incorporation listed as its principal place of business IMPAX's office address. During the following weeks, as IMPAX continued to negotiate in good faith, Defendant Noga took items from IMPAX's inventory, sent invoices to IMPAX customers directing them to make payments to Impaks for good and services that had been provided by IMPAX, misdirected payments from IMPAX's customers to an Impaks account, misappropriated IMPAX's confidential customer information, engaged in unfair competition, and defrauded IMPAX. Only after the breakdown of the negotiations for the sale of IMPAX's assets, did IMPAX become aware of these wrongful actions. Upon discovering Noga's involvement with these wrongdoings, IMPAX terminated his employment on June 29, 2001. During the negotiations, the authorized representative of IMPAX made reasonable efforts to preserve IMPAX's confidential customer information. However, without authorization, Defendant Noga provided the confidential customer information to the other Defendants. Through these wrongful actions, Defendants became aware of the identity of IMPAX's customers and the types of machines and equipment those customers use. By soliciting those customers and making sales to them for their own commercial benefit, Defendants have already misappropriated some of this confidential information. IMPAX reasonably believes that Defendants will wrongfully use this information for their benefit by soliciting IMPAX 2 customers, by confusing IMPAX customers with the similarly named "Impales, Inc." company and by interfering with the relationships and goodwill that IMPAX has built with its customers. Additionally, Defendants Noga and Rosebeny, instructed IMPAX employees to deposit 1MPAX customer payments into a Bank of Hanover Account held in the name of Impales (the "Impales Account"). The funds deposited in that account properly belong to IMPAX as they reflect customer payments for goods sold from IMPAX inventory and'services performed by IMPAX employees. IMPAX reasonably believes that the Defendants control the Impales Account and the funds therein. As Impales was only recently incorporated, IMPAX reasonably believes that Impales has no assets other than the funds in the Impales Account. If Defendants are not prevented from dissipating the funds in the Impales Account, IMPAX will be irreparably harmed because it will be unable to recover the funds that properly to 1MPAX. III. WHETHER DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE ENJOINED FROM USING IMPAX'S CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND TRADE SECRETS TO THE BENEFIT OF DEFENDANTS AND TO THE DETRIMENT OF IMPAX? Suggested Answer: Yes. WHETHER DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE ENJOINED FROM DISSIPATING THE FUNDS HELD IN IMPAKS, INC.'S BANK OF HANOVER ACCOUNT WHERE THOSE FUNDS PROPERLY BELONG TO IMPAX? Suggested Answer: Yes. IV.• ARGUMENT "The primary purposes of a preliminary injunction are to preserve the status quo and prevent imminent and irreparable harm which might occur before the merits of the case can be determined." Berger v. West Jefferson Hill School Dist., 669 A.2d 1084, 1085 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that injunctive relief is proper where the party seeking such relief can demonstrate (i) the likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm which cannot be compensated by damages; (ii) that greater injury may result from denial of the injunction than from its being granted; (iii) that an injunction would operate to restore the parties to the status quo as it existed prior to a defendant's wrongful conduct; (iv) that the wrong is manifest and the injunction is reasonably suited to abate such activity, and (v) the Plaintiff's right to relief is clear. Lewis v. City of Harrisburg, 158 Pa. Cmwlth. 318, 631 A.2d 807 (1993); Beck Computing Services, Inc. v. Anderson, 362 Pa. Super. 505, 524 A.2d 990, 991 (1987). Here, each of these factors favors issuance of an injunction. A. IMPAX Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Unless Defendants Are Enjoined From Using IMPAX's Confidential Information and Trade Secrets Equity may not refuse to exercise jurisdiction unless there exists an adequate remedy at law. Pennsylvania State Chamber of Commerce v. Torquato, 386 Pa. 306, 125 A.2d 755 (1956), cert denied, 352 U.S. 1024 (1957). The wisdom of exercising injunctive relief has long been recognized as the only adequate protection in certain matters: The question raised in this case is not alone whether Plaintiff has a remedy at law ... but, whether in view of the facts it is an adequate one ... [C]ourts now go further and inquire whether under the facts the remedy at law is not vexatiously inconvenient and whether it is certain as to be adequate to right the wrong complained of. Gray v. Citizens' Gas Co., 206 Pa. 303, 305, 55 A. 988 (1903). This is just such a case. No adequate remedy at law exists and IMPAX faces the risk of irreparable harm. Specifically, monetary relief is an inadequate remedy for several reasons. First, the likelihood of IMPAX being fully remedied by damages from Defendants' unlawful use of IMPAX's customer information is remote. If Defendants use the list, IMPAX will suffer losses due to lost customers, which losses will undoubtedly be speculative and incapable of establishment with any degree of certainty. In John G. Bryant Co. v. Sling Testing and Repair, Inc., 471 Pa. 1, 369 A.2d 1164 (1977), the Court explained that equitable relief is almost always necessary in cases involving interference with customer relationships. The Court stated that "[i]t is the possible consequence of this unwarranted interference with customer relationships that is unascertainable and not capable of being fully compensated by money damages." Id. at 369 A.2d 1167. Here, where Defendants' actions in taking and using the customer information will result in diverting customers, a damage remedy would be inadequate. Equitable relief, and specifically a preliminary injunction directed at preventing harm which would arise from the unfettered use of the customer information, is the only appropriate remedy available to IlVIPAX. B. IMPAX Has A Substantial ]Likelihood Of Success On The Merits. Our Supreme Court has long recognized that customer information "is highly confidential and constitutes a valuable asset" of a business. Morgan's Home Equipment Corp. v. Mariucci, 390 Pa. 618, 623, 136 A.2d 838, 842 (1957). As the Supreme Court noted in Morgan's Home, "the customer lists and customer information which have been compiled by such firms represent a material investment of employers' time and money." Id. As such Pennsylvania law protects confidential customer information as trade secret, and an employee "will not be permitted to make disclosure of those secrets to others to the prejudice of his employer. Id. at 624, 136 A. 2d at 842. Here, the evidence shows that Defendant Noga received confidential customer information and data during the course of his employment with IMPAX. Without IMPAX's authorization, Defendant Noga revealed that information to the other Defendants. Defendants had no right to the confidential information and are under a duty not to disclose it to the detriment of IMPAX. Yet, Defendants violated that duty and used the customer lists to benefit their own businesses and themselves personally. Defendants not only solicited IMPAX's customers, Defendant Noga stole machines, parts, and other items from IMPAX's inventory and sold them to IMPAX's customers while providing the funds from those sales to the other Defendants. Additionally, Defendant Noga sent fraudulent invoices to confuse the customers into paying Impaks, when payments should have been made to 1MPAX. The misuse of the confidential customer information and methods of unfair competition could not be more blatant or abhorrent. Given the Defendants past actions, IMPAX has every reason to believe that Defendants will continue to use IMPAX's confidential customer information to engage in unfair competition. Under these circumstances, IMPAX's right to relief is clear and it is very likely to prevail on the merits of the claim. C. There Is No Appreciable Hardship To Defendants And/or The Public Interest From The Preliminary Injunction. There will be little harm to Defendants from the requested preliminary injunction. Defendants can continue to operate their business through lawful competition and through ,, contacts with Pennlantic customers. They will simply be barred from taking unfair advantage of IMPAX's confidential customer information by soliciting IMPAX's customers, confusing them, and billing them for work performed by IMPAX. Certainly, preventing Defendants' unlawful misappropriation of IMPAX's confidential information creates no legally recognizable detriment to Defendants. Moreover, the injunction will have no impact on the public interest. Instead, it will merely prevent unlawful methods of competition. Indeed, the public has an interest in ensuring that confidential business information is not wrongfully used to a competitive disadvantage. D. The Grant Of the Requested Injunction Will Maintain The Status Quo Ante. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has noted that a preliminary injunction is properly used to preserve the status quo that is the last actual, peaceable, noncontested status which preceded the pending controversy. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n v. Israel, 52 A.2d 317 (1947). The pending controversy began when Defendants began to misuse the confidential customer information to solicit IMPAX's customers, misappropriate IMPAX's inventory, and misdirect IMPAX's funds. Thus, the status quo ante, that is the status as it existed prior to the misappropriation, is that Defendants did not use IMPAX's confidential customer information to their own benefit. A preliminary injunction is necessary in order to restore the parties to the status quo as it existed prior to Defendants' wrongful conduct. E. Defendants Should Be Enjoined From Dissipating the Funds Held in Impaks, Inc. Bank Account, Bank of Hanover Account # 148741. Pennsylvania courts have specifically recognized that an injunction is appropriate where the dissipation of assets will remove an opportunity for creditors to collect on a judgment. Temtex Products, Inc. v. Kramer, 330 Pa. Super. 183, 479 A.2d 500 (1984); Lauria v. Kaye, 2 Phila. 395, 14 D. & C. 3d 604, affd, 275 Pa. Super. 618, 423 A.2d 1323 (1979). Therefore an injunction is an appropriate remedy when assets which are the subject of litigation maybe removed or spent by a party to that litigation. Here, funds which properly belong to IMPAX were deposited into a bank account held in the name of Impaks Inc. Impaks was incorporated at the end of May 2001, and given the short time of its existence is unlikely to have built up significant assets. In fact, to IMPAX's knowledge, the only asset of Impaks is the bank account which contains funds belonging to IMPAX. Therefore, if Defendants are not prevented from dissipating the funds in that account, IMPAX's monetary remedy will be effectively illusory. Plaintiffs will have no recourse left to collect an otherwise enforceable judgment against hnpaks. Consequently, no adequate remedy at law exists in the present case and injunctive relief is necessary to prevent Defendants from dissipating the funds in the Impaks Account. Given the strength of IMPAX's claims against the Defendants, IMPAX is very likely to succeed in showing that it is entitled to the funds in the Impaks Account. Additionally there is no hardship to Defendants or to the public in preventing Defendants from dissipating the funds in the Impaks Account pending trial on the merits. On the other hand, without the injunction, IMPAX is likely to face the serious harm of being unable to collect from Impaks the funds which properly belong to IMPAX. Finally, the grant of the injunction would restore the status quo ante in that it would simply freeze the funds in the Impaks Account until the Court makes a determination of the proper ownership of those funds. Under these circumstances, the granting of an injunction barring Defendants from dissipating the funds in the Impaks Account is appropriate. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, IMPAX requests that preliminary injunctive relief be granted and that Defendants be ordered to immediately cease and desist the use of the customer list, contacting any customers named on the list and ordered to return the original and all copies of the customer list to IMPAX pending trial on the merits. McNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC By~~~. l~~/ l.w.~ Delano M. Lantz, Esq. I.D. No. 21401 Kimberly M. Colonna I.D. No. 80362 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 232-8000 Attorneys for Plaintiff ... rJllt 13200 IMPAX, INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff - ~ce.rzy _ v. :.ACT>oNNO. p(- C~-Z~C~ ~(,i,~~~~ PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA Defendants NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment maybe entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 717-249-3166 AVISO Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una Orden contra usted sin previo aviso notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. ~,ar.~~...._~ LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO 0 SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SOFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAIO PARR AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 717-249-3166 McNEE5 WALLACE & NURICK LLC Delano M. antz, Esq. I.D. No. 21401 Kimberly M. Colonna I.D. No. 80362 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)232-8000 Attorneys for Plaintiff 1MPAX, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff ut Zy v. ~FaZI~, ACTION NO. ~ I - y,' 7y T'~`~ PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA Defendants COMPLAINT Plaintiff Impax, Inc., by and through its attorneys McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, hereby brings the following Complaint for injunctive relief and damages against Defendants Pennlantic Corporation, Impaks, Inc., Larry Bixler, Ronald Roseberry, and Patrick Noga, and in support thereof avers as follows: Parties Plaintiff Impax, Ina ("IMPAX") is a Pennsylvania Business Corporation with its principal place of business at 495 Maryland Avenue, York, York County, Pennsylvania. 2. IMPAX is engaged in the business of sales, service and leasing of office equipment, including fax machines, copiers, scanners, and printers. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Pennlantic Corporation ("Pennlantic") is a Pennsylvania Business Corporation with its principal place of business located at 30 North 5`h Street, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Pennlantic is engaged in the business of sales, service and leasing of office equipment, including fax machines, copiers, scanners, and printers. Defendant Impaks, Inc. ("Irnpaks") is a Pennsylvania Business Corporation whose principal place of business is not presently known to Plaintiff. Without authorization, Impaks used the address of IMPAX on various documents. 6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Larry Bixler ("Bixler") is an adult individual residing in Pennsylvania, is the President of Defendant Pennlantic and has a business address of 30 N. Fifth Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043. Upon information and belief, Defendant Ronald Roseberry ("Roseberry") is an adult individual residing in Pennsylvania, is the Secretary/Treasurer of Defendant Pennlantic and has a business address of 30 N. Fifth Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043. 8. Defendant Patrick Noga ("Noga") is an adult individual residing at 2460 Hartford Road, York, Pennsylvania 17402, and was formerly employed as the Vice President of Operations for Plaintiff IMPAX. Noga's employment was terminated on or about June 29, 2001. Factual Background 9. In Apri12001, IMPAX and Pennlantic began negotiations regarding Pennlantic's possible purchase of IMPAX's assets. A true and correct copy of a letter from Pennlantic indicating its intent to purchase IMPAX's assets and setting forth a proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 10. In mid-May and without notice to 1MPAX, Bixler, Roseberry, and Noga decided to form a new corporation, Impaks, Inc., to purchase the assets of IMPAX. A letter detailing this decision is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 11. On or about May 31, 2001, without notice to IMPAX, and at the direction of Defendants Pennlantic, Bixler, Roseberry, and Noga, Articles of Incorporation for Impaks, Inc. 2 were filed with the Pennsylvania Department of State. A true and correct copy of the articles of incorporation is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". 12. Without IMPAX's knowledge or permission, Impaks' articles of incorporation listed its registered office as 495 Maryland Avenue, York, PA 17404, the principal place of business of IMPAX. See Exhibit "C". 13. Throughout May and into early June, IMPAX continued to negotiate in good faith with Pennlantic, under the belief that Pennlantic wished to purchase IMPAX's assets. 14. On or about June 8, 2001, IMPAX was finally informed by Pennlantic's counsel that Pennlantic did not wish to purchase the assets of the IMPAX, and IMPAX was told that Bixler and Roseberry were interested in purchasing the assets. 15. From approximately June 8, 2001 through approximately the end of June 2001, IMPAX negotiated in good faith with Bixler and Roseberry. 16. At no time during the entire negotiations process did any of the Defendants inform IMPAX that Impaks had been formed, that Impaks intended to use IMPAX's principal place of business as the registered office of Impaks, that Noga was to serve as President of Impaks, or that Noga was involved in the proposed purchase of IMPAX's assets. 17. On or about June 27, 2001, because the negotiations for the sale of IMPAX's assets had been unsuccessful, the negotiations were terminated. Misappropriated Office Machines 18. At the time the negotiations for the sale of IMPAX's assets were ongoing, Defendants Noga and Bixler, together with the other Defendants or at their direction or with their j~ . authorization and/or consent, represented to IMPAX that Pennlantic would assist IMPAX in selling certain office machines contained in the IMPAX's inventory. 19. One or more Defendants represented to IMPAX that the machines were being sold to customers of Pennlantic and that Pennlantic would pay IMPAX for the office machines sold from IMPAX's inventory. 20. Defendant Noga took office machines from IMPAX's inventory and provided them to Pennlantic and/or the other Defendants at prices that did not include the cost of services performed on the machines by IMPAX's technicians, costs of delivery and other administrative costs. 21. Defendant Noga took certain other office machines from IMPAX's inventory and provided them to Pennlantic without billing Pennlantic for the machines. 22. Upon information and belief, Defendant Noga acted at the direction of the other Defendants or with their authorization and consent. 23. Despite representations that the office machines and parts were being sold to Pennlantic customers, the office machines were actually sold to customers of IMPAX. 24. Additionally, Defendant Noga took office machine parts without making note in the IMPAX's inventory logs and left empty boxes on the shelves of the inventory warehouse to give the appearance that the parts had not been taken. 25. IMPAX is continuing its investigation into the missing inventory and is undertaking a full review of its inventory. 26. To date, IMPAX has not received payment for office machines and parts taken from the IMPAX inventory. 4 Misappropriated Customer Payments 27. At the time the negotiations for the sale of IMPAX's assets were ongoing, Defendants Noga and Roseberry, instructed certain IMPAX employees that were supervised by Defendant Noga to deposit certain payments from IMPAX customers into Bank of Hanover account # 148741, a bank account held in the name of Impaks Inc. (the "Impaks Account"). 28. When an IMPAX employee questioned the propriety of depositing IMPAX funds into the Impaks Account, Defendants Roseberry and/or Noga stated that it did not matter "because if the buy-out of IMPAX does not go through, we are going to come in and take over the company [IMPAX]". 