HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-02666
': "', <" ,', :::,":',',":~,/,>>::,;:,~~::.:: ~;:::',:",t';:': ,;".:, :,':~~~ i'~:::.'L:i:" '''',;:'\'''' '::,;..' . ',:' ','::\,:::,':' ,:" ':;: ,~/,,::":-:\:'; :' ,::'.~:'
NEEMA THAKRAR,
Plaintiff,
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
WILLIAM H. HOOKE, JR.;
KURT E. SUTER;
JEFFREY A. AUSTIN;
EAGLE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION; AND
CUMBERLAND MOTOR INNS, INC.
: DOCKET NO, 99-2666 CIVIL
Defendants,
PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE
Please mark the above-captioned case disconlinued.
Respeclfully submitted,
Date: '7 /, r: /110
O<JI///.-~
t2/?-.?~/
Allen C. Warshaw, Esquire
Attorney Id No. ] 7145
Duane, Morris & Heckscher LLP
305 Nortlt Front Street, 5th Floor
P.O. Box 1003
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1003
(717) 237-5500
Attorneys for Anil and Ncema Thakrar
"
.' \ ::-.: ":<', " t ~:: "\' .:: ,~~l." I 'r ,'.." '< :- -: \ "t L ,:--"'J_ ~,:.::,>~ ~.\ '-:':~ ~ ': ,) ~;>,~~;;"",;:.'t ,~..:~) ,::,,~,,: < /':" ~ <. .', t>", ': /.';:,~:: ,~.:,'~ ,: , ~ . "", .",,:.:, ",\ "''. \,
CER1'IFICATE OF SERVICE
On this 15+~ay of Je,bWi.LL~i) , 2000, I, Sherry 1. Weigel, a secretary
in the law offices of Duane, Morris & Heekscher LLP, hereby certify that I have served this
day true and COITect copies of the foregoing Praecipe to Diseontinue in the above-captioned
matter, by depositing same in the United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, in
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 10 those persons and addresses indicated below:
William A. Duncan, Esq,
DUNCAN & OTIO, P,C,
One Irvine Row
Carlisle, P A 17013
HBG,04jI,lOI,1
- 2 -
. "
; r: C") (:
; _. L;..
". (....; :'.;:.'
, , ,
,
(.:.,. .. , . j
.
.:J .....
(.')
,...-,
l. " :!.J
, C_
..'-
u ,-~ OJ
,
..:..:) CJ
LAW ornccs or
DUANE, MORRIS 8 HECK SCHER LLP
305 NO~TH rRONT STReeT, P 0, 60X lOO~
HARRtS9URG. p A 17108. 1003
II. J\lrisdictioll
7. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter because all of the parties reside and
work in Cumberland County and because the cause of actions arose in Cumberland County.
III. Factual Statement
8. On June 12, 1980, Plaintitl's husband, Ani! Thakrar and Defendants Hooke, Suter
and Austin (hereinafter the "Contracting Individuals") entered into an Agreement of Principal
Points at Issue Between Hooke, Suter, Austin and Thakrar (hereinafter "the Agreement"). A true
and correct copy of that Agreement is attached hereto and made a part hereofas Exhibit "A."
9. In the Agreement, the Contracting Individuals agreed that the points contained in
the Agreement would constitute an agreement between them and that each of them intended to be
legally bound by the Agreement.
10. In the Agreement, the Contracting Individuals stated their intent to fonn a
corporation for the purpose of developing land located in Cumberland County and their agreement
that each of the parties to the Agreement would receive a 25% interest in the venture by issuance
of equal shares of stock.
II. The Agreement also provides that all future development of the land, "including
indebtedness and profits, O\\TIership and responsibilities shall be shared equally by all the parties
to this Agreement" and that "[iJn addition each party to this agreement shall be invited to all
meetings and shall have a vote on all major decisions concerning development of the site."
12. Under the Agreement, Ani! Thakrar agreed to and did contribute $125,000 in return
for becoming an "equal, 25% partncr/sharcholder in the venture." It was further agreed that that
would be the full and final monies hc would be expected to c<Jntribule.
IlBG\2'296 I
-2..
.' ...-. '..'
13. Shortly after signing the Agreement, on July 3,1980, the Contracting Individuals
formed a corporation called Eagle Development Corporation.
14. Pursuant to the Agreement, each of the parties received 25% of the shares of
Defendant Eagle Development Corporation and each of the Contracting Individuals became a
member of the Board of Directors of the Corporation.
15. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Contracting Individuals through Defendant Eagle
Development Corporation, purchased land in Cwnberland County (the "Land") and developed part
of that land, constructing and operating a Holiday Inn. The Holiday Inn began operation in 1983.
16. Later, on December 12, 1985, also pursuant to the Agreement, the Contracting
Individuals formed another corporation, called CunlberIand Motor Inns, Inc.
17. Whi!e the Land which was actually developed was different than the land which the
parties had originally intended to purchase and develop, the Contracting Individuals understood
and agreed that the Agreement would continue to govern their relationship, including the
development of the Land and the decision-making, management and operation of Defendant Eagle
Development Corporation and Defendant Cumberland Motor Inn, Inc.
18. Pursuant to the Agreement, each of the Contracting Individuals received 25% of the
shares of Defendant CunlberIand Motor Inn, Inc. and each of the Contracting Individuals became
a member of the Board of Directors.
19. Ani! TIlakrar had the one hundred shares constituting his 25% of the shares in
Cumberland Motor Inns, Inc. issued in the name of "Anil Thakrar and Neema Thakrar, as tenants
in common and not joint tenants."
20.
Pursuant to the Agreement, the Contracting Individuals, through Defendant
IfBG'J42%1
- 3 ..
Curnberland Motor Inn, Inc. leased and developed another part of the Land, constructing and
operating an Eeono-Lodge Motel. The Econo-Lodge Motel began operation in 1986.
21. Also located on the Land were several areas which, at various times between the
purchase of the property by Defendant Eagle Development Corporation and the present, have been
leased to other persons or entities for a variety of purposes, including the operation of a miniature
golf course and the operation of a gas station.
22. On March 28, 1990, plaintiff Anil Thakrar had his one share of stock of Eagle
Development Corporation constituting his 25% interest in that Corporation reissued in the name of
Anil C. Thakrar and Neema A. Thakrar - as tenants in common.
23. During the period between the formation of the two corporations until late March of
1995, each of the Contracting Individuals served on the Board of Directors of both Defendant
Eagle Development Corporation and Defendant Curnberland Motor Inn, Inc. and, as such,
participated in all major decisions involving the development of the Land.
24. During the period between the fonnation of the two corporations untillatc March of
1995, each of the Contracting Individuals provided minimal assistance with the management of the
Holiday Inn and the Econo-Lodge lrullocated on the Land, but received no compensation for that
work.
25. In most of the years betwccn the formation of the two corporations until 1995, each
of the Individual Defendants, individually, and PlaintilTand her husband jointly rc{;eived an equal
and usually a significant distribution of income from each of the corporations.
26. On March 27, 1995, Defendants Hooke, Suter and Austin (hereinafter the
"Individual Defcndants") vOled, at rnecting of the shareholders. to amend the by-laws of each of
JmG~4,296J
-4-
!
.1
!
j
32. In 1995, Defendant Eagle Development Corporation paid Central Management
Services, Inc. approximately $139,000.00, an amount which is far greater than the value of the
actual services provided to Defendant Eagle Development Corporation by Central Management
Services, Inc.
33. In 1995, Defendant Cumberland Motor Inn, Inc. paid Central Management
Services, Inc. approximately $51,000.00, an amount which is far greater than the value of the
actual services provided Defendant Cumberland Motor Inn, Inc. by Central Management Services,
Inc.
34. In 1996, Defendant Eagle Development Corporation paid Central Management
Services, Inc. a significant amount ofrnoney, an amount which is far greater than the value of the
actual services provided to Defendant Eagle Dcvelopment Corporation by Central Management
Services, Inc.
35. In 1996, Defendant Curnberland Motor Inn, Inc. paid Central Management
Services, Inc. a significant amount of money, an amount far greater than the value of the actual
services provided Defendant Cumberland Motor Inn, Inc. by Central Management Services, Inc.
36. In 1995 and 1996, neither Defendant Eagle Development Corporation nor
Defendant Cumberland Motor Inn, Inc. paid any dividends or other distributions of income to
Plaintiff.
37. The Individual Defendants fonned Central Management Services, Inc. and caused
Defendant Eagle Development Corporation and Defendant Curnberland Inn, Inc. to enter into
Management Agreements with Central Management Services, Inc. in order to be able to make
indirect distributions to themsclves of the profits of the two corporations without having to make
IffiG\242%.)
-6-
such distributions to Plaintiff.
IV. Causes of Action
COUNT 1- Breach of Contract
38. The allegations contained in paragraphs one (I) through thirty-seven (37) above are
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein.