29. Upon information and belief, the Impaks Account and the funds contained therein are subject to the control of the Defendants. 30. Defendant Noga intercepted the mail that arrived at IMPAX's office and directed IMPAX employees to deposit certain customer payments into the Impaks Account and to provide certain customer payments (in the form of checks) directly to Defendant Bixler. 31. Upon information and belief, Defendant Noga and Defendant Rosebeny acted at the direction of the other Defendants or with the authorization and/or consent of the other Defendants. 32. The payments that were intercepted and misdirected by Defendant Noga were payments that were made by IMPAX customers for products or services provided to those customers by IMPAX and which payments were sent in response to invoices or other bills issued by IMPAX. 33. Defendants had no legal or equitable right to the customer payments that were misdirected to the Impaks Account and to Defendant Bixler. 34. The misappropriated customer payments include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) a payment of $454.21 from Kinsley Construction which was deposited to the Impaks Account on or about June 25, 2001; (b) a payment of $206.87 from Klinge Corporation which was deposited into the Impaks Account on or about June 27, 2001; (c) a payment of $2,795.25 from Kinsley Construction which was deposited to the Impaks Account on or about June 27, 2001; and (d) a payment of $383.52 from Penn-Air which was deposited to the Impaks Account on or about June 27, 2001. 35. IMPAX has no access to the funds deposited and maintained in the Impaks Account. Fraudulent Service and Supply Invoices 36. At the time negotiations for the sale of IMPAX's assets were ongoing, Defendant Noga, without the knowledge of IMPAX, sold or instructed IMPAX employees to sell office supplies, office products and/or other items from IMPAX's inventory to 1MPAX customers and instructed IMPAX employees to provide the sales orders to Pennlantic. 37. Pennlantic then sent fraudulent invoices to IMPAX customers for the supplies, products and/or other items, which invoices instructed the customers to pay "Impaks Inc. Division of Pennlantic." True and correct copies of the invoices are attached hereto as Exhibit ..D.. 38. At the time the negotiations for the sale of IMPAX's assets were ongoing, Defendant Noga sent or instructed IMPAX employees to send invoices to IMPAX customers for service work performed by IMPAX employees and instructed IMPAX employees to provide the work order to Pennlantic. 39. Pennlantic then sent fraudulent invoices to IMPAX customers for service work, which invoices instructed the IMPAX customers to pay "Impaks Inc. Division of Pennlantic." See Exhibit D. 40. Upon information and belief, Defendant Noga acted at the direction of the other Defendants or with their authorization and/or consent. 41. The invoices were fraudulent in that they directed payment to be made to Impaks, instead of to IMPAX, to whom the payments were properly due. 42. IMPAX customers made payments pursuant to those fraudulent hnpaks invoices. 43. Defendants Noga and Roseberry instructed IMPAX employees to deposit the IMPAX customer payments received in response to the fraudulent Impaks invoices into the Impaks Account. 44. The fraudulent invoices sent to IMPAX customers total at least Fourteen Thousand, One Hundred Ninety-Six Dollars and Seventy-Four Cents ($14,196.74). 45. As a result of the fraudulent invoices, IMPAX customer payments totaling at least Five Thousand Three Hundred Eighty-Eight Dollars and Fifty-Six Cents ($5388.56) were deposited to the Impaks Account. 46. As a result of the actions of Defendants Noga and Roseberry, the payments for some of those products, supplies, items and services were misdirected from IMPAX, which was properly entitled to receive those payments, to Impaks who had no legal or equitable interest in those payments. 47. After discovering the wrongdoing, IMPAX demanded payment for the items taken from IMPAX's inventory and sold to IMPAX customers and for service calls made to IMPAX customers by IMPAX employees, but Defendants refused to pay the full amount owed. 48. Since IMPAX became aware of the fraudulent invoices issued by Defendants, IMPAX has received further customer payments in response to those invoices. 49. Some of the checks received from IMPAX customers have been made payable to "Impaks Inc." and IMPAX is unable to negotiate those payments, which payments properly belong to IMPAX. 50. Several customers have not yet made payments in response to the fraudulent invoices issued by Defendants, and IMPAX anticipates that it will receive further checks made payable to Impaks. Customer and Employee Information 51. During his employment with IMPAX, Defendant Noga acquired trade secrets and confidential information about the identities and needs of IMPAX's customers. 52. Defendant Noga was in a position of confidence and the information he acquired in his employment with IMPAX was confidential and was disclosed to him for the sole purpose of allowing him to perform his employment duties on behalf of IMPAX and his duties as an office of IMPAX. 53. During the negotiations with Defendants, IMPAX representatives undertook efforts to maintain the confidentiality of IMPAX's customer information, but Defendant Noga, without authorization provided IMPAX's confidential customer information to the other Defendants or instructed IMPAX employees to do so. 54. All Defendants have obtained confidential information and trade secrets in the nature of the identities and needs of IMPAX's customers. 55. Defendant Noga misused the confidential information and trade secrets by selling items from IMPAX inventory to IMPAX customers while misdirecting the customer payments, by selling items to them for the benefit of the other Defendants, and by issuing fraudulent invoices to IMPAX customers. 56. Upon information and belief, Defendant Noga acted at the direction of or with the authorization and/or consent of the other Defendants. 57. The misappropriation of IMPAX's confidential information was without IMPAX's knowledge and consent. 58. Defendant Noga's employment with IMPAX was terminated on or about June 29, 2001. COUNT I: CONVERSION (against all Defendants) 59. Paragraphs one (1) through fifty-eight (58) above are incorporated herein by reference. 60. During April, May and June 2001, Defendant Noga, at the direction of the other Defendants or with their authorization and/or consent, intentionally took certain items from IMPAX' s inventory, including, but not limited to office machines, parts, and other items. 61. Defendants made no payment was made to IMPAX for the machines, parts, and other inventory items. 62. During April, May and June 2001, Defendant Noga, at the direction of the other Defendants or with their authorization and/or consent, intentionally misdirected certain customer payments that belonged that IMPAX. 63. At the direction of Defendants Noga and Roseberry, some of the customer payments were intentionally deposited into the Impaks Account and other payments were provided to Defendant Bixler. 64. Defendants exercised dominion and control over the office machines, parts, other inventory items, and customer payments that belonged to IMPAX. 65. Defendants' exercise of control over those inventory items denied IMPAX its property rights in those items and denied IMPAX the ability to possess or use those items. 66. Defendants' acted without the consent of IMPAX, and without lawful justification. 67. Defendants' actions constitute a conversion of IMPAX's personal property. 68. Because customers are likely to continue to make payments pursuant to the fraudulent invoices issued by Defendants which IMPAX will be unable to process, Defendants conversion of IMPAX's personal property is continuing in nature. 69. IMPAX has been damaged by the Defendants' actions. WHEREFORE, IMPAX demands that judgment be entered in its favor and against the Defendants in the amount of the value of the items converted, plus costs and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1530, IMPAX 10 requests that an accounting be made of all the funds deposited into, maintained, and/or withdrawn from any account held by any of the Defendants. COUNT II: UNJUST ENRICHMENT (against all Defendants) 70. Paragraphs one (1) through sixty-nine (69) above are incorporated herein by reference. 71. Defendants received a benefit from the items that were taken from IMPAX's inventory and from the payments from IMPAX's customers that were misdirected to the Impaks Account. 72. Defendants have been unjustly enriched by the its possession of and sale of the items from IMPAX's inventory and by its possession and retention of the payments from IMPAX's customers. WHEREFORE, IMPAX requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendants in the amount that Defendants were unjustly enriched by the items taken from IMPAX's inventory and the payments taken from IMPAX's customers, plus costs and the Court is requested to grant such other relief as is just and equitable under the circumstances. COUNT III: MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION (against all Defendants) 73. Paragraphs one (1) through seventy-two (72) above are incorporated herein by reference. 74. Trade secrets and confidential information of businesses are protected as a matter of law. 11 .~ 75. The confidential information and trade secrets of IMPAX (relating to IMPt1X's customer information) which were wrongfully obtained by Defendants are entitled to legal and equitable protection. 76. IMPAX reasonably believes that Defendants have used and/or intend to use confidential information as to the identities to IMPAX's customers and other relevant information about them. 77. Defendants' use of the confidential information is a violation of common law governing confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets. 78. Defendants' use of IMPAX's confidential information has caused and/or will cause immediate and irreparable harm to IMPAX, since it will cause IMPAX to lose customers through unfair and illegal use of confidential information. 79. Defendants' use of IMPAX's confidential information has caused and/or will cause immediate and irreparable harm to IMPAX since it will diminish or otherwise harm the goodwill IMPAX has built with its customers. 80. IMPAX will continue to suffer losses until Defendants are enjoined from using IMPAX's confidential information and trade secrets. WHEREFORE, IMPAX requests that an injunction be issued barring Defendants from using or revealing IMPAX's confidential information and trade secrets and that Defendants be ordered to pay compensatory damages and costs, and the Court is requested to grant such other relief as is just and equitable under the circumstances. 12 ;,,~ r COUNT IV: BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (against Patrick Noga) 81. Paragraphs one (1) through eighty (80) above are incorporated herein by reference. 82. Defendant Noga has violated the common law fiduciary duty of loyalty and his duties as an officer in the corporation in that, while employed as the Vice President of Operation for IMPAX, Noga took items of IMPAX's inventory, misdirected IMPAX's customer payments, and misappropriated IMPAX's confidential information and trade secrets. 83. As a consequence of Defendant Noga's breach of his fiduciary duty, IMPAX has suffered damages and will continue to suffer fmancial loss. WHEREFORE, IMPAX requests that an injunction be issued barring Defendant Noga from using or revealing any confidential information or trade secrets obtained from IMPAX, and demands that Defendant Noga be ordered to pay compensatory damages, plus costs. IMPAX further requests that the Court grant such other relief as is just and equitable under the circumstances. COUNT V: UNFAIR COMPETITION (against all Defendants) 84. Paragraphs one (1) through seventy-nine (79) above are incorporated herein by reference. 85. Defendants' actions and Defendants' prior and/or future use of IMPAX's confidential information constitute unfair methods of competition. 86. As a consequence of Defendants' unfair competition, IMPAX has suffered and will continue to suffer financial loss. 13 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands that judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendants in the amount of IMPAX's financial losses from Defendants' unfair competition, plus costs, and punitive damages. Plaintiff requests that an injunction issue barring Defendants from using or revealing IMPAX's confidential information and trade secrets and ordering that Defendant Impaks, Inc. be immediately dissolved, and IMPAX further requests that the Court grant such other relief as is just and equitable under the circumstances. COUNT VI: FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION (against all Defendants) 87. Paragraphs one (1) through eighty-six (86) above are incorporated herein by reference. 88. One or more of the Defendants made material misrepresentations to IMPAX, including but not limited to the following: (a) statements that Pennlantic intended to purchase the assets of IMPAX, when Pennlantic had no intention of purchasing the assets. (b) statements that Pennlantic would pay IMPAX for the office machines taken from IMPAX's inventory, when Pennlantic did not intend to pay for all of the machines taken from the inventory. (c) statements that Pennlantic was selling the IMPAX office machines to Pennlantic customers, when in actuality the machines were being sold to IMPAX customers. (d) statements to IMPAX employees and IMPAX customers that customer payments owed to IMPAX should be placed in the Impaks Account, when the payments should have been provided to IMPAX. 89. The misrepresentations were material and fraudulent. 14 _~ 90. The misrepresentations were made with the intent to induce IMPAX to continue negotiating the sale of IMPAX's assets, while office machines, parts, and other inventory items and proceeds from IMPAX sales and service were taken and/or misappropriated. 91. IMPAX justifiably relied on the misrepresentations. 92. IMPAX has suffered financial losses as a proximate result of its reliance on the Defendants' fraudulent statements. WHEREFORE, IMPAX demands that judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendants in the amount of the financial losses it suffered as a result of the fraudulent misrepresentations, plus costs, punitive damages, and such other relief as this Court deems proper. COUNT VII: CONSPIRACY (against all Defendants) 93. Paragraphs one (1) through ninety-two (92) above are incorporated herein by reference. 94. Upon information and belief, one or more of the Defendants conspired and agreed with one or more others: to convert 1MPAX's personal property as alleged in Count I; to enrich themselves unjustly as alleged in Count II; to misappropriate IMPAX's confidential information and trade secrets as alleged in Count III; to engage in unfair competition as alleged in Count V; and to defraud IMPAX as alleged in Count VI. 95. As a result of Defendants conspiracy, IMPAX has been damaged as described in the above counts. 15 m~m~~. _ a WHEREFORE, IMPAX demands that judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendants in the amount of 1MPAX's losses as a result of Defendants' conspiracy, plus costs and such other relief as this Court deems proper. COUNT VIII: BREACH OF CONTRACT (against Pennlantic) 96. Paragraphs one (1) through ninety-five (95) above are incorporated herein by reference. 97. Pennlantic purchased certain items from IMPAX and agreed to pay the sum of twenty thousand, four hundred forty-eight dollars and seven cents ($20,448.07) for those items. A true and correct copy of the relevant IMPAX aged receivables showing this amount due is attached hereto as Exhibit "E". 98. Despite demand, Pennlantic has failed and refirsed to make payment. 99. Additional amounts are owed for service work, delivery costs, and other administrative costs incur-ed. 100. IMPAX has suffered fmancial losses as a result of Pennlantic's failure to pay the amounts owed. WHEREFORE, IMPAX demands that judgment be entered against Defendant Pennlantic for the amounts owed pursuant to their contracts with IMPAX, plus costs and such other relief as the Court deems proper. COUNT IX: EQUITABLE RELIEF (against all Defendants) 101. Paragraphs one (1) through one hundred (100) above are incorporated herein by reference. 16 ~,;~, i, 102. As a result of some of the wrongful actions described above, the Impaks Account has a balance of twenty-six thousand, seventy-nine dollars and forty-eight cents ($26,079.48). A true and correct copy of an Account Statement from the Impaks Account is attached hereto as Exhibit "F." 103. The funds in the Impaks Account rightfully belong to IMPAX. 104. Upon information and belief, the Impaks Account and the funds maintained therein are subject to the control of the Defendants. 105. Despite demand, Defendants have failed and refused to pay to IMPAX the funds in the Impaks Account. 106. Upon information and belief, Impaks has no other assets and would be unable to repay the funds owed to IMPAX if the fund in the Impaks Account were dissipated. 107. IMPAX will be irreparably harmed if the funds in the Impaks Account are dissipated. 17 WHEREFORE, IMPAX requests that an injunction be entered freezing the funds in the Impaks Account and barring the Defendants from dissipating the funds in the Impaks Account, and IMPAX further requests that the Court grant such other relief as is just and equitable under the circumstances. McNEES WALLACE & NLTRICK LLC By Del o M. Lantz, Esq. I.D. No. 21401 Kimberly M. Colonna I.D. No. 80362 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 232-8000 Attorneys for Plaintiff 18 VERIFICATION Subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities, I hereby certify that I am the Secretary of Impax, Inc., and am authorized to verify the foregoing document on its behalf. I further certify that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. IMPAX, INC. Holly Seac Dated: EXHIBIT "A" MAY-ll-01 FRI 03:54 PM GENIE ELECTRONICS INC FAX N0. 7172445131 P•1¢I~oz 05/11/01 FRI SS:55 Fab 117T51d045 «, ,.,~~/ Canon Gestetner COPIERS FACSIMILES DIGITAL DUpLICATIDN DIGTAL IMAGING May 11, 2001 lulr. Aob Snyder (xEC, lnc. 710 Wise Ave. Red Lion, PA 17356 Pursuant ko our conversation today it is our intent to purchase and your intent to sell t11e assets of Tmpax, Ine., as it pertains to the copier business and finther described below. Tile closing would be on the 3 ! 51 otMay, 2001 or as soon as legal and financial counsel can produce acceptable documents to buyer and seller. Our proposal is as follows: 1. We would put $75,000 (severity-hve thousand dollars) as a down payment then pay you $23,500 (twenty three thousand five hundred dollars) per month for a period of 36 months. Buyer would make every effort to complete pay off earlier than 36 months if at all possible. This would include: 2. • All of the Customer base • All Accounts receivable • Impax customer equipment leases and existing service contracts. + gffice equipment, files, computers, furniture, telephones • Business phone numbers • All current parts & supplies • 'Tools & manuals CopierlFax/Printer Inventory plus obsolete supply inventory would be wholesaled as quickly as practicable (target within 90 days} and all proceeds forwarded to you. Buyer agrees to put forth best effort in assisting seller in disposing of inventory at reasonable prices and further agree to Pat I~loga overseeing the timely disposition of said inventory. 30 N. Fifth Street l.emoyno, PA 17043 (717)761-7325 0~ SOD.dBB-3545 Fox: (71717314045 MAY-II-OI FRI 03 54 PM GENIE ELECTRONICS [NC FAX N0. 7172445131 85/11/81 FRI 17:58 FA, 71TT7S40d5 4. All receivables would becotlle sole property of buyer at closing. Seller would receivC all payments up to closing date. Buyer agrees to take responsibility far all maintenance contracts in fares at closing. SCI1VfMAR1': Under our above proposal y0a would receive $23,500 X 3Cr $846,000 Plus down payment of 7$ 5,000 For a TQTAL return to you ~~~,000 If this is acceptable please sig~1 and return to us for immediate implemerrtation. Vcry tru~~~_ ' (.arty Bzxler~~~~~__ !!//~~"` president Robert Snyder President Ronald I<igsebeny Secretary/Treasurer Date Winless Date, Print Name P. 03 ~ 002 EXHIBIT "B" r~~ 1Ut,. 7.2901 5 ~ 59RM •, /b/. tV0.127 P.3i3 canon Gestc~r~r CpMERS FACSIMILES pIG17AL DUPLICATION DIGITAL IMAGIFIG May 16, 2001 Mi. Patrick Nam ?A6tl.Idaliford' • York, PA 1740;; ' _ . ,.. - ' , . Iu regards, ¢o out'conversagpn today conCertun& the Purchase v£tba as5ats of Irinpa~,.Ipc= as i; ' peatains'to •the copra; btisiitess, .X •waated to reiterate some of the items s6. you warild have a copy iat.hatid. . 1. , . It is our•p1a1i 7>Q organize a.new~CoLp®tation•fot the pttrgllasq end operation of the'cop~et busintss;in: York. This Corporation would have only three stocldiolders; P'atricl: Noga, ' Larry Bixler and Ronald Roseberiy. ' • 2. ~n the organizafiiottaY ?rieatiiug the following issues wllL be:'addressed and itnplemettte¢ by. dte st4clRbalders: ' A., Pat Noga will become President cif the new Catpotation, ~'Y Bixler Vice President and Ronald Roseberry Secretary/Tt~urer. $. Each ahatr~olderwill hold.an equal awnber of sharers and each has an equal voice in the oPer9lion of the new Corporation. C. Noga•s salary quill be approximately $400 firer Week as previously agreed upan.by ; the shareholders. •D: Reasoltable ertpenses for business related fravcl, etc. will be provided including a . car. ' E. Flealth Insurance coulotensutate wide that provided by %mpax will be provided to . _.... • _.... ,_. .. Nogg. .. .. - ~ - .. ,Pall have. tried to cgvet the important issues is this •letter. Obviously there are ma>1,y .oUier issues ' that we will work on and decide together, Your input is vital to a succe;s5fui operation and we ere couuting on your expertise. and effort to accomplish the goals we have all.stated to be .our pursuit. Lsrsy end I ate vel;y excited with the adventure and aae lookigg fotwaed fo a, great and mutually regarding enterprise •sad personal friendship: . ,Sincerely, ~ ., , • ' Ronald Roseberry 30 N. FiRh Street '• .Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 761.7325 or 800.488-3545 Faz: (717) 731.4p45 Z0Q ~8b'ON 6005 T0i60iL0 ,~„~ EXHIBIT "C" 4~AY'~''~2401 Microfilm Entity Number Filed with the Depa t of Sta e; Secretary of the nwealth FP- ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION-FOR RROFIT OF ~lyl P~lXS inc. Name of Corporaton A TYPE OF CORPORATION INDICATED BELOW Indicate type of domestic corporation: Business-stock (IS Pa.CS.' 1306) .-Management (15 Pa.C.S.' 2702) Business-nbnsiock (15 Pa.CS. ' 2)02) -Professional (15 Pa:CS. ' 2903) Business-statutory close (15 Pa.CS.' 2303) _ Insurance (15 Pd.CS.' 3101) Cooperative (15 Pa.C.S.' 7102) DSC8:15-1306/2102/2303/2702/2903/3}Ol/7102A (Rev 91) In compliance with the requirements of the applicable provisions of 15 Pa.C.S. (relating to corpora$ons' End unincorporated associations) the undersigned, desiring to incorporate a corporation for profit hereby, sfdte(s) #hat: l . The-name of the corporation is: _ ~ M PA KS. ~~~ _ 2. The (a) address of this corporation's initial registered office in this Commonwealth or (b) name of itrcdmm~rciai registered office provider and the county of venue is: Number and Street City State 7p County (bJ c/o: Name of Commercial Registered Office Provider Caunty For a corporation represented by a commercial registered office provider, the county in (b) shalt be deertef]=the county in which the corporation is located for venue and official publication purposes. 3. The corporation is incorporated under the provisions of the Business Corporation Law of 1988. 4. The aggregate number of shares authorized is: 3~ (other provisions, if any, attach 8 1/2-X' 11 sheet) 5. The name and address, including number and street, if any, of each incorporator is: Name Address y 7// 1. 1 Zd01 PA DEPT. DF STATE MAY 31 2001 ~, _ ,,, ~: 20~~ DSC3c1S1306/21fY272303/2702/29C3/3101/71G2A(Rev91)-2 - - - - b. ihespecified•effectivedate,'rfany,is: month day year hour; if any ~, 7. Additidno( provisions of the articles, if any, attach an 81 /2 x 11 sheet. 8. Statiftdry dose` corporation only: Neither the corporation nor any shareholder sill make an;pffenng ofi an"y of-`its shares of any class that would cansfrtute a "public offering'°:within the megnmg ofale Seci3ri}ies ACt of 1933 (15 US.C. ' 77aet Seq.). 9. Coopeiatiye corporations only: (Complete and strike outinapplicabie Perm) Ttte cammoh bortd~f membership , among.its.members/shareholders is: ~~,,,,((/~//~ iN 7ESTIKACSNy `/JHEREOF, the,~, i~nc~/orporator(s) has (have) signed these Articles of iricoiparotion tFi's- ~~rr day o , ~. . ~~ .,. ;; ~,~ EXHIBIT "D" ,G»~~.~ ,UR%U8~-O1 FRI 08:18 FAY 7177J140~(5 IMPAKS INC. DZ'JISION OF PENNLRrJTTC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 717-846-8004 X04232 , WARWICK SCHOOL bISFRICT 8 401 MAPLE ST ~ WARWTGK, PA L L T O INVOICE 05/08:01 ~ ~. S1S072 .• MTKE OHARA 1002545 06/08/01 ~• ~ ~ ~aozo 5 K '~~ ..BL 76207165 NET PLEASE DETACH 7NIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITR YOUR AEMtTTANCE LC?W gT>TEenEaT ~fiafgaw~m OS~`01 FRI OS:a5 FA% i177a14045 ~ 018 - -°° /+ I~VQ~CE ~ ~ '- -IMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND f-iVENUE O6/OS/O1 ~ ,. """ YORK, PA 17404 515070 _. ~. ~ 717-846 8004 ~, . 3 B B56 N I YORY., L L GEORGE ST PA 17401 T O NE7 MIKE PAPA '®~-a~ O6J08/02 .~ ~ - .4 252.70 _ INVOICE TOTALb PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OFlNVOlCE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 1~/t PER MOMH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18',61 APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. 004331 _ 06/08/01 • ~ ~ ., S BIG 156 N H `(ORK , P GEORGE ST PA 17401 " y,. ` ~~; e ~ri' 515070 .• . ~ T O TANK YOU FOR YOUR E3USINESS ~ .` i. 1393;; PI FdSE nerdcH rH/s BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN tYITH YOUR REMITTANCE 0 O8/O1 FRI 08: a6 FAS 71iiJ11045 Y 'bR F ~~= . ~IMPAKS INC DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 717-846-8004 3 L DUNBAR INDUSTRIES B 6780 LINCOLN HTGHWAY ~ TI-i0MA5VILLE, PA 17364 L T O ~NVac>E 06/08/01 .. 515071 •• • . LYNN • • ~: ®06/08/01 ,. ~ - , Viols NE7 1 1:00 99999999 IN\lCIIC'F Tf1T~1 r'> I. :i - 24 c'65.~. .5: ~. k' I r:~ l~ ..:, ,. a.' I .ta ' ~~ 1 C t'_ I.. 4~ :j'. i _ ~-. F PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THgNK YOU' ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 1 ~/: PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18°:) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. 004332 06/08!02 • • • .: S15071 g DUN6AR INDUSTRIES •' • H 6780 LINCOLN HIGHWAY I THOMASVII,.LE, PA 17364 P T O ANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS •-~,•. s ~' ~lnlTJ~i113934 N°~^ 1i sN Yti "~~` •1 PLEASE DETACH THJS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WJTH YOUR REMITTANCE LCPVJ STFTEMENT ' ~ { -4 1 ~ .1 e a' i ' ` 5 - ' ~ ~~ ~~ _ _ .. ~` . Jf ~ i . I I I • 1 j... _, ~ h ~ ' ; ' I ` " Ii+ 1 1 ' i ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ail ~ ' ~ o i s I 5. i ~ ~ .. '~ ~~°~O1 ~FRI 05:08 F9X i1i7a140-15 .~ IMPA}:S INC. DIVISION OF PF_NNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, PR 17404 717-846-8004 8 ~02DWEASTERNKBLVD 1 YORK, PA 17402 L L T O INVOICE ~06: 08/01 .. ~ _ _ ' ~ 515078 MELISSA - ~ ~: ,~ ®06/OS/01 ~. ~ ~ ~ 026 NET 1 1.00 99999999 i. 170 .2:1-~+ ~S ,tai ~. ,, .: i,. l 4 ~'..i . , 1' y' ~I. S: c,.000 O:Ob _[ - --TO-_'?~ 186.42 _- INVOICE TOTALb PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOUI ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 1~/~ PER MOMH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18 / 1 APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. 004319 .... G6/08i01 • ~ s ~ n ~. ~_ ~ ~ 515078 6 ~02DSWEASTERNKBLVD p~~ hi YORK, PA 17402 I ~ . ,. P T O ANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINE55 13941 PLEASE DETACH THIS 80TTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE ~CPw $TaTEMENY 0 ,'0801 FRI 08: J8 FAY 7177x14045 ~ 025 ~ ~ ~ INVOICE ~ :il.. =.:'r. 'rte .,."'~, u~A IMPAKS ING. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE Ob/08/01 ~ ~~ YORK, PA 17404 ' 515077 s-. - e ~ 717-846-8004 BRIAN s _ ~ ~ U6/08101 N M r C H • _ ' B RD S MILL BOHN 740 I REU LION, PA 17356 L L ~ ' 7 O NET r e . tern , LJ. _ _ _9tv--_Part._..NP. ..._.;.. ,Descriptl_o_n' -- -- _, - ---- -- _ _~ _.iy . .-- erica"-r.: - ' " ... 1 .. 1 .00 99999999 TEKTRONZC 859;' ~ ,CYAN TON;E~fii2{ 4,~ ' { ` 9~8,,50~ ir. 98 50~ 2 1 -00 99999999 TEKTRONIC $50, MAGENTA' TO'I~,E,R , ~: F .,9~8,.'S0 ,;' I ' 9,8.50x' I , r ', ~ I i~' C ~ ~i~. :f: ~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ (I,r r ~ ~ { i t~ ~ . . .. _. Urfa - I ~ is ~. , .. .. ' ., `. BFI ~I ~ r '~ f r -. ' ~ ,.. ' i I ,I ,~.~{ _ I ~ ~~ rl P. 4'~ r. ~. r ~ I _ __,~ - ZOt~S.PJZ INVOICE TOTAL PAYMENT DUE UPON AECElPT OF 1NV01CE. THANK YOU! AGGOUNTS DUE 70 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CIiARGE OF 1'fz PER MONTH (WI.IICIi IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 78Y I APPLIED TO PAST DUE AGG0UNT5. <_ ._ __ 004335 Ob/08/01 - ~ ~~ 515077 S KAThiY'S CONSIGNMENT '- ~ ' ' H 740 BOHN'S MILL RD I RED LION, PA 17356 ~ ,: P - , T d 13940 ANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS "'~`'""y~`1'~r'1=i?~i• ' PLEASE DETACH TNlS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE LGE'/~/ SiATEMENi „_ Qx'p8;D1 ~FR1: 08:38 FA% 7177311U95 ~D`1 ~ ,~ ~~ INVOICE ~~ IMPAKS:INC_ DIVISION O~ PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE 06/08/01 • •• YORK, PA 17404 515076 r 717-846-8004 X04137 KD'J OR'1"HOPEDICS B YORK ,PpgASA7402ALLEY RD L L T O ~~SARA .• Ob/08/01 ., • • ~ •~ SHARP SF'21ZU %6b042Z6 NET PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF 1NV0ICE. THANK YOUf ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINgNCE CHARGE OF 14t PEA MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18 =) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. 5-004138 B-004137 06/08/01 J15070 S KDV ORTHOPEDICS '- H 2901 PLEASANT VALLEY RG ~ YORK, PA 1740?. •. ~ P .. T O ANK YOU F-OR '(OUR BUSINESS 13939 ALFASE OETACH THlS BOTTOM PORTION ANO RETURN WJTH YOUR REMITTANCE , cw srnrEMeNi 06 OS/O1 FRI 08:37 F'.A% 717731sOd5 ~~ . IMPA!<5 INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 717-846-8004 • ~ 4 LIGHTHOUSE COMMUNITY CHURCH B 147 FIRST AVE. ( PO BOX 345 L RED LION, PA 17356 L T O iNVpICE 06/08/01 . r. 515075 .• PASTOR BROWN . ~ c 06/08/01 ~t • >t 2!GZ3 ,r SHARP ~<46L 46219678 NE7 ~~~~.~r_U tem __ ~ty_.~.Part__No._____, Dercrption ~_ .___ : ._._ 1 ___ ~ ~ Prce.;z, , ' s_ 'i~. . 1 2.OU 0 99999999 M ISC 51-tAR,P 3062 TONER 5DL 2 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ O 00~ I `~ 2 2.0 . 5 O : - ~ 17. 50 E L , , ,. .~... ~ ..'` -.t ~ I k- f4 .gyp - I - - - ~ ~ a~ "i, FI ~ f 1 r ~ 'i". , I ~.~ ~ I. Ci 6 ._1 I . I? ~ . - ~ a . r a `. i. '~ - ~ a ~ ' I .. ~ - ~ _ [ I ~ r ~- t 9,: „.~, 0 00 35 00~ '.l.. rl t ~f l .=:C:. 1 ..~ 1 _. ;. a 'y1 [. _!'~ V.VVV 3D.0O 0.00 O.OG 35.00 INVOICE TOTAL_~> ` PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU. ACCOUNTS OUE 70 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 11/z PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN. ANNUAL RATE OR 18 %) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. 004131 06/08/01 • . . ., g LIGHTHOUSE COMMUNITY CHURCH H 147 FIRST AVE. ( PO BOX 345 P REb LION, PA 17356 T O ANK YOIJ FDR YOUR BUSINESS S15075 ~ ~. I 1:+938 PLEASE DETACH TNfS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WfTH YOUR REMITTANCE LC?W STATEMENT .-;xme}smxa.. ~~ __ ,08/01 FRI 08: a7 FA% 7177514015 ~PF~KS INC DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC ',, ~ 495 MARYLAND AVENUE ' YORK, PA 17404 - 717-246-8004 704•.3 - , ASCOR ' B YORKNOPAH 17403T L l T O INVOICE 06/08/01 a ~: 515074 ~. ~ ~ AMY/KATHY • ! ' -' . c .~,.,.,~ O6 / 08 / O 1 (~ozz IVET tern.-- QtY . _ Part_ No _ . _:__ Descri~itio:n __--•- _ 4"~'1 '1.-61 h i. ~` -~- _ -- ` "PYice _", - 1 1.00 C3906A HP LASERJE'f SL ~ ~ .. _ I. ` , ~~ .56 19'5 ~ ~ . S 6 95 2 1 .00 99999999 NP LASERJET, ,2100 ~ "~ / I I ' '.101 75 11, ~ , , 101 .75~' , ; 7 i . .i ._i: t ,,, , I ~i~a. 1 ii • . . 1 II .. ' ~ . I ~ I.: , I .t)i. r. q 1' ! t 1 1 P a:¢ e I i I ~ t ' 1 c .,_I, ~ ~ J .'. Y.' I I 1' .. '. I 1 a . ,: ( ,.. ~ w~ I I. .ti I ~ .. ' . i' ~~ 1 A p 7~ p!t: I 1 ' I ' . I . I'-{~ j~l ~I ' I I ~ ' t _" ' I t. S ': F { 1 C I 1 • ~ .. 14 4 I 6. .. ~; ~.'. 1 k i I ;. p I' L M ( [( .d ~ ~ I ' ' I .1' I C \ ' d,q ` ~I a! 4 • - ~ .-,.~ 168.23 INVOICE TOTAL[* PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ~' ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHP.RGE OF 74: PER MOMH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 19°;) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. 'i _ I 004334 ....._ ~ ,.~ 06108:01 ASCOR ~. 51507~i g ~ H 120 NORTH STREET ( YORK, PA 17403 P T O ''~, ANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS 1 i'il. 139:37 e PLEASE DETACH THIS 80TTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE I raw crarvnnFrrr 06/0,8/01 FRI 03:37 FAl 7177J14095 ~~~ IMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK.. PA 17404 717-846-8004 ~ y ~ KINSLEY CONSTRUCTION B 2700 WATER 57 ~ YORK, PA 17405 L L T O 1 12.00 99999999 INVOICE 06/08/01 ~. 515073 ._ , PAM FIRESTONE - r -A ~o6/oa/ol .' i.. i DescrlPticn _, _,_ _ II ::~, .. ,: Pr1cE~ ° _ _ __ . I _ VO'TQCOP'f PAPER 8 5 X 31 I 38 3 ~". . t } -- ~ t ' ~ ` _ , , 1: ' ,.: : 1. ;l ~;~. 1 ~ .. L P I ~. `' i .. - _ I _ - ' ' ` . ~ a l I ` . .. . I , _1 i '~.' ~ ' I .1.: . " 1 _ I ~ I ~. I~ 7 .I ~. .. .. 1 ~ i a I I t .. •1 `1 it i i.. u i'_ ~ ~ I :~i; ~Ei •C:'- ' ~ - I I . .. '. ' .a. I I i ` I _ ~ ~.Ii ~t. . r ^l = 1 kt ~ ~ it .` I i t, . IL. a ~- - i i ?1 1 ..:I ~ __ _I I I j INVOICE TOTALC> PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF /NVOfCE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 10 OAYS FOILOWINO PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF t ~Ix PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18%) APPLIED TO PAST DUEACCOUNTS. 004333 06/08/01 ~ • .. 51507 S KINSLEY CONSTRUCTION •' • ~ H 2700 WATER 5T i YORK, PA 17405 _ P ~ ~li T 1,., 0 Gi ` I 13936 ANK YOU FOR YOUP. BUSINESS ~ ~, PLEASE DETACH THtS BOTTOM PORTlONAND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTAHCE LcPw sT<TEM=_NT O6~O.9iO1 FRI 05:39 F9S 7177314045 ---, IMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE 'CORK, PA 17404 717-846-8004 .. J0430E ERIE FINANCIAL GROUP B 40`30 W MARKET ST ~ YORK. PA 17404-5932 L T O INVOICE :8_ :'::a ::::4'.x.71. ~[((. 05/20/01 ~ ~, ~REC1102 .- R EDUEST ED B Y ' '. PIO NUM BER DA TE COM PLETE D D:'I ,' U S L., A 428030058 NET - ~ j w .. , ,, 1 1 .00 RECUR/MAN ~ Maintenance Agreement 8~.111n!g, ,' , 270 09';!.~ I 27U OQ~! I ~ t ',k. I 1 YEAR MAINT- AGREEMENT STARTING O5/20/q'~,'ENDING,'~ 05j~0/~02 yI, COPY ALLOWANC E ® 30;000/QTR - ~OVERACES ®~ _.0,09 ~ i Current meter 05!;20/2001 344505 .'I ` '~ ?; Previous mete r 0,5/20!2001 _.;.244505 :',,, ~ ' °,k~~~~~ .°' _ r 7ata1 copies this -bi~l1 0 I I •' , c x;` i' I'1' Ili . _-...__.- ..._____ __ ____ __ -i r - k ~ ~ - Basic charge ~'S t - ~$ 17,0 00 ~ 1 f' C 'I ~sl .. BASE CHaRGE ~ $270.00' ~ OVERAGES TO':HE 'BhILLED DUA.R,TEE2`L~t ~ ''I - -i 'I L I i i r~} ' i ~ ~ -Ili 5 .7 . 9 5 .1 ~ ~ . , V 1 ~_ . ,~ ~ ~ .1 - ' hp. I t.Na ' I + [ ' 5 I' V. r i ~ _ aif. +_ ' ' . . -6 ~ q_ ~. _ - - - -~~ 286.20 _ -_ _..,. INVOICE TOTAL[> PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE tU DAYS FOLLOWING PUflCHASE. FlNANCE CHARGE OF 1 Ut PER MONTH IVJHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18°'0) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. 004306 _ ._ - _ .._ .._ _ _... - - - ~ _ ~ 05/20/01 • .~ g ERIE FII~6ANGIAL GROUP H 4090 W P1aRKET ST I YORK, PA 17401-5932 P T O ~- - ~, ~ REC1102 f, ~, I ANK YOU FOR '(pUR BUSINESS PLEASE PETACN THIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE 13844 LGf'UI STATEME4T ~~ _ ~% IMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNL_AI~ITIC: q95 MARYLAND AVENUE YOP.K , PA 1740~J 717-84E.-8C?P4 rNVOrcE .~.. _.a. ,~.: ,r ..W. ~.~ oh; c~!ci • ~• n'~ 515 0~ ~. ~ BETTY .: dvz•icevru.i~.~~ ~F_~/GE~!'11 IUDGE F EiJNED'r ~ g YORK: COVNT`f COUf.TH0U5t i 28 E MARKET ST - 2ND rL00R ~ 'fORK , PA 1?~?O1 L T _ _ ~ 8(-53682 ;' . ~ NET N,ER CAUSING SPOTS~ON COPIES '.CHANGED TCI CP_.RTRIq GE FUND TONER ~~: ~, _ _, . APTRTDGE ~ CHECKED OPERATION '"~ "° `~' ~'" '~"'~'" `~~ --~-^-*fr " ' " . rt ~~ ~ Pr If~ ~t~Part No Descr~t~iorr tem ,: H 1 1 00 LBh -.~ Labar~°~Hdta~s~--~^~.:a.~, ~ ~ t. ~_ei - i3 '~ P Y- _. z 'y.r"~'3eq'~~'sA'-~ iz l ~ Y t}1~, YD`S ".4 ~yi. Y ` ' y ^-^. .ky.__._....~.Mwb MwxiMx ' . ati~ ~ il Yn '~ ~ i~u ~ ~ Vl'_~. ~ ~ e`YJ~e, * ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 !x ' m t ~..._._.~_ . ~! 0 T -E'~~lh~ ...iX I ~ . a r-'r~u4.~ryny.e-.....o- ._. ~~~~, rn ~€ .C7 _. - ~x' a x ~ 'k z "'~ ~ ~ ~ -•.t---_--, y ~,, ~s- k ~ te _ ~«n.... i~ .t:.~y' _ _ •+d .Ol I ~ I I I INVOICE TOTALb _ PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ~` ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 7Vz PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18 /) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. - 60430_ _ _ OE~/0~'; 01. • . . ., JUDGE KENNEDY S15Ub9 ~• - r S 'FORK COUNTI' COURTHOUSE H 2E3 E MAP,KET ST -- 2NL` f=1.OOR I 'fORK , PA 174OI ~ . . P ..... T O 13916 THANK YOU FOR YGUR BUSINESS " `~ u u a o- PLEASE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE --~£~ ICPW STATEMENT 0 1ai01 R'EP 10:-11 FeS iliTJ14045 ~. IMPAKS TNC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 y y 717-845-8004 ~043C2 8 53ZMAZNFSTERAL HOME ~ GLEN ROCK, PA 17327 L T O NET ~ ~ ~~ 2EPLACED LISTEU FARTS Ah1D Ab,7U57ED EXPOSURE '~ I` ' aern_......Qt-Y_' ..._Pa_.t.._No .- --~- DescrlPtion ------ --- - ~ I `. 1 ,.:...t?Cice ~ i 1 1 .QO 38000925 DRUM' X430/2318/23161 '- t '' 1371 90 " 137 `9~y: a 2 1.00 38815102 DEIV;BLK MITA 1605/1855/2155 "c 1 :T8 75."N 28 75:. 3 1 .00 33013179 4 1 :50 L6R CL,EA. KING BLADE M, 1605/i855y21S~ ., Labor' H urs ~ 1,~ '7t5t,~~. ' 13 75 ' o ~. ' 96 dAA.- ~ 144 001 . I ' - z - ; I - 1 ~ it -i: i 'i .`, ~ o , '1 .. i. ~pl ~., , '~4 ' . I, ' - . ~1.j 9 _ ~ , 'i f ~ ' ' ~ i,. i 1 !~- i. i ~ ,u ~1#•~ ` ' '~~ ~ ~ ,. .. ~ .. ~ .~~~ ~ ~ a - ~ - . - i u a 1 a ., ~ - p1~ 1 1 Y', , . .. i ` I . . !I "d' , ' , ~.` _. 5.000 0 00 324.40 19.47 343 87 ItVVOICE TOTAL . PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOUI ACCOUNTS DUE 10 D.4Y5 FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF nJi PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18 %) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. . ; Gb713: 01 , S GEIPLE FUNERAL HONIE ~~ ~ ' y 515158 H 53 MAIN "1' I GLEN ROCK, PA 17327 P T 343.8'71 O 14005 ANK YOU FOR YOUR 8US1NE55 INVOICE .IL .e~.. ~CJ~ ~C:'r "":i: 06 '13/01 ': _ ~ ~ 51`'15? • , ~~~''; MATT s~ , 05/02/01 ~J 0 21 NA$STGNED ` .~ MITA GC1855 JJ3b072032l-t PLEASE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE ~ cow -n-ri..uur fJ 6j 11/01 t~F'ED 10:-11 F-~S i1i73140~5 IMPt~KS INC. OIVISIGN OF PENNLAN7TC 495 MARYLAND avENUE 'FORK, PA 17404 ~ -. . 717-846-8004 )04089 g GASTROENTOLUGY' ASSOC. OF YORK ( 1224 S QUEEN ST ~ YORK, PA 17403 L T O INVOICE . ~, 06/13/01 .• -. .51515b - r . c ~ ~ OSi 09/01 4022 NAS5L6NED ' SHARP F02950M 125155 NET JOISE, -OUND CA 'TONER CAP,TRIDGE MACHINE' NOISF_ .: INSTALLED _ ~,,..,." .I NEI-~ SONER I ., ,. " v `y AR'f_AND CHECKED OPERATION - , "?' tem Qty_--. _Fart No._.. :., ~: De~crieti.on -_~.:_. _ . . ~ :,_,,._ r .. . - ....._. ~PrB1ce, I ' 1 1:00 99999999 . - I .. . TONER , ,- ' , 85 11 .2.' .'" 2 1.5o LBF, Labor Hours I ; t ; I , , , p-,00."~ I , t. .: ~., i t ..i , - I . " 1 ~ , P' I ~ @.pi I ._ _ I ~ I I Y I y ' ~ t , ; . .I ~ x I. - F' I. i I i , t ' ~... ,,..I ' ~ - - ! I I l ~! ' .I ~i 89.12 0:60' i .. ~~`: &._, I <~' 6 9: F I '. F 6-ooG I o.oo I 89.12 I 5.35 i~NVOiCETQTALC? 94.47 PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE THANK YOJJI ACCOUNTS OUE 70 DAYS FOLLOWING PURGHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF i V: PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANt•IUkL RATE OR t8%) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNT_ S_. _ _ ~ ~ 5-004090, B~004089 ~ „ 06/13/~il S GASTROENTOLOGY ASSOC. OF YORK H 1224 5 OUEEN ST 1 YORK, PA 17403 P T O •• ~ . ~i;156 .• ' 194.47 ,. IANK YOU FOR YOUR 6USINESS ~YLLL7113~ 14006 PLEASE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTJON AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE ~GPW cTATEl,1ENT OJ3/la/O1 V{'ED 10:-10 F.4Y 71ii3140~15 IMPAY.S INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 • - • 717-846-8004 )04251 g YORK COLLEGE OF PENNSYLVANIA ~ COUNTRY CLUB RD L YORK, PA 17403 L T O NET :LEANED PAPER FEED CLUTCH & 'ROCCERS . ~REPLACEb ' UPPER FUSE,R,. , " r l I ` ?" ~ • ' 20LLER GENERAL CLEANING 8 -CHECK,FD pPERATION ". ` I ' ' - *:am Y...... Part....~lo ._~.: ..._ Qt ._OgscTipt.or~ __:-.__._ . ._.._~ . -.. sPY'ice"`j! j d. . ~; ~ I ~ ~ 1 1 .00 99999999 UPPER FUSER ROLLER ' KIT- x I "89 :05' ;`; " 89:~O5i ' ' 2 1 .00 L$R Labor'. Hours ~: • q.r ~ ~ 'S°I:0 59 ..0,0. 1 f ~ , , .1:1.: ~~ :6 ~, t _ a. .fir 1 al+'. i - .. ~ I P + 1 ~. . 0. ` - , I i I f i - I Ld~l ' i I I I I I }I ~ p : f 0. I I i .. 1 i. ~ ~. I . 1~ " . a I 'nl I. s f . r ~ . - _ ' - 1.. ~ _ I _f it a I 9 E . 0.000 148 .05 0.00 0.00 lab-05 INVOICE TOTALK> PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 70 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 17: PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18°~) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCDUNTS- • • 5-004263 B-004251 • •, 06/13/01 •- - e • 5151.57 S YORY. COLLEGE OF PENNSYLVANIA H COUNTRY CLUB RD I CAMPBELL HALL RM 226 • •,. p YORK, PA 17403 ' 149 - OS' T O 1ANK YOU FOR YOl)R BUSINESS 1.4004 rnr vorcE ~ .„ ,. Ob/13/01 •, • 515157 • ' ; ~: ~ „ • C4; 23101 X020 'A~ IGNED' SHARP SF2120 7E•504476 PLEASE DETAGH THIS BOTTOM PORT70N AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE LCPV~/ STFTEDAENT %11%O1 V4EU 99:02 FeS i17iJ1-1095 IMPAKS INC. DI'JISIUN OF PENNLANTIC 495 MAR'~LAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 ~ 717-846-II004 X04154 B 1750 INDUSTRIALLHWY L YORK, PA 1%402 L T O NET )EV LIGHT ~ . , i,,. a. ~' ~ , t ,'`,` ;; ' ~ tEPLACED DEVELOPER & UPPER FUSER CLEAN ROLLERS_ C~EAN~'D FEES: a ' 20LLER5, OPTICS, CORONA WTRES & CHECKED rJPERATI(JN r~ ~. ~ ~ ::` "; ' ~ P~rt__ No. :teRl Q.L...Y_ _ Description ~ .- _ , - - Pricer"°.a.~. ~ - ..I . . .. 1 1 .00 999~i9999 _ DEVELOPER _ t' ' , ~ ~-; ~" 57 big I t: Sl 6S•: 2 1.00 MISC UPPER FUSEk C LEAN RULCER `, .42:23 42,23,-- 3 1 .00 LBR Labor ".Hours ~ ` , 0 'O'0=~ ` t 0.'00 . i , ~ 6 , , ~ ; ~. ~ F~ ' - .. , s Y i ~ ~ ~ i _ ' ~ i C ~ 4~ iI ~ ~ I " ' : , ~ ' S ,M~ ® t I ~ ~ - ~t .. - - I ~ "" " - a .. 1 ` _ ~. .' " t s P . - I~ ~ ' 1 - ~ ~. b.ooo o_oo I "°•~1 '~g`' INVOICE TOTAL r` 105 9~ PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF JNVOJCE. THANK YOUI - ACCOUNTS OUE 7p D.AYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 19: PER MONTH (WHICH 3S AN ANNUAL RATE OR i8°e) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. , ~ 5-004155 Q--004154 ~06/13/G1 ,• S PENN AIP, HYDRAULICS H 175G INDUSTRIAL HWY I YORK, PA 17402 P T O .- . . 515155 ~. io5~:90 ,~ ANF: Y'OU FOR YOUR BUSINESS rwvorcF ,;, OE/13/01 •- . ~ 525155 . ~ .: [~olz I'~ NASS'IGNED SHARP SF2027 36205040 14002 PLEASE DETACH TNIS BOTTOM PORT/ON AND RETURN W/TH YOUR REMITTANCE + 008%O1 FRI 08:29 FA1 iliiS1-1095 9 IMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 717°846-8004 004318 CTI 8 200 W MARKET ST L YORK, PA 17403 L T O :d1 O D z JNVOJCE' Ob/08/01 ~ . ~. _ ~ ~ 5150~i PAM r 06!0?i01 NET ur'rL.l~s ,.. t~:m.,..._a~tY_.._._ Par t__ No .__..._._ Dbscrpbion...=._ -'- _~^r:'1 ~ ---= ..`xPrlp~~l s~; t•: Y ._ 1 1.00 C3903A LfiSERJE:T. 5~P76P .:. t,ip III >~, '~76~ l~i }", 2 1.UO MISC ~ CP105A16LACY. I ~:7.7 ., _, - .... ~ ~ t6, I'- ., .y' I`'I ~, ~3~ - - 1 = ~ 0 ;L' ~ ~ 4 ~. _ - eI :F~ . . .. I. a iI: In ear ~ ~. .~ :. t ~,: r-- .. I y Y i:' I u • r ' ~~ I 1 III • I I I ^ L . I, i ~ - I - ,•: f~''~ 7b'TS' ~ zq;. , ~t 1~ , I ,` ,~. f' 4 I i ' i i+ ~'~ , 8TH ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ INVOICE TOTAL[> PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVpICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF i'/z PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18°'el APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. U0431c _ 06/08.'0.1..._.._. • . . ~• g cTI H 00 W MARKET ST YORK, PA 17403 P T O 1,=1NK 'fOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS ~_ ~ ~ 515051 I ~° 13917 Pt EASE DETACH 7N1S BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN Wl7N YOUR REMITTANCE LCGW STATEIdENT 0 r08,/O1 FRI OY:53 F.AS 7177a140~15 INp-AK5 INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORY., PA 17404 717-846-8004 )04324 BUBBA'S BREAKAWAY B 340 ROCKDALE AVE ~ YORK, PA 17403 l L T O -nrvo-cE 06/08/01 ~ .. ~ ! ~ 515060 BRYAN ~ ~: ® 06/07!01 ~ 011 NET PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANtC YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF P/o PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 1895) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS_ 004324 ® 06/08/01 515060 9 BUBBA'S BREAKAWAY '~ ~ ~ ' H 40 RGCKDALE AVE ~ YORK, GA 17403 ~ P ".,. T O 13926 HANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS PLEASE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE ~cPw slnTemer+l Og%~ FRI 08:72 FA% 717iJ1~045 ~s IMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 717--846-8004 )0%323 M POTTINGER B YORK,NPAUS017402NNA TRAIL L L T O INVOICE 06/08/01 515059 ~- .. r- ~ CONNIE .: .~ ~06/0710i ~~ ~ ~ C~j 010 NET ."~. 73:1~~ ,.~, ~' „''r `!~: ~,: i' ; ,' ; i ]:. ~! 1. °ki .: i.1 P { •_IS4 INVOICE TOTALD 77.54 PAYMENT DUE UPON REGElPT OF fNVOlCE. TNANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 1'/z PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR ig%) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. _ _ -..___ ___ __. -- -00433 O6/U8/01 S M POTTINGER H 3545 N SUSQUEHANNA TRAIL YORK, PA 17402 P T O SANK YOU FOR YpUR BUSINESS 516059 ~ ~• I 13925 ~~~~ ~.MPr";in== IiJC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTTC 495 MARYi_ANU AVENUE Y'6C?K , PA 17404 71.7-3Aib-004 PERRYD~LI_ FARh15 g ~~ INDIAN °OCK DAM RG I YORI: , PA 1 7/+G3 L L T O INVOKE 06108/Oi ~ ~ ~ 515053 ~~ - ~ ~ CHIP • ~ r 06/07/01 NET PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ._ ACCOUNTS DUE 16 GAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 1'/z PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 78 %) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. ~G4320_.. __ _ ._ ._ _._ .._ .- .. ._ __ __ _ __ .._ _.~6i08%01 - ,, ~. PERRYDEI_L FARMS 51.5053 S =+0 IL;DIHN RO.K UAM RD ~ ~ ~ H YORK, PA 17403 P T O THANK YOU FOR YOUP, BIJSINE55 ~ ~ ~, - ,- -- 13919 PLEASE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE LCGW STATEMENT 06' 8/01 FRI 03:30 F9% 7177314045 ZMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 717-845-fi004 004122 JOSEPH MACHINE COMPANY B 595 RAfJGE END ROAD I PO BOX 121 ~ pILLSBURG, pA 17019 L T O Cd1005 INVOICE 06/08!07. ~• 515054 .- - s ~ JESSICA e ~ Go/07/01 ~• ~ ~ RICOH AFICIOFX10.70500006 NET . S 188.48 INVOICE TOTAL ~J PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE Of 1 ~/z PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18%i APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. 5-004113 8-004112 U5/08!O1 g JOSEPH MACHINE COMPANY H S95 RANGE END ROAD PO BOX 121 F DILLSBURG, PA 17019 T O 1ANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS PLEASE DETACH TNIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE G15054 ~• ~ ~ ` 13920 __ LrpW STATEMENT „~ O6¢D8%Ol FRI 08:J: F:11 i17i31-1045 SMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 717-846-8004 )04070 EDGECOMB METALS B 420 MEMORY LANE L YORK, PA 17402 L T O NET Clem Qt.y_.,Part_No - Desc'ri~tic~n .__'_ ~~ y ... ' __PYtce "I' 00 1800006 1 2 TNR` 6ES'rETNER 3235/45 "~~ 0 00 ~ ' 0 OCl', . 1 2.00 99999999 SHARP -F045ND TONER ` ~ 90'.16 :,', 180'_32;- + ~ ~ - s" . ~i.; . ,~. 11 1... . ' . ~ ~ ' - ~ ~~ ~ i I I f. r _ _ ~l - ~ 1 L ~ - ~ ~ i i ~ ti i ' 1~ `' ~. ~ t } 1 ~ I i . . t -I .. t, h -- ~' _ _ . ~_ 191.14 I INVOICE TOTALb PAYMENT OUE UPON RECEIPT OF fNVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS OVE 10 DAYS FOtLOWING PURGH.45E. FINANCE CHARGE OF 1'Ix PEA MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL R__ATE Ofl 18°'el APPLIED 70 PAST DU E ACCOUNTS. 5-004071 8-004070 06/08/01 " - • " . . 515057 S EDGECOMB METALS """ ° H 420 MEMORY LANE ~ YORK> PA 17402 P .• '~ . 4 T O 13923 HANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS INVOICE 06/08/01 " ;. "_ _ "` " 515057 MARYJO • • ": " O6/07/Oi boos ~~ GESTETNER 3245 9850127 PLEASE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTION RND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE •_CPN STgTEMENr OB 09%O1 FRI OS:Ja FAY iliia110d5 X012 lNVOlC~` IM AKS INC. DIVISION 9F PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE 06/0$/01 ~ M PA 17004 YORK 515061 , ~, ' ~ 717-+346-8004 SHELBY - ~ r . _ )04325 -~-~ 06/07/01 CANCER CARE ASSOC ~~ ~ ~ B 25 MONUMENT RD ~ YORK, PA 17403 L L .. T O NET ~ . ~ > .. .. I'.. Q~-.Y__ Part....N9. _._ DescrlPto,n 6*-em .: ~ .. _ -f'~ ,y , _' . 1 .9... _ .^.. --, -•---R+r4i,cer_~^. 1. ~=; .. 00 99999999 TIME CARDS 1 5 {.,~ i ::'a11 L5;'," 55 .17~., . . ' ~. . i ~ . _' r ~ ,~ I I ~'~~ I ' _ _al s, _ ' ',[ ' a I { .1.. t rr~ . R l I .~ . .I ' ' ' I I :. I ~ I a: ,.,: e ~ f •~ ' 1 :fl 1. iEa I { d ' _ - ' ' ii .~~ '1 42 q ~ ~ i .. I ~ ~ ,.t: r ,+ ~ ~! :i.v ~ .. ~ II I~ .I~ _ Y il• ~. ~ 1 , ~ I . I I_ . - `1 I ,I. ~ I. _y • t {. I . f___... t 11 __ 1. - ~ _3 59.10 INVOICE TOTAL C% PAYMENT OUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 1'& PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL HATE OR iP %) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. ooa32s ob:o8/ol _ .. 515061 S CANCER CARE ASSOC ~ " ~ M 2S MONUMENT P.D ~ YORK, PA 17403 ~~ ~ P f v. T O 1397 SANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS PLEASE DETACN TH1S BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WfTii YOUR REMITTANCE ~crw eura~.,e~T OB/ 8~~01 FRI 08:J3 FAS ilii31d0:15 ~ O~~D INVOICE ,~~y.~~ .._ ~I I PAKS INC_ DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE Oo/OB/O1 ., YORK, PA 17404 515002 •- 717-846-8004 SHERRI • ~ ~ •: JL ' ~ ~_ 06/07/01 B ALDERSGATE UMC " ` ' 397 TYLER RUN RD ~ YORK, PA 17401 L L J T O NET PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU1 ACCOUNTS DVE 10 DAY$ FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FlNANCE CHARGE OF 1 ~h PER MONTH (WHICH 15 AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18 h) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. 004326 06/08/01 - • . .• 515062 g ALDERSGATE UMC '' ' H 397 l"YLER RUN RD ) YORK, PA 17401 P . ., T O TANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS 13928 PLEASE DETACH THIS 60TTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE ~ ~~y STGTEI+tENT 08 8/01 FRI 08:1 F.a.7 7177x14045 ~~ ~, IMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 717-846-8004 104322 , WINTER GARDEN B 304 COMMERCE ST I NEW OX1=0RD, PA 1.7350 L L T O INVOICE Ob/08/01. 515056 DEB Y.OONTZ • ~ ,~ ® O6/07i01 .. ~ ~ b, 91.58 INVOICE 70TALD PAYMENT OUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF t ~l: PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 1 P%) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. 004322 o6/oa/o1 .. S WINTER GARDEN 304 COMMERCE 5T H NEW OXFORD, PA 17350 P T O -TANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS 515056 •• e ~ ~. 13922 PLEASE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE LiPW cT1TEMENT os!ai gRI os:as F.ax ~1~~a1ao:~s IMFAKS INC. D PJISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE ' YORK, PA 17404 717-646-8004 )04251 YORK COLLEGE OF PENNSYLVANIA B COUNTRY CLUB RD ~ YORK, PA 17403 U L T O C>~ol~ iNVOicF 06/08/01 ~~ 515066 ~. ~ ~ DENISE • « .. a ~06107/G1 ~~ SHARP 5 1Z 4 56609532 NET 5.. t o~Y Part : No _ - _DescrlptlOn ., --- I . i ,'.' - ,~ IPY',t5p_ ~. ::, ;zm.... _ .... .. ._ _ ... w i ~ 5 ~~'7 ~ 45 50 . 1 2.00 SF-216NT1 TNR..BLI,<.SHARP .2118 ONER r, r '' ~ , .: . . 39 90 : ' , 39 90' ~ 2 1.00 99999999 MI.NOLT~ 1081 :T. - , . ~ ~ ~I I 1= a : 't cZi. - - { .II ~ l ~ ! I.A I l IA '- ~ ..,~.. . ' . iI ~ I !i :,_ I . {~ .. - II r I ". ,~ . ~ - ,I' k tl 1 _ ~ ~ I; I } f i ~ ~ ~ I -.~~ .. ' , I ~ , ~ ~ i _ t I . c. ~ L I ~ ~ i - - i ~ I I - H ~C. I . I d - . I. ~ 1 1 . '• ~ .. : 1 t I ~ 1 Y I ,,.c ,, { I F.:r' a , , ; . '. i ~ ~I ' ~ 4 e.~il ~f I ~ I .e ' 's •P v _ g5 .40 INVOICE TOTALU --- PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK Y ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOIIOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 14z P_Ef_3 MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18°0) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS, __ _: s-oo42s2 a-oo4z51 cbJO8JO1 - ~ .~ S YORK COLLEGE OF PENNSYLVANIA H COUNTRY CLUB RD GYM ROOM 6304 P YOP,Y., PA 17403 T O _ ~ ~ 515066 ~ ~• 1::932 ANIK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS '~, PLEASE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WlTR YOUR REMITTANCE , __.. „___~„~„_ .0B/J08%O1 FRI 08:5 FAY 7177x14045 X1016 r ~ INVOICE `IMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLAN7IC - 495 MARYLAND AVENUE ~ ~. 06/08/01 YORK, PA 17404 ~_ * ~ 515x65 717-846-8004 ~'fALL'f YOUNG ~ ~ r r )04329 G6107/O1 ARLINGTON CHURCH " ' ' 8 585 LOMBARD RD L REO LION, PA 17356 L T O NET g ARLINGTON CHURCH ~. ~ ~ 515065 H 585 LOMBARD RD ~ RED LION, PA 17356 P ~ ~' T O 13931 ANI< YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS '~~~' . PLEASE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR R<=MITTANCE ICPVJ STLTEMENT VV'1J'V1 ^L'l AV JO C3_1 I11lJj1U.}J IMPAKB INC. DI'JISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 ~rs~~rrnr.~ 717-846-8004 104.050 B 2300UCARLISLETA~E REALTY L YORK, PA 17404 L T O 1 1,00 1800006 S CENTURY 21/ACTION REALTY H 2300 CARLISLE AVE ( YORK, PA 17404 P T O HANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS INVOICE ~~/13; O1 ... ~ ~_ _ ~ S1.SJ.bb ~ , : SHAP.ON ,; ~.., , 06i 13/G1 ~01i UPPLIE'S i GESTETNER 3235E NET '72'_55 ~ ,~ 72.-55 INV(ll!"'G TflT~l ~~ SLSlo6 .• " 76.96 r ` 14616 PLEASE OE:TACN THIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE LCPn $TgTEMEM1T PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 74z PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR is°.I APPLIED TO PaST GUE ACCOUNTS. ~ 5-004051 8-004050 l~Srr,~06/13101 ,~__. 08.;01 I 08:J2 F9S i17i31d095 IMaAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNIANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 717-846-8004 J04050 CENTURY 21/ACTION REALTY B 2300 CARLISLE AVE L YURK, PA 17404 L T O CENTURY 211ACTION REALTY S 2300 CARLISLE AVE H YORK, PA 17404 P T O HANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS 1NVplCE 06/OII/Ol i - - f .,. 515058 ,_ _ ~ SHARON r r Ob/07/01 ~,: .... ~ 009 L;._- . NER 3235E NET 515058 .- .. ~ is 13924 PLEASE DETACH TNIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR REh11TTANCE LCPW gTATcMENT 0 %13iUi VVEU 10:3,4 FAY 7ll731d0~15 m013 INVOICE .~ aGh.. k..'I' ...~.....~•P' IMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE ~ „ ~ Ou/1°701 YORK, PA 17404 ~..., ~ 515167 ~ ~ 717-846-8004 ~, ~_ BOB 004368 . f ~~'~~ 06/13/01 CENTURY 21 - DALE B 3b0 LOUCKS RD ~ YORK, PA 17402 L L UPPLIES ' T - _..._ p SHARP SF2020 NET Item O.rY..Para,..No_. __~ oes~ri~ton__._-- _ ... ' a.,,. _._.. _.._t Pt'lce.+;.. L:. 1 3.U0 99999999 SHARP'sSF'2020 TONER u,";~ 6 2~8~~5='~., 5G .85 ~ t l .; ~' r' . ~. c. l .. .. :.~ - ~ , -~ ~ r .. t ° ' , ~ , ~ ' ~ 4 ~ I 1 ' ' I I ~ i ° ~ I ., ~. ; d ' a'. ~ I : Y ~:. + + ' ~ ~ !- I 1 Y I ' - - I i .. .. r -} I I -. y ~ . " .. '. I t .. .. .+ I . ~ ~ .. h ~; .. ~ ~ 'u: t' .~ ~ ,' I ..5 i~. k ' ~ ~ , { ~~ . t _ I ~ t I' .. I . i Y E,.000 0.00 56.$5 3.41 60.6 j INVOI CE TOTAL PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOUI ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS f-OLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 71/z PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 78`,L) APPLIED TG PAST GUE ACCOUNTS. 004368 nbi13:U1 S CENTURY 21 - DALE ~' • ~ 515167 H 360 LOUr_KS RD ~ YORK, PA 17402 P T O HANK YOU FOP. YOUR BUSINESS ~ 1401i' ~~ PLEASE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WfTH YOUR REM177ANCE LCPW STATEMENT _x 0 15.01 YFED 10:J9 F.~S 71/7314045 .~--~° IMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLANv AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 ~ _ 717-S46-oG04 X04366 g RS BOE~TNEF MECH CO ( 470 OGONTZ ST ~ YDF2Y., PA 17403 L T O ~ 016 INVOICE :~_ ~r.Cp.. ~~.A ~L. ,~ey. ~- „ 06!13/01 ,. , , 515164 _ ~ ,: MELODY ., ~ , OE/13/01 UPPLTES NET 1 1.00 99999999 6.000 0.00 44.75 ?__59 47.44 1 INVOICE TOTAL!"` PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 70 OFYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF i'k PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN F,NNUA.L ROTE OR 18°b) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS ~ _ ~ 004366 06/13!01 • .. S RS BUITNER MECH CO H 470 OGONTT. ST I YORK, PA 17403 P T O -h1ANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS 51~~164 ~11i'i~L7~GL'8'tL'J~•a 14-014 4? _ q~4.. of ca cF hFTGGH THIS BOTTOM PORT/ON AND RETURN WfTH YOUR REMITTANCE 1CYw STATEMENT 06®17%O1 WEP 10:33 FAY ilii311015 ~'N~I'- ~_ INVOICE IMPAY.S INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTZC 495 MaRYLANG AVENUE ~ ~; 06!13/01 YORK , PA 17404 ~ - - , .515163 717-046-8004 ~ r . KATH't' MAY !04365 ~ , ~ ~ Ob113/01 AAA B 2840 EASTER 6L'VD I YORFi, P14 17402 L L tJPPL`IES T O NET . . y. _t~nt,-. _~tY--Part,:No.....:..-.. Descript;aon_ ------ .:,~.:,t _~.:_-g ...::PTice--r , 1 6.00 SF 2.14NT1 TNF;BLK SHARP 2014/?114/22i?~ .1/ i ,'lr8r 4q'°~~ 110 ,40s 2 1.G0 99999999 TNIR,'BI~K SHARP gR2o0 -, ;iG~, 9?S1r'--::" 16l 98~+ I I ~ r I - ~ t 11 I ' I .A II^ r: ~ ' I -t.i ~~ I ~ F]':. - I e ! _. t '~ ~ I. f tw .,. f I ~ - ~ I'• t e. ' _ - __ 6.000 0.00 278.35 16.70 <as_o= I INVOICE TOTALr? _ PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE id DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF N: PER MONTH (WHICH iS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 78`51 APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. ~ - ~ 004.365 ~ ~, 06!:L3/01 s aaa H 2340 EASTER BLVD I YOP.K , Pa 1"1402 P T O .- - a . 515163 ~ ., ' X95.0"5 -TANK YOU FOR YOUR F.USINESS L"~.1407.3 PLEASE DETACH TH1S BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WlTN YOUR REMITTANCE LCPW STATEMENT O~f%1301 VVEU 10:39rrF.4Y'71ii31~043 IMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTICINC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 tarrsr_t~ra:nr_~ 717-1346-3004 0043b4 B i l L T O bL METAL 500 MANCHESTER COURT YORK. , PA 17404 1 2 3 1.00 99959999 4'.00 MISC 1.00 99999999 ~f Y V ~~C~ .11.. s:ry.. q::~ '.11...:__.. 06/13/01 ~";'~. 515162 - . r t ANN 06: 13/U1 'UPPLIE5 . .. ~ - ; " r ~: . ~ Y f '. -.I~ l: .d .. . ' ~ it .Fi. I. I f ~ . n '.. °I' If . .. v 4 ., .e~ .:I. 'i, i :~. 1'ii i'.~ 6_G00 0.00 I 179.00 I 10.75 INVOICE TOTAL G` PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE THANK YOUf ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 14s RER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18°6{APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. ~• ~- - ~ ~ 515102 S DL METAL H 500 MANCHESTER COURT I YORK, PA 17404 P ~ ~~ '189:75 T O HANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS 14012 PLEASE DETACN TN1S BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITN YOUR REb4iTTANCE ' LCPW STATEM°_NT ~ _~__ ~~13~%Oi tit"ED 1n:39 F.~l 71i73140d~ 013 ~~~/// INVplCE IMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLRNTIC 495 IhARYi_.RND AVENUE YORK, Pq 17404 ~ ~ 77.7-846-8004 )0432?_ g INTER GARDEN I .,04 COMMERCE ST L NEW OXFORD, PA 17350 l T O ~ ,, 06!13/01 ,. ~ ~ 515161 ~DEEt KOONTZ „ , 06/13/01 'UPPCIES ' NET UPPLIE~ t em_ _ QtY.... Par,t...~IP. ..__ '. - --Uescr,ipt.i.on . _-- ---- ~..:...A . _. ___:.. i ~: . PYice_'' ~ ','. . 1 00 2 99999999 CYAN. HP INKJET ~i': 29 80` S9:2da 2 . 2.00 99999999 YELC.OW' HP INK°JET 29 6b' ~ : 5° ~20r' 3 2.00 99999999 MAGE7~IT~A HP'I'NKJET X9;60:... 59:20,' 4 2.CU 99999999 8L'AC~K HP INKJET ~' '30'4,0.:..' 60,.:f~0;' _ ~. ; r .. _ 1 , G, I' i YP i I ,I ... ~ ~ ` i FI ~ 1 t ~ i n . . .~ .- - t I ter - - - .. 1 L. ~~l' ] ~ ~ ~ e I ' ~ i III ~ Ha^ ' ~ i i ~~ I ., _. ' '1 . ' . .~ -' i y . P' Q n I .. - - . __ t ~~ y• . ~ ui .`i r I -n.j .' i ~ ~ . Y' J L ' ' I t ' - ~ i 4~ .i. ~ I: _ - ~ -. - .. -. .i r' I ! ~ ~~, , _ 5.000 _ 0.00 238.40 14.30 252.70 INVOICE TOTALC-' PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE t0 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 1'k PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18°~°j APPLIED 70 ?AST DUE ACCOUNTS. 004322 06/13/01 • • . .' S WINTER GARDEN '' ~ . 515161 H 304 COMMERCE ST j NEW OXFORD, PA 17350 P 2'52:70 T O 7-tANY. YnU FOR YOUR RUSiNE55 1x011 O8~ ~i01 ~4'EU 1D: i0 FA$ ilii31~1045 IMF~1K5 ZNC. OIVISIGN OF PENNLANTTC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE 1'OP.K, PA 17404 ?17-846--8004 r - a )04132 g LOVE.JOY STEEL ~ 180 R005EVELT AVENUE L YORr:, PA 1!404 L T d ' ~: 184 _~20~ ~c'~ k ;x I .: I t '1'9 t 6.000 I 0.00- 184.20 11.05 195.25 ~ INVOICE TOTALb PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE i 0 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHaSE. FINANCE CHARGE OF vh PER MONTH pNHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR t8%) APPLfED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. ~~ co41s2 ~o~/ls/ol S LOVEJOY STEEL H 180 ROOSEVELT AVENUE ~ YORK. PA 17401 P T O 15159 r ~ . •19b : 25' . IANK YUU I-UR YOUR gU5INE55 INVOICE ~:7t. ~~_ a's ~rl, .:.~u r `, C6/13/01 ~. ~ ~ 51.5159 -r ~:, JUSZE ~; ~ r 06/13; 01 ~~~1~ UPPL' TE SHARP F04500 80103284 NET ~1400a. PLEASE DETACH TNIS BOTTOM PORTIONAND RETURN WfTH YOUR REMITTANCE Lcaw.rarEnnENr X1,3%OS WED 10:31 FA1 7117314045 ~~ TMPAKS INC. Ut4'ISION OF PENNLANTIt: 495 NIARI'LAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17~+04 ~ ,,_, 717-846-8004 004369 g JAMES CRAFT & SON I 2730 YORK HAVEN RD L YORK HAVEN, PA 17370 L T O S JAMES CRAFT & SON H 278G PORK HAVEN RD I YOP.K HAVEN, PA 17370 P T O HANtC YOU FOR YOUR 6USINESS INVOICE 7L .~y_ IC~r ~I.:f':~ ~^ O6/1:i/O1 ~• ~ , S151b2 ~ ~ : GLORIA ~, , ~ 06/13109. f~ 012 UbPL'IE5 ' TOSHIBA TOSH3550 NET ~. ~ ~ ~ 515168 .~ 14018 PLEASE ~ETACN THIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WtTN YOUR REMITTANCE I f'P.IJ CTCTF~T~ JT -~'I'Ii>13!Oi WED 10:3i Fa% i17i3140~l5 X011 !!~ INVOICE IMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLAM`IC 49S MARYLAND AVENUE ~ 06/13/01 Y CRK, PA 17404 ,. , , 516170 , , 717-846-8004 _ P ,: CONNIE J04323 ~a 06/13/G1 ~ ~ g M POT TINGER I 3545 N SUSQUEHANNA TRAIL YORY., PA 1740? L L UPPCIES T O NET f O .Y TONER Ite rn gtY Fart No - D~scrlPt_loFl ----- - - ~ .._. ~_. ,_ -- a ,. ~, ----°-Pt1ce°; ;. ,'- __ _ _ 1 .... 1.00 .. ..- -- SF-216NT1 , TNR,BC:K SHARP 2118 s I'.; - 2~ 15"~~~ ?3_15 . ~ i., ~ ;, 9 .. i I . i' i r t ..., -ii ~', _. p I ~'~ I ~ 6 'S e. - _ __ . ~ `~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _: ~ I ~ - - ~ . .. i t l•G ~; f~ i J ._ t.. A 6.000 _.j. 0 .00 23.15 1 .39 I INVOICE TOTALb "'~ 4 PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF lNVOIGE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS OUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF P!: PER MONTH (WHICH lS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 78.5) APPLIED TO PAST DUE P.000UNTS. 004323 . ~ . OG: 13!01 S I`7 POTTINGER H 3545 N SUSC~UEHANNA TRAIL I YORK, PA 17402 P T O HANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS P- - P , S1S1; 0 ,, ~~~ ~4-54 _ 1401° 0 X13,%O1 VV'ECt 10:36 F-a% 7177319045 ~J010 .~ ~ iNVOrc~ o .~...f_r.. (._) .u:_~ p~ III ZMPAKS TNC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTZC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE - • 06/13/01 YORK, PA 17404 •. ~ • 515172 • - • 717-846-8004 ~ •_ CHRIS 004370 • •-, - " • ~ 06/13:01 g HARBOLDS TRAILER SALES ~ 4840 CARLISLE RD ~ YORK. PA 17404 L UPPCTES O NET - ti Ikem_ -- QtY..._ .Part__NO, _:.....~..Descr-iption_.__ _ -.: _ _:-_... __._._~_ ~ ... _:.'_Pri'c~.~ -. 1 1 .00 99°9`,'999 BLACY .EPSON 800. ~ ~ .; , 23 bQ'; ` ~ R~.6G; 2 .1.00 MISC COLOR ,EPSON 800., I 27 05' I X71.05.4 . >t: ;a ' • ~ ~ < !`A < I . t ~ ~ ('~ ' I t ~ I ~ ~ d ~ G~ . ~ _ 1 .: : t r- ~ : - ~ ~~~r, : - I ~ : p -1i I $ ~ '[a l~.. - I .. : . .. I . } i . _ ' i : I ~ ' '. i' - 1 , . . 6.000 0 :0o S0.6S 3.04 s3 69 (NVOICETOTAL[? . PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUN TS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOVJING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF i ~/> PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANtJUAL RATE OR 18 % 1.4PPLIED TO P.o,ST DUE ACCOUNTS. .. ----`----- ~ ~ 00437G Gbi13/01 ~ ~. S HARLOLDS TRAILER SALES '' ~ . `1.5172 H 4840 CARLISLE RD ~ YORK, PA 1740G p e . d5~ .69 T O ~ HANK YOtJ FOR YOUR BUSINESS 11020 PLEASE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN YYITH YOUR REMITTANCE , „~,,, ~...~„~~,r 1~,%U1 4VED 10:96 F9I 71i7~14U-15 - r, IMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 ~ 717-846-E004 604371 g HANOVER HOME & GARDEN i HANOV£RGHPAg£173315T L L T O INVOICE 7i._ .r:1y ~__I' r~ ~:: 'll_ 06/13/01 ~_ ~ .515173 ~OANN • ~ r ~ ~ 06%13/01 boos U.P;PLIES ' MITA DC14~35 NET SUPPLIES' 'J Item.. . QtY..._.. Part--N" --....., nescrlpti.on _-,- _.. ---' : P~1~~',~ .~ '~~", ~ ---- ~, 4,00 39010826 TNR;, BLACK MITA '1205/1/+35 lBX 6185,` 27,'4©;' ,... 1 ~ ~fr l ' %'Fr E r , F E°' p 1; f' I ~1 .. ~. ~ ~ . I , i' ' r S I P ~ ' bb C. M I E r 1 ~~. ~ I. J ' `i' , 1 ~ ~ , a Ii - -{,d t II 1' al ~~ . . ~_-__ - i'. r` s a ~ c 6.000 0.00 27.40 1.b4. 29.04 _ INVOICE TOTAL' _ PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF i'/z PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18 %) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. ~ _ ~ 004371 ~ ~, 06/13/61 S HANOVER HOME & GARDEN '' ~ ~ =.15173 H 1169 EICHELBERGER ST ~ HANUV£R, PA 17331 ~ ~ P ~9.Ori T ' O L1+.r 14621 HANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS PLEASE DETACH THfS @OTTOM PORTION AND RETURN W/TH YOUR REMtTTANCE Lcw~ srarE~~eNr ~:08%O1 FRI 05:01 Fa% i177J140Q5 IMPAKS INC. DIVISION DF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 11404 717-846-8004 X04321 BEECHTREE PODIATRY 6 1546 E MARKET 5T ~ YORK, PA 17402 L T O t_e.m..__..._atY_---NarL No..---_.. 1 1,00 99999999 INVOICE 06/08/01 ~; ; ~ ` 515055 TROY ~ ~ _ . s ° N. 06/07/01 ~• ~ . 84.91 INVOICE TOTALb PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 1~h PER MOMH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18%).4PPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. 004321 06i0a/O1 • ,. 8 BEECHTREE PODIATRY H 1546 E MARKET 57 YORK, PA 17402 P T O HANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSI~dESS 515055 •• ~ s 13921 ~ is PLEASE DETACH TXlS BOTTDM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE LCOW STATEMEM '..... - ~~ ~1~r01-tTED_10_36 FdS.T177~idU~s IMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK , PA 17~+04 717-846-8004 •• - ~ '04295 8 1124 ROOSEVELT?AVEY COMPANY ~ YORK. PA 17404 L T O 1 1.00 99999999 2 1.00 99999999 h I F T C I<\I\Illlf F Tf1T111 r? 101.01 97.09_ PAYMENT PUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF i'1: PEA MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18%j APPLIED TO FAST DUE ACCOUNTS. ~ _ ~ 004295 ~ ~, G6/13.01 .• e . 515174 YORK PENN MACHINERY COMPANY 1124 ROOSEVELT RVE YORK, PA 17404 'HANK YO'J FOR YOUR BUSINESS INVOICE ~ ~, 06:13/01 ~_ , , 515174 r : SUE ~, , ~ 06/13/01 '• ' 199.39 s~ UPF'LIES SHARP SD2052 8602585 NET 14022 PLEASE DETACH THfS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN W17H YOUR REMITTANCE ? G: w 4TATEMNT OSl1J~01 o,r_li xv.ad rn.~ ISrrJl. -4Va5 IMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYL~'1ND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 RfTT.RS'lAT7 717-846-8004 004372 g SHERMAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ~ 720 W MARKET 5T ~ YORK, PA 17404 L T O 1 ~ „- 06:13/01 ~. .. ~ . 515175 ~ ~ : CIPdDY ~ 06/13iO1 UPPL.IES idET H P ~OOi 31'.4b b _ooo ~ o.oo I 31 .4b I 1 -8~ INVOICE TOTAL` '~' -'S - PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOUI ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 1'!z PEA MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 185e] APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. S SHEP.MAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ~ ~ ~ 5151.. 720 W MAP.KET ST YORK, PA 17404 T O HANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS ~NVOreE 33.35 '~~- 14023 PLEASE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE LCPW STATEMENT 0 O1 DYED 10. JS_FAS ilii3l-lOd5 _ --- -_ IMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK. PA 17404 717-846-8004 >04058 B COLONIAL HOUSE ) 3800 W- MARKET 5T. ~ YORK, PA '17404 L T O 1 1.OG 1800006 1:00 1800006 'r ,. ~ ~ - 72.55 0.00 ~ 6.000 0.00 72.55 4.35 76.90 i _ INVOICE70TAL~ PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. TNANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 7~h PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18°=) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. ~ - ~ 004G58 ~ „ 06/13/01 .- ~ ~ ;1.5)J6 S COLONIAL HOUSE H 3800 W- MARKET ST- I YORK, PA 17404 P T O HANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS INVC?1CE .~_ 'f~~. 4.`l ...~ Gtl.. ~ „ 06!13/01 - - ~ . 51517 6 - ~ .: PAM ~ ~ 06/13/01 21006 UPPLIES „ GESTETNER 3245 H530690004n NET r 76.9C 14024 PLEASE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTION ANO RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE L~PLN STAY=DENT 08'1~~01`~'ED_10:3.t F:1S ilii3140.15 ~_ - - - IMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 717-R46-8004 X04333 g KINSLEY CONSTRUCTION i 2700 WATER 57 L YORK, PA 17405 L T O lNVO/GE ~, Oo/13/O1 ~, , ~ 515177 .~ ~4, PAM FIRESTONE `, ~ 06/13/01 UPPLIES 'I I NET 1.00 99999999 . , 1 i ~ ~~ ~ ~. .. 5.000 0.00 i 188.32 11.30 199.62 ~ INVOKE TOTALc?__ PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF 1NVOlCE. THANK YOU? ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 1'h PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL SATE OR 78 %) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS: ~ ,.~ 004333 ~ „ 06/13/01 S KINSLEY %ON°iTRUCTION H 2700 WATER ST I YORK, PA 17405 P T O HANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS 515177 ~. 199.62 1407_5 PLEASE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE LCPV1 STATEMENT 13+07 R'E- 11:35 F3Y ilii31d045 ~ 002 Ir~It-OAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTTC 495 t`1ARYLAND A~.+ENUE YORK, PA 17404 ~ _,~ 71'7-846-8004 004251 g YORK COLLEGE OF PENNSYI_V(-1NIA I COUNTRY' CLUE FD L YORK, PA 17403 L T O //YVC~iIIiF ~ „ 06%13/01 ~• - r . 515103 ,_ DENTSE 06/13/01 UPPLI'ES SHARP SF2040 NET m ] 2.00 ay9999~~ IN\rTllrcTnTnl ~ 60 : 80~ ', ~ ... ~.<~ ~. • .I < S,i A ~- 11 .y..' •I I I I . I.'y ~.L.: 00.0 PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCFIASE. FINANCE CHARQE OF 1'/z PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18 % I APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. _. _._ _. __ -_.. ~ •, ~ 5-004307 B-004251 , ~ „ 06113/01 S YORK GOL.LEGE OF PENNSYLVANIA H COUhJTi"SY CLUB RU I YORK, PA 1740 P T O ANK 'IOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS .- - • . 515153 ~ . 60.80 ~1402~ PLEASE DETACH THIS 80TTOM PORTION ANO RETURN WITH YOUR R£MITTANC:F 7177ti14~45 ::^:1??G1 1EEV 11:71 F.~Y i1ii~14D-J5 X001 INVOICE SNEAKS 'ING_ DIVISION OF. PENNLANTLC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 r 717-546-5004 004319 g COLDWELL BANKER I 2525 EASTERN BLVD L YpRK. PA 17402 L T O ~ ~, 06/l s/01 .. ~ ~ 515192 ~. ~: MELISSA UPPLIES' ' NET n.000 0.00 171..21 10.27 151 .4B INVOICE TOTALS _ PAYMENT pUE UPON RECEIPT OF lNVO/CE. TRANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS f-OLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 7'/z PER PdONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUhL RP.TE OR 155;) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. ~ _ ~ G04319 ~ 06/13/01 _ --~ S COL.DWELL EANKER H '525 EASTERN BLVD I `(ORK, PA J.7g02 P T O ~- - ~ S151b2 `181.45 ANY: YOU FOR YOUR BU6INE55 ~ _ 14025 PLEASE DETACH THIS @OTTOM POATlON AND RETURN Wt7H YOUR REMITTANCE ' ''.vPW $TATCAICVT ,0 11%•O1~ WED 10:34 FAti ilii314045 °=-~, IMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND Ad'ENUE YORK, PA 17404 ~ 717-846-8004 )04204 g TRSANGLE MOTOR SALES ( 2730 5 QUEEN 5T L YORK, PA 17403 L T O INVOlGE ,• U6/13/O1. ,. . , 515178 . , ,: SANDY ,. . Oo/13i01 X004 UPPLI'ES rr SHARP AR155 NET Part Item otY N6. ._'~_ _Descr 1pt;io,h _ .. :? ',f _„ - ~Prticey~,;~ - ; ...._ ....._. ._ . r 1 1.00 99~i9999~+ SHAFi.P •Ak1S5 TONER ~''16'~~712'=" I 169.70!', " . c ~ "; ~~ n~j ~ IP I ~f • I i ,f I tt I ~ .. i A 1 y_ Q r i ~I ,_ ~' f~.x y '. .. 'I i I t" i," I I - 'I li ~. , iF f . , I i ' . ~ ' F . , I . . 6 -- ~ ~ . . .. r I l i r q. ' . I ,! o.'. - r ~ a• ,, , ! ~ ' ~ .I i. .I, I f ~ 6.000 0.00 169.70 10.18 179,88 INVOICE TOTALc' PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF P!z PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 10!) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. ~ _ ~ 004204 ~ , 06,'13/01 S TRIANGLE MOTOR SALES H :'730 S QUEEN ST I YORK, PA 17403 P T O HANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS ~- e , 515178 P ~• ~'179.8c~ L' ~1'YU:L'i.~ 14O2h oLE45E DETACH THIS BOTTOM AORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMtTfgNCE _1T%01 W_ED 10:34 F.A3_i177~1~10d5 X007 ~---° ~NVOicE IMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 ~ , 717-£~45-8004 )04373 B 1ti50T~HITEFORDE~CSERVICE ~ YORK, PA 17401 T O „ - OS/13/01 ,_ _ , , 515179 . , _ 'fEVE'TTE ~~ ~. , Oh/13/G1 uT~pLx~s RzcoH Fx10 NET 6.o0c I o_oo 94 ?s ( 5.66 ~ INVOICETOTAL~ 9v ~1 PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS 0! IF vl DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 1'le PER MONTH WHICH IS AN ANNUM-RATE QR 1 R°ro1 A_PPl1ED TG_PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. ~ ~ 004373 _ ~ „ ` 06/13/01 _.___ . S KEYSTONE TRAILER SERVICE H 1550 UIHITEFGRD RD ~ `fORK , PA 1?401 P T O HANK Yc~U FOR 'TOUR BUSINESS .• , , 515179 ~ ~~ ;39:9'1' , 1' ° 1407 o, Cn CC l1CTn rA TWC oni-TnhA On RTlnN aNO AFTIIRN WITH YA(fa RFnR1TTAN!'.F 06 -8/01 FRI 08:39 F.A.I" T17i319U4~ t IMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANT2C 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK> PA 17404 717-846-8004 ATLAS RUBBER STAMP B 3755 E MARKET ST I YORK, PA 17401 L L T O INVOICE OS/08!01 ,• 515064 ~• a ~ BARBARA - ~ ~: ~06i07/01 ~, ~ 140.56 INVOICE TOTAL~^ PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OPlNVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE_ t0 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF P7: PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 78°5) APPLIED TO PAST DU_E_AC_CO_UNTS_ _ 004328 06/Oo/Ol • ~ • ., S AT!_AS RUBBER STAMA H 3755 E MARKET ST YORK, PA 17401 P T O TANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS ~, . ~ S150h4 ~. I 139;x0 PLEAS$ DETACH THIS SOTTOM PORT70N AND RETURN WITH VOUR REMITTANCE ~oPw ST4TEMEUT 0 X13%O1 ti~'ED 11:~~5 F9S 71~"31?O~iS ~ ~jOl)3 s INVOICE IM~AKS INC. UI'JISTOIV OF PENNLANTIC -~_ ~"6..a;;'o " ^'.~:M 495 MAFt`(LAND AVENUE ~0.h/13/01 ~ ~. YORY., PA :7404 ~. ~ ~ 515184 . ~ 717-a46-8^004 . ~: 004375 ~~,~~ g PROMOEILE ALI6IVMENT ~• •- 06/13/01 i 18C E hYAPLE 5T E DALLASTOWN, PA 1l'313 ^ L UPPLIES T O NF_T 6.000 0.00 94.25 5.66 99_`1 INVOICE TOTA_Lr PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOUR ACCOUNT$ ^i IE 70 GAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 14e PEfl MON]71 (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RAT[ OA t e%aj APPLIED TO PAST OUE ACCOUNTS. ~, ~ 004375 .: .... ~.. 06/13; G1 ~._... ., S PROMO@'ILE ALIGNMENT ~' ~ 515184 H l8C E MAPLE S7 I DALLASTOWN, PA 17313 P T O ANIG YOU FOR YOUR @tJ5INE5S • - 9 9 .91. 14030 PLEASE DETACN TNlS BOTTOM PORTION ANII RETURN WtTN YOUR REM1TTgNCE i LGP44 $7FTEtdENT '13%G'1 H'ED 08:54 FA% i1i731~1095 ~ODZ e INVOICE IMPAKS INC. C~IVI:;IOPd OF PENNLANTZC ~" "~ "~ ~ ~~'1L 495 MAR'fLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 . . 717-84f~-5004 004354 B COMMERCE BANK I 205 ST CHARLES WAY ~ YORK, PA 17401 L T O , „ 06/13x; O1 tf' ! ., S1J14'J • ~, ,_ KATHY „ . - ~ OF,/13/01 UPP,LTES NET 1 1.OG 99999999 if 120;9.5`' ,. r. ,..1' . ~; ;' r i.. i i4" ~.A `~-.. t. 1 x i e '~ Y. 0 ~- ~ - ~ 004354 S COMMERCE BANK H 205 ST CHARLES WAY I YORk:, GA 17401 P T O ANK TOU FOR YOUR BUST,NES:-. INVnIr~ Tnrnl r^ ,. 06/13/01 ~' • s 15143 ~~ ~ , 128.2I~ l 1 i9 J1 PLEASE DETACH TNfS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WtTR Yr711a +xc~entrre nJrc PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF /NVD/CE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 10 GAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGC OF- 1`b PER MONTH (WHICH IS.4N ANNUAL R,4TE OR 19-e1 APPLIED TO PA5T DUE ACCOUNTS. ~11'%01 wEU 08:59 F.a1 7177x14085 -~ IMPAKS INC. DI'JISIGN OF PEiJNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND A'JENUE YGRK, PA 17404 ~ , 717-84b-8004 004350 g COMMONWEALTH BUSINESS TECH t 9498 EAST PARK DR L HARRISBURG, PA 17111 L T 0 ~o~t NET -q~. y. i.,.: 1- i ' ,4,. ~,. ~,,•. '~ 1.1. 15 b: , 5:G. 5 .00,' ;. b.ooo 5.0o I 1sb.so I 9.39 I ~NVOICETOTALC` 1/G_s9 PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOUI ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 1'& PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR X8`0) APPLIED TO PAST OVE ACCOUNTS. - ~ 00430 . .• 06/13/01 S COMMONWEALTH BUSINESS TECH H 9498 EAST PARK DR I HARRI`=BURG, PA 17111 P r 0 TANK YOU FOR YOUR @USINESS INVOICE u_ r ~ ;a' ~~.~' r ~. Ob/i3/O1 ,. -, ,515145 _ ~ , : JIl9 „ , 06i 13/01 UPPLIES` ' ,. ~ 515145 , ~,. ' ~~ ~~ 170.89 - 1.-3993 PLEASE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE O1 w'ED 08:11 F9~ 717iJ140~15 srJ 013 rnrvorc~ I~ INC _ eIVSS~TON OR Rti-NN1..Ah?TTC 495 NF~kYL.-;Nt? A4'Eh{UE YORK.. FA 1740u . _ r 8 3d0 F;O~~S::~R~L.. AVE 1 YORk:, rr'~ 1,'.?0< L L 7 O 06/13/01 -, . . S151dO •- e ~ • s ' ,, OHi1~/C~1 ~._y C. ........... ~.~._..., . rs~T V . ,y f ~~.. i~" I..~r.~ .:a:l '~ `rM~l!Y 1 ~'^^P -`23-, x3 "15; ;¢5 ~~ ._ .. 0 ~l.z I I ~ 1 _ I I _ 11NVOlCE TOTALp PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU. ACCOUNTS DUE 10 GAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 7'/x PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN P.NNUAL RATE GR 18 k) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. Ooa3~a _ eE/13/ol • ~ .: $ BU88A'S BREnK1WAY ~' - ~ • 5151u0 1 'i C~RH: , F`P 7. ~ 403 P T O TIiF;NK l"OU FOR YOUR EiU~INESS .7 ~13=8? PLEA5£ DETACH TNlS SQTTOM POA77ON ANII AEZ•UAN WITfi YOUR REMfTTANCE ~CPw STATEMENT ,~ 7177314G4S ` ~6/1~J%>')1 4VED 09:5.4 FAX i177U110d5 ~~ IMPAKS INC:_ DIVI5ION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 . ~ 717-84b-8004 004353 B DM WELUIN6 COMPANY I 1820 TROLLEY RU L YORK, PA 17404 L T O 1 1.00 99999999 `L 1.00 MISC 3 1.00 99999999 JNVpJCE 06/1/01 515142 BONNIE 06/13/01 UFFLIES nor ~z 6.000 ~ 0.00 I 175.95 10_SE• 186.51 INVOICE_ TOTAL PAVMEN7 DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK VOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 1 pie PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ,4NNUAL RATE GR 1 d ie) ARRLItU i0 PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. , ~ 004353 S DM WELDING COMPANY H 1820 TP,OLLE'Y RD I YORK, PA 17404 P T O IAN Y. YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS „ - Ob/1?/G1 ~' ~ ~ X1514.? ~, 18b~~.51 l`4AI 13940 PLEASE DETACH THfS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN rilTH YOUR REMITTANCE LCFW STATClAEVT __..._-, ~'13r01, WED 03:53 F9S i1i731d045 C~j(103 ~ .: {NVDICE INPAY.S INC . OIvISION GF FENNLANl'IC ~~~ ~~, , ~~ ~ ~~ ~~} PgYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OFlNVO/CE. THgNK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE t 0 DAVS PGLLOWING PURCHASE FINANCE CHARGE OF i 4z PER MONTH (WHICH I$ AN ANNUAL RATE OR t8 % J APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. ~ ~ OOi+355 ~OF/13!O1 .. S SESAME "TEMPS ~- - ~ ~ 51144 H 2212 E MAP.KET ST I YORK, PA 17402 P 7 O ANK YOU FOR YpUR BUSYNESS ~+- 13992 e ~~ ~JZ _ 63 PLEASE DETACH TN1S BOTTOM POATfON AND RETURN WITH YOUR RElriITTANCE LCPW eTATEMENi ,08 1~/O1 VYED 03:11 FAI T1i7a14045 INVOICE SM IhIC . C;I`/III-il•d OF S?ENNL:^-.rVTT +t?5 hIAFtYLANfJ NVLC\t~F '~'QF;k, > PF, 11'x04 1 ivEbl UXFOi<t: , P ~ i?'5C1 L L 06!13!01 • ~~ ._151.3~~ ,, _ _~1JES _ K~?OfdT~ ~ . ~nt./1~.-:. :.i ~ ~ T O P?ar:,t Na _- ~.em ~pt~, _-- yescrip~i~ . ... .. 7 &fr~' . 1 12.OZJ 9999'39° ;' 1_P.SERJE~C. C v Ft l ~ F - J F ~u ~ 4Y li vly .i31. ' r+ i'.T. t~r~ 1 1.z T _~~ ...ter--.~. "~ ~..-+.,. ¢p~~-- ....spp,,,,y.~ .,. z ~~R.V Tdµ~!fJ ~~~~..--..1 ~Y ~' _ } --Yyr __ t.~~ ' --. INVOICE TOTALb PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF 1NVOi0E. TitiANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS F0110WING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 1'h PER MONTH (WHICH ISAN ANNU.Ct RATE OR 70 % }APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. -- ._ ... X7043?: _ nr=,!i =/Oi. • J1C,1']f, wtraTes c,a~~~N ,. . S ?vii COMMEFf E cT H ;JEW OXF04D . ~'F~ i? sS0 P T O THAhlK YOU FOR Y6UR BUSINESS '3986 1 PLEASE DETACH TIitS HOT'TOM PORTION ANO RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE icaw ,~,i4EMEMT -- 1J~'Oi TED O.S:11 FdS iliiJlJO-15 ~a~ - _ __.-.,-~ . _ ~ I116 ~. inrvolcF ' IMFA!:5 ihiC_ OIVT.5ION OF PENNLANTIC %1°5 MP.RYLAh!t•~ AVENUE OF!2?/'G - • • , ~ ~/ YORK. rA i740~ a ^ l)51~~ •. i • %; ~~s-~~-aoo4 V~Rr; o~ ~auhl ~~• • .: -, ji-. li-,~ 'E_ ` F,R:.~ FIi~P.NCIAt_ SRO!Jr' •. m 8 4G90 d MARK£T °.T 1 YORY:. FA 17404-5?3c . L «• I ~ _ ., tiET _. • „ , ~ _ s yam - . __ OtY "Pal".t hfo .: v,~ ~ :405CY Ip.til.n15~ _~,':~w,~~;.°.~a`~".,.'~?~F'°:~.~~~ ~ ....._.- --- - - 1 ; . ~. 2"OQ"99999999 ..: . f~IGOH.250. 7QNEf~:: ~_'_-~''r - r ~ -t ~,. _.~_._~-':2. 60~_~!4 .. __ _. _. _ _ . --- -.,T-'- '. T ,: S " . -._ ~ .. ~__ _ -~ , . -=--I. {;- .... -- `/~/yam (~ ] ~~ ~~~~~ r ` . _:. _4"J~C-. Gam,-~. - ~ ~ 1 ^_:. ;: - _ .. , . .. ~ ;. -, .. ._ _ -~-~_____ ~ ~ ---f----^- - I - ---_.. .~--' --~__. _...~ t 'i t INVOICE TOTALQ PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU.' ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE FlNANCE CHARG£ OF,Ph PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL FATE OR i8°ej APPLIED TO PAST pUEACCOUNTS. OOa3<.)6 O6/1 .'Oi ~ ~' S EPtE FINANrIAL ,P.OUP •~ • =. '1`"J- H 4010 L! MAR1<E7 S"f p o-. .. T I o ~ THanIK YOU FOk YO1./R EUSINE55 ~ 1~-as Pf FASF pETACH 7FfI5 BOTTOM PORT70N AND RETURN W?N YOUR REMITTANC_° ICGW $T>T~MEhT . .. ~ . o ..... ...... .. _ All 13%O1 V4EU 05:OA Fa% 71 7 73140 15 f~006 1NVOIGE I~1P~iNC. DIVISION OF F'ENNI_ANTTC 4?5 rIARYt-AND AVENUE 'i OY,Y :. P£a 74 G'i . ' -~ ] 7 -846-600.1 ,:10~.., GOt1Pf+f;E MOR'fL~r1~F S B ! 1,U% S , DUEL=N 57 - I rOF;Y: , ?~+ 1 ~~103 L L T O "h / 131 ~I ~. S].`125 . ', ~ ~•IJE " ' ~ ~ k CJ A i.U '.1 N. --70500n85 NEl- rn>wiz -. c a ~- ...: tem._.._--Atz---.Part .C.o -. - DescrzdEion ' -7~ 1 1 - 00 999999°9 _ _ . -_ - .A.F..ZLQ _EX_.~,Q.;.iQC ~v, =: z:: .___..:,,. ..:~LZ: - l ... _. ...-.-.-.~ rJ--~~~ 'v'rH '4::25 ~Y I~.n ~~a. I::. _... L. L I ~~.wu I v_uu '•j~.~s 5.~s ?9.9 INVOICE TOTALb PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE- THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF t+h PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RAZE OR 18%) APPLIED.TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. 004059 Ob/1.3/01 ~ • i ~ .. COMPARE P1pRTaAGFc ,:: ~ ~ 5151?5 5 H 110: - ~~VEEri ~T . I '(ORI<,,.~r,4 17467 P T O THANK. 'f0U FOR POUR E3t!SINES ~. ~ • , ~13~)75 , PLEASE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTION ANO AEt-URN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE LCPN/ STATEMENT G,~17~01 1T'ED 11:=12 F.A% 71773170'75 0005 ~~ ~ ~rvvo~cE IMPAKS SNC_ DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MAR`fLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 . •, • 717-846-8004 004377 B WF51" YORK INN I 1400 W MARKET ST ~ YORK, PA 17404 L T O NE7 ,.~ 31 ;~5'b"" ~' c ' ;` ;~, ,. t , 06/13/01 .• - e .515186 - . , ~ PRM 06/13/01 UPPliZE5~ ~:.:. 6.00o I o.oo I 31.65 I 1.9o IINVOICETOTALL'~ Ay ,., 33.55 PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 1 U DAYS FOLIDWING PUflCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF Ph PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 1°°0) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. ...... __ ... , 004377 , „ 06/13/G1 S WEST YORK INN '' - ~ . S151E:6 H 1400 W I°IARKE'f S7 I YORK, PA 17404 P • •~ 7 .. ~,;''3~'S5. O -° ANK 'f0U F'OR YOUR BUSINESS , 14032 ' PLEASE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN W/TN YOUq REM77T.7 NCE ~.----- u/;i19%O1 >,SED OS:1~ FA3 7177J1~0~15 °'~ < d ~'J'A~G°. TNC- pIb'15ION OF PENNLANTL ,~<~.5 h!ARYLAtJD AVE~IUE yr)RK , N~~ 1 7A0~+ :17~-84~-eoo~ HK M.C~JNK.FY I Y9RK, FA 1:4Q5 L L T O / 13.' 01 ~01~ NE7 ~ c ~., - INVOICE TOTALb I -- PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. TNANK YOU! ACCOUNY_S DUE 10 GAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 1Vs PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18%) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. .. .... -- - OOd „3Aci ._._ - -. .. __ _ - ... - -- GE; 13!01 ~ ~ ~ r~ '>16135 EK MCCONKF.Y ' ~ ~ H 497 H1.LL ~T 'AIRY; PA 17.40:1 I P T O TFIANK YOU FOF: YOUR E3U'3TNE55 ~nrva~cF i ~ ~~ ~3 3 ^~•i 7:3/01 513 as 13983 - or Fn cF nfTACH THIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUF7 REMITTANCE icP.v suTen+er+r 17. 01 - VVED 03:12 FAS i17ia1404S J - f~011 ~~ _ • INVOICE T INr_. oLVlsinr4 of P~rJNLFr+Tlc ' ' "' 06/1:3%"O1 .j ;; r., ~gRYLAND AVENUE ~ ~. ~c.1S131 YnRK , ~=~ 174-0<I ~- ~ ~ PF.hJ FIRE:>TONE -.1?-846-8004 ~ . _, ®~ ~ ,.-~CT?s'. ~,J6/13ip1 ~• ~ ~ KSNSLEY CONSTR!Ji".TZCN B `~?QO 4!~TEP. ST J YC)PK, PA 1.%405 L T p !•JcT Y ParU=No Qt Ite i , ,e,,,,.a'• _ ~~~~..~~ _-,~-•-~,,~- «~ ~ '~ r rF .. yISa'. ,, '~ . m 1 2 _00 99999999 . - ` SH~PrRFI X400 D€2tJMRF©48Dfi:D -1°ss„ 4 ~~*` ~ ~~"~ 4 352 HBO 66 z _oo rJlsc _ , „ , ., .... i 1 ' ~ . .. __~~Mpi Y ~. N~. r 7 :. h' 1 '.k~! S. L. '~. ~ i ~ __~._ t C•;y~k -. x r a~ ti.•u yI. 1.- ~~. - X13 - _yvV. :ea •, - _ :TI _ .._~_ .. - ......._ 3 i 5 t y 9 y7~R 1i 5, W s- i . ~ 3 ~: `i. q * A~ ice. r ..._ _. ~_ ~ i .. . _. ._ ~ni{ a 9 ,T} ... A I' ' u ~' il.i _ spy-.. ' M . ``2 i i~ I . ~: .. .. ....._.. _..... ;,r '.. a - = ~ 671 _4( J INVOICE TOTAL b H PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOUf ACCOUNTS DUE to DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OE t'1: PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR t8 F,) APPLIED TO PAST D _ " UE ACCOUNTS. _ _ - o04`s?3 13!01 06; ., X15131 ~, ~IIJ`L E'~ OONS TRU!: PION ' ~ ~ ' ' ~, - S "%C~0 WA'iE.r~ 5T H ~{U';K, PA 1740.5 I P T 0 TnAr!r: 'YGU FOR POUR BUSINESS 1a~~a~ PLEASE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE LCW+STATEMENT b la:ol ~c~ 4 a. "' •• ,<S INC. C~TvI5I0N OF GEPIIVLAt`ITIC ,j45 MARYI_raND AVEN~JE ~.'ORK , PA 174J4 7 i 7-640-)?'?p~ ~ ~ V 4' '~:• KF:T;iLEEPI_I_UCA3 B 14U Rt~OSt_~~EL. T AVE I ~U??E ?03 L 'fOPK, pA 7AvA L T O nvvorc~ nE./13/01 ~ i• 51130 ~- KATHLEEN r ~: 06!i3/0;. ~ ~ ~ i , ., ..v i i0~Ob16<J NET .,. ,. ~ .. ~: ; telm ._.Cty F~r.~ Nc .; _ De~cri~i•an _....':~ ~ . .1.00 999°9999 AFICIO FX34-;ON7ES .._ _,,.__:..~;; q . INVOICE TOTALb y .... 93 62 r .- ) . -. 1 ej. C PAYMENT DUE UPON AECEIPT OF INVOICE THANK YOUI - ACCOUNTS DUE 70 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CH_AR_GE__OF 1`!x PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RP.TE Ofl 78%! APPLIED TO PAST DVE ACCOUNTS. 0041;X, U6/13/U1 - ' • 1 - --_515130 S thv~R005EV[L~T~~F;VE. H 5U7TE 20~ ! ti'OFK , PA 1740c P T O THAIUh' YOU FUR YC_iUR BVSIt~lESS 44EU 05:11 FAX 7177a1L045 I~j010 1:s979 S~ > PLEASE DETACH THtS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YDUR REMITTANCE ~cvw srAr~.+e.+r ~13<O1_ WED 03:07 F.A3 7177319095 I~j002 IS`1Pr;K.5•INC..DIV'.-SIGN GF fiENMLANTIC ~~ys [-1r?RYL,ZND A~~CNUE O6!11/Ol ~ ~~ 'CORY;, PA 17404 515091 •- ~ 717-64b-SOOti BRENDA - . • a .. ~JtIJ~ - - O6/08!01 Kl_YNuE CARP - ' B 41FS E MAF:KET ST I YORK , FA ].740A , C _. l ~fDlS T O NET. T ~ _ L 1VC• ..-V., '.., ~SCirl 'tIOTI ~ .''? -~y '....1~ ~S }~d ~!.4~~ A' ... J.f itpm_ qty _P3~._ Y..,. ~.~,,..,- -- 1 1.GO 99499999 HpC4O9 2A `'t ,_„~;, + 57 67 2 `~" a asf:i ~. ob ~8 1 ,00 MISC COAIPA ,ABLE FOR .}.~PG~ ~7.,~~s -N, e~~ }^ _ - z ~ :€ww I Y v T: r f~ . ... i ___ .... .. ~.a. .. ..q ..~ , ;+: ~ .... ..ay i "~'"~`i~ii r r Vi'e'. ...~.i1 ~' " ' ~~ .. ..r. W.r+. ~RRRF {~ 1'~i [!.fy if' 1 _ . R V I \~ Y~i `f i M1~' ~~ 1' . h~~y f 4 .• _ _ _ . ~.. ._ _ 131 .~4i INVOICE TOTALc> PAYMENT pUE UPON RECEIPT OF fNVO1CE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 70 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE- FINANCE CHARGE OF 7 ~Iz PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18°h) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. O043?q 06;11.!01 • . .. 515091 KLINGE CORP •~ ~ • • 3 475 E MARKET ST H YORY,. PFt 17h.0~~ i e • P - T ~ 13955 i!-fANu YGU FGR POUR BUSINESS PLEASE DETACH TH15 BOTTOM PORTION ANO RETURN W1TN YOUR REMITTANCE CRY STATEMENT -'7.901 WED 05:1d FAS 71i771SOdS IMa INC. DPlISIaN aF x~FNPa_Ar`iIIC ::Fg~ ~tARYI_AIJG AVENUE 71 7-illE-$0~)•V ~ ~ (. B I L L 1 3 T O em_.. (,;r1MMONWEAI....TH BUSINESS TECH I-iARRI58UP.,, PA 171.! 1 1.G0 99999999 LYYr `5u.:_u~~~_ ~F~ .00 2960707 ~l NR TYPEr 200 r~`1_5 1 .00 SHIRPING._~", ~'',td~~SH,IPP.TNC~'LHAt~~'L-NC rrvvorcE ~ ~~ ~1513~ TTN} ~ ': ~. ~. m.°- _. ~ a; ~..,aMM) ~ __ .. S 9a9E3 EAS7 PARY. GP, Fi H~I;RT E~UFiG, Pr, 1'1111 I P "'`~~~"" ,,..,_~.. 1NVOlCETOTALb PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE- FINANCE CHARGE OF 14x PER MON1H (WHICH 1S AN ANNUAL RATE OR 7B%J APPLIED TO PAST DUEACCOUNT_5. ... ...... - - 06/1:,/01 OC4 3`~0 • .• • - ~ 51 51 '6 (NWEft_TH E3U~ IIVE°S TECH ~ ~ ~ ~ T O THAt`fK YOU FGR POUR BUSINESS ~ .~ 13984 , _ . _ _ _ __. _,. _. ,....,.,+rn.. onannN ea0 RETURN WlTN YOUA REMITTANCE ~~~ srnremeNT 0 13.01 4~ED ll:d3 FdS 71ii31~]0~15 '~ IMPAKS INC. UIVISTON OF PENNLAN7IC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, FA 17404 . ~ 717-846-SU04 004054 g CHRISTIAN SCHOOL OF YORK { 907 Gf2EENBRIAR ROAD ~ YORK, PA 17404 L T O S CHRISTIAN SCHOOL OF YORK H 907 GREENf3RIAR ROAD { YORK, PA 17404 P T O ANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS ~PJlini rNVOrcE gin- ..:ai_ ~.u . ~~~ .;.gin. ~ ,,; 06!13/G1 . - ;. . , 515188 . f ,; MRS SHELLY ,. ~ , 05/13/01 UPPtIES SI-IARP SF2514 .NET 515].88 , ~. ' '76'". 60 Iit:1~1.14034 , PLEgSE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTIONAND RETUAN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE ~(:l+K' iYYT ~iAEN? Q3115=~"-DYED 08:10 FA% 71i701~1015 ~-1P~,Y.~ INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC q~E, MARYLAND AVE'`P E ': ORI~ PA 1710/! 717-846-3O0A~ i,! a ( q B ~ACKETT FAMILY G~1IP.O?RAC ft]R ~ ].0~5 SAI.TIMORE ST HAhJOVER , PA 17't3a L L T O INVOICE _> r~ -~ r :a...-. Ob!13/G9. ~: 51.5128 .- - ~ PATTY •..~ ~ c Ofi~i-~/t.)1 ~~ 1 ~- __ ° ,_ lr_tt"_ N ~ M1rt ~~ ~ ~ r ,_ . -. -.: s ;. w.,__..__ ___.... --. , -~~+~L I ~ ~~~~w I v ~ VV I ~ ~ _.,•, I V _.,_. I INVOICE TOTALU - - -_ PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS D_UE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CNAFGE OF 1Vz PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL HATE OR 18 A) APPLIED TO PAST DUE.4CCOUNTS OG43~4 O6!13/G1 S vAC:K[1'T F'*11'1ILY CHIRUPRACI't"iR 1055 BF~L.TIMORE T Fi HANQ'Jw_R . PA 173::1 I P T O THANk: YOU FOR YOUR HUSIIV~S~ s]~]zs~ .- - . ~ ~• 13477 PLEASE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTION ANO RETURN tNlTH YOUR REMITTANCE caw srnrFmervr 0'~la%U 1. ~'ED 08:11 F.~S i1775140~45 ~, _ Tr~i~~.~•~ IN! - DIVISION OF >~E.NfdLA~; ,. :195 MA4YL.r':~!11 fwVENUc: YORI: • F'r+ 1.'40/1 71 :~>-rin(: -ESO0~1 004 ;n _; G'.iRI~T E`.hiNGELTC(~t. CHI_IRCFi ~ P'i 1q~r-~ z (rRK - L T O INVOICE L~~~•rr~ 0611:%~'1 B4ti1!(91fla491i ~~51.`~1Zc 1• P _ • ;= ~l'l % 13/.i ~. . - •~ 11.%.0] . _i_l.+V .. .. V. INVOICE TOTALb PAYh1ENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE_10 GAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 1'/z PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 18%) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS 0043!c, 06/1 3/01 GHR.I51" E~'RNGELICr7L CHURCH S 240]. c ~~UEEN ST H YORK, FA 1/4G".i 1 P T O 7 HA1'dK YOU FO!? YUU,k F3USINES~ ~15i2i • . . ~.~7~ PLEASE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE icEw SuTEMENT 0 13;,'01 W'ED 08:13 Fd1 i1i7311045 C~j013 - . INVOICE ~ :Ir. ~~ ~ IMPAIC~~ INC . DIVISIUN UF" PENNLANTIC' A':~`_. NARY'LAhlD ,VENL!C n'~: 1U; 01 'iCRK, PA I740:` ~ „ 5]=134 r' . . ,;~-...g~h_.gn44 ,tATHI' HOFFMAtJ • .. f „t, i ~0~: 1,in1 EDGE S_!FF'~ Y " ' ~ I SPP,IhIt3 ~3ftiJV~, PA .i7~62 L T O NET r I:t~m ~~~ Pnrt No ...~~-__ I.3"V.,m. _. _(.ty . _ _ . .:DbsCr:iptian~,1, r. .; 1.~,- _ ... .. ~` ~.~" a.. ~; ~ ~.-- 1 Z_VO 99999999 SHARP FAX:.F.ILM:._ '~ 1 03'~ _' 65'.7:0 . ~~ ~# -~_ r - _.. - ~ .~._ ~T".2 ~ -- ..._ .. r_ Nd a 4 ~ f ~~„gl' _ ... ._.... ._._ ~L a 0.G e ," ~. .,Awsi - - - i V 3~ 1 . .. _. ._ __ _.. ...~ __"" ~rtluL.i~ t~~pl I1 r.~h ,x ~ S Y6 , 1 ~ a } ~' yI ~ - .L '~ 1 _.~ ~. ~.. 6Q.~. - lNVOICETOTALb PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. THANK YOU! ADCOUNIS DUE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FIN,4NCE CHARGE OP 1'!z PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 19%) AaPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. 004.34? - - 06/13!01 ~ ~ . ~. ~ 151~~ti EDGE SUPPLY .- . , 6 PR 7 fl0Y ~66> N SPRING r,POVE, PH 11362 P T O TH>~Nf;. YnU FGP. YOUR BUSINESS . . i 139E~2 PLEASE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN W1YH YOUR REMITTANCE ~ rv.,v srFreMe*~r 13%Qi N'ED 09:12 FAI i1i731d095 0 I(",F.,KS ZNC. DI'JISTON OP F'EIVNlANT7~: •195 MAFYL_f-1ND AVEt~Il1F ?7.?-8A5-8004 .. OLDIES B .%~56 CONC:ORD RD I 'iORK. PA ~?402 L L T O iNVOicE Ob!i3!O1 ~ ~,. .._ ' 515132 TRACEY ' e r 5 i ~06/13/Oi. ~~ ~ ~ `JIYI C~ ~ 012 NET ` ~~, ,;-,.., ..:. ~:yT, ~.; -_, ,M~f~ ~*~.. Y a' !e ~.- .. 1?8 .O£ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ INVOICE TOTALC> PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OFlNVO1CE. TNANK YOU' ACCOUNTS DUE t0 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 1 Vi PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR_ 18%) APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. 004"34c Ob/13101 • ~ ~ ~~ 515132 JL~V 1L.~ s ~ssc roNCOrD kD H `;ORI„ PA 1?40~ P T O TWANk; YOU FOR Y0r_i. SUSINEP,S 1 ~ tnv~ . ~a~ k iaslaq ~ ~ - 13931 PLEASE DETACH TRfS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN W7TH YOUR REMITTANCE , __,. ___. _,~. _ /0,%13.01 R'ED 11:13 F.~Y ilii31ID~15 IMPAKS INC. DSVISION OF PENNLRNTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 17404 . , %17-8x6-8004 J04378 g HANOVER WIRE CLOTH ) 500 E MIDDLE ST L HARIO'VER , PA 17333 L T O INVOICE ',. ~. -- 06!13/01 , • - • ~ 515189 ' ~ , ; : FRANK 4~11H „ • ~ 06/13/01 t1PPL-IES' ' ' ' tem Ut.y,,, ..P,ar.t_ No . .. .... _ Ue8crlp'rlOT,7. --- ------: ....-- ;-- Prikce' .,~~ - .,_ ,.., 1 1 .00 99999999 TOSHIBA KIT,;P,K04~ ~~{9~{$~ '" . ~' , • • 00'4378 S HANOVER WIRE CLOTH H S00 E MIDDLE ST I HANOVER, PA 17333 P T O ANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSII~lE55 INV(~IC;F T(lT4l , „ Gbi13101 .- . . 515189 a , . 26`4 .58 1ao3s '~ PLEASE DETACH THIS 80TTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE LGPW iTATEMENT PAYMENT dUE UPON RECEIPT OF /NV0/CE. THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE 7U DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 1 V. PFR MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUaI RATE OR 13 % ),4PPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS /Oti~ tit'ED ll:dd F_aY i1ii31~l0~iS f h _ IMPAKS INC. DI1/ISiON OF PENNLANTIC 495 MART I,ANU AVENUE YORY.; PA 17404 AiC37.TTT~7lJT.7 717-E46-6004 x04219 S L L T O 1 INVOIOE • ,:,. 06/13/01 ..: . .5159.90 F , __ ROX'i 32431 ~ • • - , 06/13/01 ~uon UPP'LIES _._I 5}iARP AR5132 7620237519 NET ' L _ ~ ' 'E : i 'I ~ I I k, , ~. 1 h y t I ~ .. _ ' 1. y. . i } x 34 _~4~'~~ e"'*: ,i ~.I. ' i u I o, qi I ~ ~. e, 1 i F 6.000 I 0.00 I 34.42 2.07 36,49 __ ._ INVOICE TOTAL PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. TNANK YOU! ' ACCOUNTS DUE 70 D.4Y$ FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF Ph PEA MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 1A^~I APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. _ _ ..._. y-004221 B-004219 • ~ of/13/ol S SPECIALTY INDUSTRIES, INC, '' ~ • 515190 " PO SOX 3".0 17S EAST WALNUT STREET REb LION, PA 17356 NK YOU FOR YOUR EUSINESS SPECIALTY INDUSTRIES, INC. PO BOX 330 175 EAST WALNUT STREET RED LION, PA 17356 •• "~5 . 49 -~'i • 14036 PLEASE DETACH THIS BOTTOM PORTION AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE wFW ^l'aTEl~dEn'T 06%la"-C1 Nc'D ll:d~ F.A-1 ~Ar~3AdV-!~ ,--=~ IMPAKS INC. DIVISION OF PENNLANTIC 495 MARYLAND AVENUE YORK, PA 1%404 ,;,_ i 717-846-8004 J04319 B L L T O COLDWELL BANKER 2525 EASTERN BLVD YORK, PA 17402 INVQICE _~ ~. 06; 13/01 •' P 515191 _ ,, ,; MELISSA „ ,.. 06; 13/01 UPPLZE I ~I)1Q NET 1 21 ,45 11 i 21.45 5.000 0.00 21.45 1.29 I I I INVOICE TOTAL r'` 2` ~ ~ 4 PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE THANK YOU! ACCOUNTS DUE t0 DAYS FOLLOWING PURCHASE. FINANCE CHARGE OF 1'/i PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RATE OR 169; APPLIED TC PAST DUE ACCOUNT;:. • _ • 00431° 06/13/01 •~ S COLDWELL BANKER •" • 515191 H 2525 EASTEP.N BLVD I YORK, PA 17402 P ~~,'~ 1- { 2L.74 0 1 qNK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS 14037 PLEASE DETACH THtS 90TTOM PORTION aN0 RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE lC?W $i.ATEMENY EXHIBIT "E" 07/11/01 09:45 IMPRX a MWN 237-5371 N0.999 D02 7lI 1/01 at 09:43:16.99 Page'. I llrlP'AX, iNC. Aged Receivables As of ]tm 30, 2001 Filter Criuria includm: 1) i0e from PENNLANTIC m PPNNI,ANTIC; 2) Types from AR In AR. Raport order is by 1D. Rcparti6.printed in Dcieil Farvnat. Cusl4mer ID Invoke Nu CURRENT 1-30 PAST DUE 31-60 PAST DUE a60 PAST DUE Amount Due Customer Contact Telephone 1 _ __ PENNLANTIC 411IC0 1.871.94 h871.94 2 029 32 PENNLANTIC LARRY BIXLER 4199C0 4213 C0 2,029.32 15,572.78 , . 15,572.78 d27000 974.03 ., ._ 974.03 PENNLANT7C 974.03 17,602.10 1,871.94 20,448.07 PENNLAIVTIC ~~~ Report Total ~ 974.03 17,602.10 1,871.94 i\ 20,448.07 ~ ~Panw~ p - 6/29/01 a[ 12:14:02.29 Pagel IMPAX, INC. Sales Journal For the Period From Jan 1, 2001 to Jun 30, 2001 Filter Criteria includes: 1) Customer IDs firm PENNLANTIC to PENNLANTIC. Report order is by Invoice Date. Report is printed in Detail Format. Date Account ID Invoice No Line Description Debit Amnt Credit Amnt 4/26/01 412 114 5/16/01 412 lt4 5/30/01 412 412 114 5/3l/O1 412 114 5/31/01 412 412 412 114 6/22/01 412 114 4ll ICO 4178CO 4199CO 4212CM 4213 CO 4276MR Total FO 4700 SHARP FAXES ~ Z~ PENNLANTIC LANIER COPIER PENNLANTIC OKIDATA L~ ~ SHARP 57000 PENNLANTIC CREDIT FOR LANIER COPIER THAT WAS RETURNED PENNLANTIC AFICIO 650 Q ~AFICIO FX tf(I GESTETNER 3227 WITH ARDF, ~ CABINET, INTERCHANGE UNIT, BYPASS AND STAND PENNLANTIC SHARP FO 5550 FAX MACHINE Lt PENNLANTIC 1,871.94 1,871.94 3, .00 \\ // 3,80.00 / `` 742.00 1,287.32 2,029.32 3, 00 3,85y1i00 10,775.00 1,253.81 3,543.97 15,572.78 974.03 974.03 28,148.07 28,148.07 C~7~ao~ EXIIIBIT "F" i B:oFHAlvov~ 25 Cerllsle S[reet • Hanover, PA 17331 • (7t 7) 837.2201 I MembBr cO1C IMPAK9 INC 495 MARYLAND AVE YORK PA 17404 2 Account Statement Date 6-30-01 Account No. 148741 Paqe 1 Mail 9 OUR HANK STATEMENTS HAVE A NEW LOOK AND FORMAT. PLEA9E REFERENCE THE ENCL09ED INFORNATION FOR FURTHE3 EYPLANATIOM'. 148741 BUSINESS CHECKIND Previqus Balance 6-14-D1 .00 +AepgsitS/Credits 6 29,407.23 -CheCkS/Debits 3 3,327.75 -Service Fee .00 +Interest Paid ~ .00 Current Balance 26,079.48 TRANSACTION SUMMARY Check ~ Check Deposit Date Balance DEPOSIT .. 550.00 6-14 55D.00 DEPOSIT ~ 251.50 6-19~' 801.50 .- DEPOSIT ~ " ~ ~ 6597-.07 ~.6-19 ~ 7398.57 107.75' ~ DELUKE`CH&CKFEE~BR~13~.'~ ~ .''6-.19 - 729D.82 ~ ~~~ 425.000K~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ "6-22' ~ ' 6865.82 ~~ .. ~~DEPOSIT ~ . 400.8$ , , . 6-25~ . .7266.64 ' ~ ' - 'DEPOS3T 9253:19.: . 6-25 16519.83 -- .. • . DEpO$IT., ~ ~ '~~ ~ 12354;65.. "6-$B~' ~ ~~28874~.4B~ ~ ~ - ~ ~~ 2795.000K ~ ~ ~ '• ~ ~ 6-29' . '. ~ 26079.48 - i ' ~ - - - ' ~' -,- CRECKS `.P AID _`. _ _ -.,. _ . r- - ~~ No .~'.. Da~e ` '•. Amount No' Date' .~~Amount '~ ~. .!< ~, ~ .., 100L,~. 6 22 g~. ,~, .:.425 00 .~ .:,. :1002 6-29. ~~ 2795:00 ~~ ~` " ~ . .. - I ~ , ~ i 1 y a 1: Y f 4' i.i Y t .Y~ 1 E. 4 - xd E y .[ ._ .. . < , }„ ~ ... - . .y +~ 1 L " 2 t [ [[. i T ~ ~ 1 J l~ `1. ~ .. .. ~4. u i ~Yl.~ F I Y, t.. T 9! sl . 4 p F ' ~ ~ It y Y'(~ Y L..V S1 ~ ~~ y" y. ~ ~ Si . '4, ~ ~ ' ! f~ 1 ;i f ~ 'a:~ ~ s k fi' a I i . y t. lei~ . S~ ] . f . I ! ( ~ i i.Pi r C . f ry .1 . ~ . d. ~, i I Iy t y ]i ( 45 T iqt ~,F I a 4ti .~. . ~ I 1 f: t.~.. ' . . Y. i M1 M1 i 'fA ': Y t 5 '!:: ' [ IC iV 1 ~ • T Ydi : - ':'1: [s f e a u., l s~. Enfl o£ $tat , '~. r empnt E s 1 .,pi 2 i .'i ~~ k S 5 E "f ~ .l l ... ~ .. ... FI .. . 1' . y. . .\ ~V r i' `. _ 1 C „~ C- /~/ r V` ~' \^` '~~! 1 N 54N~^'"KF1¢i@SL~, S•If9R1R~41 - ... ,t° IMPAX, INC., v. Plaintiff PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ~CUZy //~,, r - -~1; ACTION NO. Ul _ `C~-7 `L- ~ ~yf Lu~-1 ORDER AND NOW, this L /~~day of ~ 2001, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a hearing is scheduled for- . p.m. n ~f(1,f l ~d , 2001, in Courtroom, in the Cumberland County Courthouse, so that Defendants may show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Motion of Plaintiff, pending trial on the merits. IMPAX, INC., s : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : ~~7y v. '~v`IIJ'ACTION NO. ~ ~ ~ `/ °~- ~ 4-- ~~-~ PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA Defendants PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INNNCTION Plaintiff, Impax, Ina ("IMPAX"), hereby moves, pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1531, for a preliminary injunction barring Defendants from using IMPAX confidential customer information and barring Defendants from dissipating funds that properly belong to IMPAX. IMPAX moves the Court to enter a Preliminary Injunction in the form set forth in the attached proposed Order and, in support of said Motion, avers as follows: 1. Simultaneously with this Motion, Plaintiff Impax, Inc. ("IlVIPAX") has filed a Complaint against Defendants Pennlantic Corporation, Impaks, Inc., Larry Bixler, Ronald Roseberry, and Patrick Noga. As stated in the complaint, Defendants, acting individually or together, wrongfully obtained possession of IMPAX's property and funds, misappropriated IMPAX's confidential information and trade secrets, and engaged in unfair competition, and breached their fiduciary duties to IMPAX. 3. As set forth in the complaint, Defendants have wrongfully obtained confidential information and trade secrets regarding the identities and needs of IMPAX's customers. 4. IMPAX reasonably believes that Defendants have wrongfully used confidential information and trade secrets to engage in unfair competition. 5. IMPAX reasonably believes that Defendant will continue to use IMPAX's confidential information and trade secrets to engage in unfair competition. 6. IMPAX will be irreparably harmed if Defendants are not restrained from using and revealing IMPAX's confidential information and trade secrets and from engaging in unfair competition. As set forth in the complaint, Defendants, individually or together, deposited funds that properly belonged to IMPAX into Bank of Hanover Account #148741, an account held in the name of Impaks, Inc. (the "Impaks Account"). 8. Impaks is a recently formed corporation and IMPAX reasonably believes that Impaks has no assets other than the funds in the Impaks Account. 9. IMPAX reasonably believes that the Impaks Account is subject to the control of the Defendants. 10. IMPAX will be irreparably harmed if the funds in the Impaks Account, which properly belong to IMPAX, are dissipated by the Defendants and IMPAX is unable to recover the fixnds that properly belong to it. 11. IMPAX has a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits of its claims against the Defendants. 12. The balancing of the harms favors the grant of the injunction. 13. The public interest favors the grant of the injunction. WHEREFORE, IMPAX requests that this Court grant a preliminary injunction pending trial on the merits: (1) barring Defendants from using or revealing IMPAX's confidential information and trade secrets; (2) barring Defendants from soliciting or attempting to solicit the customers of Plaintiff or from engaging in any other method of unfair competition; and (3) freezing the funds in the Impaks Account and barring Defendants from dissipating the funds in that account. IMPAX further requests that the Court grant such other relief as is just and proper under the circumstances and in light of the evidence presented at the hearing. McNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC Del o M. Lantz, Esq. I.D. No. 21401 Kimberly M. Colonna I.D. No. 80362 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)232-8000 Attorneys for Plaintiff _ ,,~ IMPAX, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. CIVIL ACTION NO. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA Defendants ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND NOW, this day of , 2001, upon consideration of the Complaint, the Motion of Plaintiff for Preliminary Injunction, and Memorandum submitted in support thereof, and the testimony presented at a hearing on Plaintiff s request, and having determined that: 1. Plaintiff Impax, Inc. will suffer irreparable harm apd loss if Defendants are permitted to use or reveal Plaintiffs confidential information and trade secrets, including information regarding the identities and needs of Plaintiff s customers; 2. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law; 3. Greater injury will be inflicted upon Plaintiff by the denial of temporary injunctive relief than would be inflicted upon Defendants upon the granting of such relief. 4. The grant of injunctive relief will restore the parties to the status quo as it existed prior to Defendants wrongful conduct; and 5. The injunction sought by Plaintiff is reasonably suited to abate the wrongful activity identified by Plaintiff. ~a. ,.A ~~ ~ -~, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED THAT: 1. Defendants are hereby enjoined and restrained, pending trial on the merits from: (a) using or revealing IMPAX's confidential information and trade secrets, including but not limited to information regarding the identities and needs of Plaintiff s customers; (b) directly or indirectly soliciting or attempting to solicit, obtaining or attempting to obtain, or in any way transacting, business with any of the customers of Plaintiff or engaging in any other method of unfair competition; and (c) freezing the funds in Impaks, Inc.'s Bank of Hanover Account (Account Number 148741), and barring Defendants from withdrawing or otherwise dissipating the funds in Bank that account. 2. This Order is effective immediately. Plaintiff shall post a bond in the sum of within five days of receipt of this Order or the Order shall be deemed dissolved until a bond is posted. 3. This Order shall remain in full force and effect until such time as this Court specifically orders otherwise. BY THE COURT: J. IMPAX, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA Defendants CIVIL ACTION NO. p~-y~.~ ~ ~~'~ v. B. ROBERT SNYDER AND GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC., Additional Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Defendants Pennlantic Corporation, Larry Bixler, and Ronald Roseberry, and Leslie David Jacobson, their attorney: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE WITHIN NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE OR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. McNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC BY / ~.d1..rrw~o~-- Delano .Lantz, Esquire I.D. No. 21401 Kimberly M. Colonna I.D. No. 80362 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 232-8000 Dated: September 12, 2001 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Additional Defendants IMPAX, INC., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION NO. ~~- ~~~°~ PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA Defendants v. B. ROBERT SNYDER AND GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC., Additional Defendants REPLY WITH NEW MATTER TO NEW MATTER COUNTERCLAIMS and CROSS-CLAIM Impax, Inc., B. Robert Snyder, and Genie Electronics, Inc., by and through their attorneys McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, submit the following reply with new matter to the New Matter, Counterclaim and Cross-Claim of Defendants Pennlantic Corporation, Impaks, Inc., Larry Bixler, and Ronald Roseberry: Regly to New Matter Impax, Inc., for its reply to the new matter raised by Defendants Pennlantic Corporation, Impaks, Inc., Larry Bixler, and Ronald Roseberry, states as follows: 108. Impax, Inc. ("IMPAX") incorporates herein the allegations contained in the Complaint. 109. Admitted in part and denied in part. IMPAX lacks information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of this paragraph to the extent the paragraph refers to Defendant Noga. Accordingly, such allegations are denied. Denied that Mr. Snyder discussed the possibility of selling to Defendants Bixler and Roseberry. Any discussion related to the possibility of selling to Pennlantic. 110. Admitted in part and denied in part. IMPAX admits that Snyder met with Defendant Bixler on or about March 8, 2001, at the offices of Security Fence Company in Red Lion, PA, and admits that Noga was present at that meeting. IMPAX denies that Snyder represented the value of the IMPAX to be S2 m'illion dollars and denies that Snyder formally offered to sell IMPAX to Bixler and Roseberry for S2 million dollars. By way of further answer, at the meeting, Snyder offered the opinion that in his estimation, the assets of IMPAX plus the start up costs equaled approximately S2 million dollars.. At the time of the meeting,, IMPAX had not yet worked through any financial figures to make a formal offer 111. Admitted in part and denied in part. IMPAX admits that in Ap',ril, Snyder met with Bixler and Roseberry, and that Nancy Barry, the comptroller, attended that meeting. IMPAX admits that it offered its opinion that IMPAX had assets worth between 51.1 Million and 51.3 Million. IMPAX denies the remaining averments of Paragraph 1 1 1. -2- 1 12. Admitted in part and denied in part. IMPAX admits that the meeting took place, admits that Nancy Barry, Snyder, Bixler and Roseberry were present. IMPAX denies that Defendants requested various documents so they could evaluate the business and denies that they requested documentation to "verify the statements made by Snyder and Barry." By way of further answer, the answer to paragraphs 109-1 1 1 are incorporated herein by reference. 1 13. Admitted in part and denied in part. Denied that the alleged representations claim by Defendants were made as alleged. The answer to paragraphs 109-1 1 1 are incorporated herein by reference. Admitted that the May 11, 2001 letter was received by Plaintiffs. As to the remaining averments of this paragraph, IMPAX lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. Accordingly, those allegations are denied. 1 14. Admitted in part and denied in part. IMPAX admits that as meeting was held on May 8, 2001, and that Barry, Snyder, Bixler, and Roseberry were present at the meeting. IMPAX denies that Defendants made any request to review documents at that meeting and denies that copies of leases were provided at that meeting. IMPAX denies that Snyder represented to Bixler that the leases were the major asset of IMPAX. By way of further answer, copies of the leases were first requested on or about June 1, 20001, and on or about June 6, 2001, Bixler was permitted to review redacted copies of IMPAX's leases. -3- 1 15. Denied. IMPAX lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of this paragraph. Accordingly, the allegations are denied. 116. Admitted in part and denied in part. IMPAX admits that on or about June 27, 2001, Snyder, Barry, Bixler, and Roseberry met again at the York Tool Location, that at that meeting, Bixler and Roseberry made a new, verbal proposal to purchase IMPAX, and that Snyder, on behalf of IMPAX, rejected the proposal. IMPAX denies that it, Snyder, or Barry, misrepresented the value of IMPAX to Pennlantic at any time, and denies that the proposal made by Bixler and Roseberry accurately reflected the true value of IMPAX. IMPAX lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of this paragraph. Accordingly, those allegations are denied. 117. Denied. The averments of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. The facts set forth in the Complaint demonstrate that Bixler and Roseberry acted in bad faith and wrongfully. 118. Admitted in part and denied in part. IMPAX admits that it asked Pennlantic to grant a security interest in Pennlantic's assets to Impax in the initial draft of the Asset Purchase Agreement. IMPAX denies that Snyder required that personal guarantees from Bixler and Roseberry be included in any agreement. By way of further answer, if Pennlantic was the purchaser, IMPAX may have requested personal guarantees if it found that Pennlantic's financial condition -4- ..., necessitated such guarantees as set forth in the initial draft of the Purchase Agreement. Upon receiving correspondence from attorney Jacobson informing IMPAX that his "clients" wanted to make the purchase individually, IMPAX began to negotiate additional security from Bixler and Roseberry. 1 19. Denied. IMPAX denies that Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry acted in good faith. The Reply to paragraph 1 17 is incorporated herein by reference. As to subparagraphs a-g, Plaintiffs respond as follows: a. Denied. IMPAX denies that the forming of Impaks, Inc., was an action taken in good faith by Defendants. By way of further answer, Impaks was formed without the knowledge or permission of IMPAX, Impaks was used by Defendants to divert funds that properly belonged to IMPAX. These actions demonstrate bad faith and wrongful conduct on the part of Defendants. Defendant Noga was one of the owners of the corporation, without the knowledge of Plaintiffs; b. Denied. IMPAX denies that Impaks, Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry acted in good faith in attempting to sell certain items in IMPAX's inventory. By way of further answer, items were taken from IMPAX's inventory without payment, and were sold by Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry to customers of IMPAX, -5- without IMPAX's knowledge or permission, and invoices sent directing payment to be made to Impaks; c. Denied. IMPAX denies that Pennlantic, Impaks, Bixler, and Roseberry acted in good faith in servicing existing IMPAX accounts in the Harrisburg area; By way of further answer, IMPAX took steps to ensure that Pennlantic, Bixler and Roseberry did not know the identity of IMPAX's customers, so any servicing of IMPAX's accounts could not have been made in good faith; d. Denied. IMPAX denies that Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry acted in good faith by invoicing new sales under the name Impaks. By way of further answer, IMPAX did not give permission for any of its sales to be invoiced under the name Impaks, therefore, the invoices issued under the''Impaks name were improper and constituted a method of diverting funds that properly belonged to IMPAX. Defendants continue to wrongfully withhold these funds from Plaintiff. e. Denied. IMPAX denies that Pennlantic, Impaks, Bixler, and Roseberry acted in good faith in collecting funds or directing funds into an account controlled by Impaks. By way of further answer, the funds collected and directed into the account -6- L controlled by Impaks were funds belonging to IMPAX and IMPAX did not give permission for the funds to be directed into any account controlled by any of the Defendants. Furthermore, Defendants made withdrawals from the account without permission of IMPAX. The collecting and directing of funds into the Impaks account was improper and constituted a method of diverting funds that properly belonged to IMPAX. Defendants continue to wrongfully withhold these funds from Plaintiffs. f. Denied. IMPAX denies that Pennlantic, Impaks, Bixler, and Roseberry acted in good faith in any alleged offer to make payment in full for any amounts rightfully owing. To date, no such offer has been made. By way of further answer, Defendants tendered a check drawn on the Impaks account in the amount of 520,000.00, substantially less than is owed to IMPAX, and tendered the check on the condition that it be accepted in full satisfaction of all debts owing by Defendants. Such action demonstrated bad faith on the part of Defendants. g. Denied. IMPAX denies that Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry acted in good faith in offering to endorse any checks that arrived in the Impaks name. To date, Defendants have failed to endorse checks despite requests for such endorsements. -7- 120. Denied. Paragraph 120 avers conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, the averments are denied. 121. Denied. Paragraph 121 avers conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, the averments are denied. 122. Denied. Paragraph 122 avers conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, the averments are denied. 123. Denied. Paragraph 123 avers conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, the averments are denied. 124. Denied. Paragraph 124 avers conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, the averments are denied. 125. Denied. Paragraph 125 avers conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, the averments are denied. 126. Denied. Paragraph 126 avers conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, the averments are denied. No payment has been made. -8- ,:.~4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Impax, Inc. demands that judgment be entered in its favor and against the Defendants on all counts. Reply to Counterclaim against Impax, Inc. Impax, Inc., for its answer to the counterclaim asserted by Defendants Pennlantic Corporation, Impaks, Inc., Larry Bixler, and Ronald Roseberry, states as follows: 127. IMPAX incorporates by referenced the allegations of its complaint and its reply to new matter set forth above. 128. Denied. IMPAX denies that it made any material misrepresentations to Defendants Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry: a. Denied. IMPAX denies that it misrepresented that its assets were worth $2,000,000.00. The reply to paragraph 1 10 is incorporated herein by reference. IMPAX denies that its assets were worth somewhere between ~ 100,000.00 and 5250,000.00; b. Denied. IMPAX denies that it misrepresented that it had a guaranteed monthly of income of 530,000.00. By way of further answer, IMPAX expressed its opinion that its monthly supply sales revenue was approximately $20,000.00 to 530,000.00 and that cash flow from leases and existing contracts was approximately 530,000.00 per month. -9- c. Denied. IMPAX denies that it misrepresented that there were S 1,300,000.00 in receivables represented by long-term leases. d. Denied. IMPAX denies that it misrepresented that new equipment was supplied to lessees when in fact, used equipment was supplied to lessees. By way of further answer, IMPAX was never asked whether new or used equipment was provided to lessees, and in fact, some leases were for new equipment and others were for used equipment. Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry had access to copies of the leases from which they could determine whether the equipment leased was new or used; e. Admitted in part and denied in part. IMPAX admits that it stated that hardware costs averaged 50% on its leases. IMPAX denies that the statement constituted a misrepresentation and denies that the hardware costs on the leases averaged 10%. f. Denied. IMPAX denies that its service obligations were much greater than represented. 129. Denied. IMPAX denies that it made any material or fraudulent misrepresentations. At all times, Plaintiff's authorized representatives had a good faith belief in the opinion of value which it expressed. Plaintiff's representatives -10- ~~_ did not made any material misrepresentation of any fact known to them at any time during the negotiations. 130. Denied. IMPAX denies that it made any material or fraudulent misrepresentations with the intent to induce Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry to continue negotiating for the purchase of IMPAX's assets. The answer to paragraphs 128 and 129 are incorporated herein. 131. Denied. This paragraph avers conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the allegations are denied. By way of further response, Defendants' actions as alleged in paragraphs 115-116 of their New Matter establish that they never relied upon any opinions of value or any other statements made by Plaintiff's representatives, and instead relied upon Wooten Reed & Associates, P.C. 132. Denied. The reply to paragraphs 128 - 131 are incorporated herein by reference. IMPAX denies that Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry suffered financial losses as a result of any alleged reliance on statements made by IMPAX, any such reliance being denied. Further, as set forth above, IMPAX denies that IMPAX made any fraudulent statements. As to subparagraphs a-d: a. Denied. IMPAX did not represent to Pennlantic that B.I,G. wanted to purchase a color copier that cost 520,000.00. Upon information and belief any such alleged representation, if any, was made by Defendant Noga, a co-conspirator of Pennlantic, -11- who Pennlantic knew to be acting outside of the scope of his authority as an employee of IMPAX if in fact such a representation was made by Defendant Noga. b. Denied. IMPAX lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of this paragraph. Accordingly, the allegations are denied. By way of further answer, IMPAX incorporates its answer to paragraph 132(a). c. Denied. IMPAX lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of this paragraph. Accordingly, the allegations are denied. d. Denied. IMPAX never requested or approved any such training trip. By way of further answer, IMPAX did not know of any such training trip until after it was over and IMPAX did not authorize Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry to send any IMPAX employees for any training. WHEREFORE, IMPAX demands judgment in its favor and against Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry on their Counterclaim. Answer to Cross-Claim Additional Defendants B. Robert Snyder ("Snyder") and Genie Electronics Company, Inc., ("Genie") for their answer to the cross-claim asserted by Defendants Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry, state as follows: 12- •x . 133. Snyder and Genie ("Additional Defendants") incorporate by reference the allegations contained in IMPAX's complaint, IMPAX's reply to the new matter set forth in paragraphs 108 through 126 above, and IMPAX's answer to the Counterclaim set forth in paragraphs 127 through 132 above. 134. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that B. Robert Snyder is an adult individual; Denied that he has an office address at 1087 Valley View Road, York, PA 17402. By way of further answer, the office address of B. Robert Snyder is 710 Wise Avenue, Red Lion, PA 17356. 135. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that Genie Electronics Company is incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania; Denied that Genie Electronics Company has a business address at 1087 Valley View Road, York, PA 17402. By way of further answer, the business address of Genie Electronics Company is 710 Wise Avenue, Red Lion, PA 17356. 136. Admitted in part and denied in part. Additional Defendants admit that Snyder represented himself to be an officer and shareholder of IMPAX. Additional Defendants deny the remaining averments of the paragraph. 137. Denied. Additional Defendants deny that any misrepresentations were made to Bixler, Roseberry, and Pennlantic and deny that they benefited or would have benefited from any such alleged misrepresentations, which are denied. 138. Denied. Additional Defendants deny that they made any material misrepresentations to Defendants: -13- b a. Denied. IMPAX denies that it misrepresented that its assets were worth 52,000,000.00. The reply to paragraph 1 10 is incorporated herein by reference. IMPAX denies that its assets were worth somewhere between 5100,000.00 and 5250,000.00; b. Denied. IMPAX denies that it misrepresented that it had a guaranteed monthly of income of 530,000.00. By way of further answer, IMPAX expressed its opinion that its monthly supply sales revenue was approximately 520,000.00 to 530,000.00 and that cash flow from leases and existing contracts was approximately 530,000.00 per month. c. Denied. IMPAX denies that it misrepresented that there were 51,300,000.00 in receivables represented by long-term leases. d. Denied. IMPAX denies that it misrepresented that new equipment was supplied to lessees when in fact, used equipment was supplied to lessees. By way of further answer, IMPAX was never asked whether new or used equipment was provided to lessees, and in fact, some leases were for new equipment and others were for used equipment. Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry had access to copies of the leases from -14- which they could determine whether the equipment leased was new or used; e. Admitted in part and denied in part. IMPAX admits that it stated that hardware costs averaged 50% on its leases. IMPAX denies that the statement constituted a misrepresentation and denies that hardware costs on the leases averaged 10%. f. Denied. IMPAX denies that its service obligations were much greater than represented. 139. Denied. IMPAX denies that it made any material or fraudulent misrepresentations. At all times, Plaintiff's authorized representatives had a good faith belief in the opinion of value which it expressed. Plaintiff's representatives did not made any material misrepresentation of any fact known to them at any time during the negotiations. 140. Danied. IMPAX denies that it made any material or fraudulent misrepresentations with the intent to induce Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry to continue negotiating for the purchase of IMPAX's assets. The answer to paragraphs 128 and 129 are incorporated herein. 141. Denied. This paragraph avers conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the allegations are denied. By way of further response, Defendants' actions as alleged -15- in paragraphs 1 15-1 16 of their New Matter establish that they never relied upon any opinions of value or any other statements made by Plaintiff's representatives, and instead relied upon Wooten Reed & Associates, P.C. 142. Denied. The reply to paragraphs 128 - 131 are incorporated herein by reference. IMPAX denies that Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry suffered financial losses as a result of any alleged reliance on statements made by IMPAX, any such reliance being denied. Further, as set forth above, IMPAX denies that IMPAX made any fraudulent statements. As to subparagraphs a-d: a. Denied. IMPAX did not represent to Pennlantic that B.I.G. wanted to purchase a color copier that cost 520,000.00. Upon information and belief any such alleged representation, if any, was made by Defendant Noga, a co-conspirator of Pennlantic, who Pennlantic knew to be acting outside of the scope of his authority as an employee of IMPAX if in fact such a representation was made by Defendant Noga. b. Denied. IMPAX lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of this paragraph. Accordingly, the allegations are denied. By way of further answer, IMPAX incorporates its answer to paragraph 132(a-. -16- ,:~. c. Denied. IMPAX lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of this paragraph. Accordingly, the allegations are denied. d. Denied. IMPAX never requested or approved any such training trip. By way of further answer, IMPAX did not know of any such training trip until after it was over and IMPAX did not authorize Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry to send any IMPAX employees for any training. WHEREFORE, Additional Defendants Snyder and Genie demand judgment in their favor and against Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry on the Cross-Claim. PLAINTIFF'S NEW MATTER TO THE COUNTERCLAIM Plaintiff Impax, Inc. pleads the following new matter in response to the Counterclaim asserted by Defendants Pennlantic, Bixler and Roseberry: 143. The Counterclaim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 144. The Counterclaim is barred, in whole or in part, because the alleged damage was caused solely by the acts or omissions of Defendants Pennlantic, Impaks, Bixler, Roseberry and Noga. 145. The Counterclaim is barred, in whole or in part, because the alleged damage was caused solely by the acts or omissions of a third party not within the control of Plaintiff. -17- m ~A 146. The Counterclaim is barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands. 147. The Counterclaim is barred, in whole or in part, by estoppel. 148. The Counterclaim is barred, in whole or in part, by fraud. 149. The Counterclaim is barred, in whole or in part, by privilege. 150. The Counterclaim is barred, in whole or in part, because Defendants failed to mitigate their damages. WHEREFORE, IMPAX demands judgment in its favor and against Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry on their Counterclaim. ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER TO THE "CROSS-CLAIM" Additional Defendants, B. Robert Snyder and Genie Electronics Company, Inc. assert the following new matter in response to the Cross-claim asserted by Defendants Pennlantic, Bixler and Roseberry: 151. The Cross-Claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 152. The Cross-claim is barred, in whole or in part, because the alleged damage was caused solely by the acts or omissions of Defendants Pennlantic, Impaks, Bixler, Roseberry and Noga. 153. The Counterclaim is barred, in whole or in part, because the alleged damage was caused solely by the acts or omissions of a third party not within the control of Plaintiff. -18- I`~ a 154. The Cross-claim is barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands. 155. The Cross-claim is barred, in whole or in part, by estoppel. 156. The Cross-claim is barred, in whole or in part, by fraud. 157. The Cross-claim is barred, in whole or in part, by privilege. 158. The Cross-claim is barred, in whole or in part, because Defendants failed to mitigate their damages. WHEREFORE, Additional Defendants B. Robert Snyder and Genie Electronics Company, Inc. demand judgment in their favor and against Pennlantic, Bixler, and Roseberry on the Cross-Claim. McNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC By Delano M. Lantz, Esquire I.D. No. 21401 Kimberly M. Colonna I.D. No. 80362 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 232-8000 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Additional Defendants Dated: September 12, 2001 -19- „~. VERIFICATION Subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, I hereby certify that I am the Secretary of Impax, Inc., and am authorized to verify the foregoing document on its behalf. I further certify that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts set forth therein are tnie and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. IMPAX, INC. Ho Seace Dated: C~~~/p~ -. ~w=. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this date a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Leslie David Jacobson, Esquire 8150 Derry Street, Suite A Harrisburg, PA 17111-5858 (Attorney for Pennlantic Corp., Impaks, Inc., Larry Bixler and Ronald Roseberry) Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire Wolfson & Associates, P.C. 267 E. Market St. York, PA 17403 (Attorney for Patrick Noga) Kimberly M. Colonna Date: September 12, 2001 ~, ti~ ;-; ~ __ 2, cn -~~ ~~~ - ~' ._, 2 ~- G G _.F, y~i ~ i~: G-~^~ T' --f iV -~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INC., NO.01-4274 Plaintiff vs. CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY VNLANTIC CORPORATION, PAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, >NALD ROSEBERRY AND .TRICK NOGA Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this°~~5~ day of September, 2001, I, Daniel F. Wolfson, do hereby certify that 1 have served a copy of the foregoing Defendant, Noga's, Answers to Plaintiff's, Impax's, Interrogatories Directed to - First Set upon counsel of record by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid, addressed as follows: Kimberly M. Colonna, Esquire McNEES WALLACE St NURICK, LLC 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Counsel for Plaintiff) ~} ~6 '~.~ Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquir WOLFSON 8t ASSOCIATES P.C. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717)846-1252 ID No. 20617 Attorney for Defendant, Patrick Noga C r °•° J ~„~' ~~ C1:r rn. _ ' P- `r: _ - 7, ;; `tj. _ CC, _.._ G ~ :' -. . _ _ C ~z J t:C i n .. _ '. P~amarmast~%; _. ustt~9a~rcro~~..awamaen~i+TIW@91fl1N€'A~F'~~, r.:. a::+; ~rva a ~nl'+~fk% yr fa~44F::?i~tsSFs}¢'.'ask~~Ar~iW4~maa~^-r%i~';tw@. qW,3 ;s IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INC., Plaintiff vs. NNLANTIC CORPORATION, PAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, >NALD ROSEBERRY AND .TRICK NOGA Defendanu NO.O 1-4274 CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ~1 ~' day of September, 2001, i, Daniel F. Wolfson, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing Defendant, Noga's, Answer to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents Directed Defendants -first Set upon counsel of record by First Class Mail, postage pre- and addressed as follows: Kimberly M. Colonna, Esquire McNEES WALLACE st NURICK, LLC 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Counsel for Plaintiff) ~~¢~ ~ ~~niel F. Wolfso , • quire WOLFSON St ASSOCIATES P.C. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717)846-1252 ID No. 20617 Attorney for Defendant, Patrick Noga ~g \ Imo' ~" ..... >" r,,~ - 2~ _ ,~.a..~ r~~r~ :.~ ~;~; !' : Cn ~?, x J... t: "~ Y ~ p"T -` 4'a:' ' a .. _ r~aanwssam~vsa"v'~ ~.»avr zsu~.:mJ~aWw;av~ka~+l~~'+wr~~' ~s.kx 1', -.._ s PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and sulanitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF C[7I~ERLADID COt1N`I'Y Please list the fallowing case: (Check one) ( ) for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. ( X ) for trial without a jury. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) (check one) IMPAX, INC. ( ) Civil Action - Law ( ) Appeal from Arbitration (g ) Civil Artinn - Rm~i ~~+ (other) (Plaintiff) vs. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, AND PATRICK NOGA vs. ( Defendant ) No The trial list will be called on and Trials commence on Pretrials will beheld on (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials.) (The party listing this case for trial shall provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 214.1.) E}~}} 01-4274 Equity -}9- Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: Kimberly M. Colonna, McNees Wallace & Nurick 100 Pine Street Harrisburg PA 17108 Indicate trial pounsel for other parties if known: Leslie D.Sacobson, 8150 Derry Street., Harrisburg PA Daniel F. Wolfson 267 E. Market Street York, PA 17403 This case is ready fo>r trial. Date: _Q3 a S Q _ Signed: ~, Print Name: Kimhcrl~ M. (`nlnnna Attorney for: _Plaintiff c ~ ~ r ~ ~-~, ~.~, ~ ~~ ~ ° .c ~, c a ~~ mac' ~ ca .~ _ wa:63rsr~.rcu . ~ . , ,._,._ ..~., ~w,~ms~+a s .~~~;mvvpna'°§i~ar.,~~ RAIN OFFICE 'WO IRVINGTON CENTRE '02 KING FARM BLVD, ROCKVILLE, MD 20850 3RANCH OFFICES 0605 JUDICIAL DR., BLDG. A-5, FAIRFAX, VA 22030 100 E MAIN ST, STE. 1003, RICHMOND, VA 23216 1122 GREENWICH RD., VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23462 119 N. MARKET ST, STE 1300, W ILMtNGTON, DE 79889 954 GREENSPRING DR., STE. 400, TIMONIUM, MD 21093 VALLEY EANK BLDG., 6GX 1226, GLARKS&JRG,WV 26302 '625 TOW NSGATE RD IX330, WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91361 :67E MARKET ST, YORK, PA 17403 dATIONAL COLLECTION ATTORNEY NETWORK 1FFILIATED FIRM LOCATIONS fNOT BRANCH >FFICES OF WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON. L.L.P.1 " 31RMINGHAM, ALABAMA SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 1NCHORAGE, ALASKA EDGEW OOD,COLORADO °HOENIX, ARI20NA FT. LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA ;ABOT,ARKANSAS NORCROSS, GEORGIA April 12, 2004 LAW OFFICES WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, L.L.P Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection (A National Collection Attorney Network Firm) 267 E. MARKET STREET YORK, PA 17403 (TOLL FREE) 1-800-758-0675 FACSIMILE 717-848-1146 PLEASE OIRECTALL INQUIRIES TO YORK OFFICE SENT ViA FIRST CLA55 MAIL POSTAGE PRf:-PAID Prothonotary of Cumberland County 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17103 RE: Impax, Inc vs. Pennlantic Corp., et al No. 01-4274 Equity Dear Clerk: NATIONAL COLLECTION ATTORNEY NETWORK AFFILIATED FIRM LOCATIONS fNOT BRANCH OFFICES OF WOLPOFF 8 ABRAMSON L.L.P.1 HONOLULU, HAW All FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA BOISE, IDAHO CLEVELAND, OHIO MERRILLVILLE, INDIANA OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA CHICAGO, ILLINOIS EUGENE, OREGON KANSAS CIN, KANSAS PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA METAIRIE, LOUISIANA KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE NEEDHAM, MASSACHUSETTS HOUSTON, TEXAS ' SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN SANOV, UTAH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA MILW AUKEE,WISCONSIN ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI RAW LINS, WYOMING GREAT FALLS, MONTANA OMAHA, NEBRASKA `TM1e National Collection LAS VEGAS, NEVADA Attorney Network is an affiliation MANCHESTE R, NEW HAMPSHIRE of separate law firms. CEDAR KNOLLS, NEW JERSEY WgA HOUrsaro tian: pera SYOSSET, NEW YORK 9 a.m.-11 p m E.S.T. M-F RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA Kindly be advised that our office previously represented the interests of Patrick Noga in the above- referenced matter. We are in receipt of the Praecipe for Listing Case for Trial dated March 25, 2004. Please be advised that Patrick Noga deceased approximately one (1) year ago. Therefore, I no longer represent him in this matter. Further, I do not represent his estate. I will not be attending this trial. Thank you for your anticipated professional cooperation in this matter. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me or my Senior Paralegal, Kelly Goff. Very truly yours, WOFF Si ABRAMSON, L.L.P. Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire DFW/kjg cc: M~Nees.Wallace at Nurick, LLC ATTN: Kimerly M. Colonna. P.O. Box 1166 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 IMPAX, INC., Plaintiff v. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, and PATRICK NOGA, Defendants v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA N0. 2001-4274 EQUITY B. ROBERT SNYDER and GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC., Additional Defendants CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2nd day of July, 2004, the injunction freezing the Impaks account is lifted, and the Defendants are directed to turn over the entire amount in said account to Plaintiff's counsel. Defendants shall be entitled to a credit against the verdict entered against them today for any amounts so paid. Edward E. Guido, J. Kimberly M. Colonna, Esquire Helen L. Gemmill, Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiff and Additional Defendants e.J x:(76°~y ~rv~-.__ Leslie D. Jacobson, Esquire /~ Attorney for Defendants Pennlantic Corporation, C u~-~ Impaks, Inc., Larry Bixler and Ronald Roseberry srs 1~itit~?1l„v~~~r; ___ ,, ~~ ~~~~~~ ~~ f~~~:~~~ ,~~~W~~as~~~~vwfa~c~~~ ~'~. ~~ IMPAX, INC., Plaintiff v. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, and PATRICK NOGA, Defendants v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA N0. 2001-4274 EQUITY B. ROBERT SNYDER and GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC., Additional Defendants CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2nd day of July, 2004, after a nonjury trial on the issues between the parties, we find in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants jointly and severally in the amount of $60,000.00. Further, we award Plaintiff punitive damages against the Defendants jointly and severally in the amount of $12,500.00. We find in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants on the counter-claim. We find in favor of the Additional Defendants. E Edward E. Guido, J. Kimberly M. Colonna, Esquire Helen L. Gemmill, Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiff and Additional Defendants ? p~-UY Leslie D. Jacobson, Esquire Attorney for Defendants Pennlantic Corporation, Impaks, Inc., Larry Bixler and Ronald Roseberry srs ~,. - b'f[~r'~Pi ;±f~"civ~:~ '1 ~"# ~ qn;:~~~ ~fr(~~ If~Ci~: ~.' ~ s.. v, ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~i~r ~i~~Z ~,i3'd!~~vir-il{~d ~F11.~;7 ~~i~.?u~'~~ I!j I. ~_. ..... '~~'N~ia ~ st g..,~x'A~xat~rau~t~r IMPAX, INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. PENNLANTIC CORPORATION, IMPAKS, INC., LARRY BIXLER, RONALD ROSEBERRY, and NO. 01-4274 -Equity PATRICK NOGA, Defendants v. B. ROBERT SNYDER and GENIE ELECTRONICS, INC. Additional Defendants PRAECIPE TO MARK JUDGMENT SATISFIED TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please mark the judgment entered in the above-captioned matter satisfied, settled and discontinued of record. McNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC B ~.len,~,,r~ Y ~~ Kimberly M. Colonna 1:D. No. 80362 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17018-1166 (717) 232-8000 Dated: August 6, 2004 C7 c~ tva C_, ~? -r i 17~; L;_, c, ; i'a' T n' i. r , ,t ~_.o . ~ _:,i ,,~ ~ ; -, - ~ ;-,rn C..i - r_] f"D 3 Z m m N S D 9 ~ ~ r D ~ ~ v r ~e A p m n ~ 41 x N m ~ 'D0 ~ m ~ m ~m~Z C o p ro Q x r r 0 1 ~ o~~ ~ O ~ .°coro~c ~y ~. ~fi~~ fin ~m~ °~ n n Wyk `~ o rt w fi 0 .moo.-'*~ anemia o•oC' 1a a~~ . W~tI o~~ N N as N N `b a o ~ .s N y K. ~ 3 Z m m N 2 D P ~ ~ r D ~ ~ ~ r f D A ~ m fl ~ ~ X N m +1 m m ~ m ~ ~ '~ C 0 p m (f x r r n ~ ~ o ~ w ~.°coror prima 'm ~~o romp ~ ~~fi~ r ~• m amok rt ~n n~ wm0 mn ~ O rt w r- 0 g 1 N N h~ °' ~ n ~ ¢~ . w ~~ s ~~ ~\\\~ 7J m N N a N -.I ~ a Q~ O ~" .a N ~ roF N 3 Z m m m x ~ D p ° p D r m r ~ ~ v r f z m m ~ 0 o°~,m~ b rn m ~ m ~ m ~ Z o ~ ro A x r r 0 ~~u t.wro m°~ ~°co~ :° ~ fi w ro~~ ~~n r O J Vl K o i+ b .a h O W fD FS fD A~ C~' .fP N• O O N "`~ ~ ~~~ w ~ ~''=~Aw ~0 fir' n W~~`~ Om '~ W N N ,a N w ~C1 .a cr, o ~ .1 N A. ~° ~- 3 Z m m = N D t~ p ~ 0 A D m p p ~ ~ v r ~ Q p m n ~ • x m m ~ - i D ~ m (h m V N m Zm ~ C m D Q x r r Q ~cNro o ~m H e, rr x'ort N. xo rowX ~K rtz rrno v O ~q ~n w o p. N O N -' o+ -~ *~ Ce 'V OOH G~ .h A ~ 0 N ~~ . ~°~ ~I . ~~ ~o .~ m N N ^-+ N N ~p -+~ q~ Q A -* N ~ ~" „..