39. The Agreement of Principal Points at Issue Between Hooke, Suter, Austin and
Thakrar was a binding contract which survived the formation of Defendant Eagle Development
Corporation and Defendant Cumberland Motor Inn, Inc.
40. The Agreement of Principal Points at Issue Between Hooke, Suter, Austin and
Thakrar continues to apply to the decision-making, management and operation of Defendant Eagle
Development Corporation and Defendant Cumberland Motor Inn, Inc.
41. The Individual Defendants have breached the Agreement of Principal Points at
Issue Between Hooke, Suter, Austin and Thakrar in that they have refused and failed to distribute
profits accruing from the operation of the development of the Land on an equal basis among the
parties to that Agreement.
42. Plaintiff is a tllird party beneficiary of that Agreement.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
(I) enter judgment in her favor and against the Individual Defendants in an amount in
excess of$50,OOO; and
(2)
grant such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
HIJ.G\Z429fJ J
- 7 -
COUNT 11-- Minoritv Shareholder Oppression -- EIll!le Development Corporntion
43. The allegations contained in paragraphs one (I) through forty-two (42) above are
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein.
44. Defendants have improperly oppressed Plaintiff and deprived her of her rights as a
minority shareholder in that they have refused and failed to distribute profits accruing from the
operation of Eagle Development Corporation on a fair or equal basis among the shareholders.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
(I) enter judgment in her favor and against the Individual Defendants and Defendant
Eagle Development Corporation in an amount in excess of $50,000; and
(2) grant such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
COUNT III - Minority Shareholder Oppression Cull1hullmd Motor Inn. Inc.
45. The allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through forty-four (44) above arc
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein.
46. The Individual Defendants and Defendant Cumberland Motor Inn, Inc. have
impropcrly oppressed Plaintiff and deprived her of he I' rights as a minority shareholder in that they
have refused and failed to distribute profits accruing from the operation of Cumberland Motor Inn,
Inc. on a fair or equal basis among the shareholders.
HnG~4~96 I
- 8 -
1.
AGREEMENT OF PRINCIPAL POlllTS AT ISSUE llETWEEN
HOOKE, SUTER, AUSTill AND THAKRAIl
TIlE r'OLLOWllla principal points constitute an agreement between W.illi8lll H.
Hooke, Jr., Kurt E. Suter, Jeffrey S. Austin and Anil C. Thakrar. All parties
to this agreement intend it to be legally binding upon them.
THE PARTIES, hereto have formed Eagle Development Corporation. The purpose
of said corporation will be to deal and invest in Real Estate, and other such
matters relating thereto; and in particular the acquisition of 15 a.cres of the
industrial zoned Bucher and Cooke land located at south east intersection of U.S.
Route 11, and Interstate 81 in Middlesex Township, Cumberlll1ld County, Pennsylvania.
The four members of said corporation, all parties to this aereement, intend to
develop the 15 acre tract of land in stages over the next several years, with the
first tract to contain a Holido;y Irm.
EACH PARTY to this ll(;reement shall receive a 25% interest in the venture, by
the issuance of equal shares of stock to each of the four corporate members.
Kurt E. Suter, President, Anil C. Thalcrar, Vice President, Jeffrey S. Austin, Sec'y
and William H. Hooke, Jr., Treasurer.
ALL r<JTURE development concerl1ing thc 15 acre tract of land, including
indebtedness and profits, ownership and responsibilities shall be shared equally
by all parties to this ll(;reement. In addition each party to this agreement
shall be invited to all meetings and shalJ. have a vote on all major decisions
concerning development of the site. Major decisions shall constitute sUch
decisions as sales of the property, what will be built at> t!1e property, amounts
of indebtedness, 2nterest rates, w1d other general major policies having to do
with the operation of the site l~d its various improvements.
WHEREAS, Hooke, Suter and Austin will by future contributions effectUate
1'inancing to be obtained for all projects on all subdivided tracts within the
15 acre tract, and manll(;e and oversee all construction details of all improve-
ments to be placed on said land, AND
WHEREAS, to facilitate an earlier acquisition of said 1$ acre tract and to
reduce their own capital outlo;y, Hooke, Suter, and Austin desire to include one
additional, ec,ual partner/investor.
THEREFORE, Anil C. ThaJcrar, having boen apprised by Hooke, Suter, and Austin
of the transaction, and of the positive and negative sides, and subsequently
having been invited to join the group of Hooke, Suter, and Austin, in wldertak1ng
the above described venture, Anil C. ThaJerar has lI(:reed to become lUl equal, 25%
partner/shareholder in the venture for the contribution of the sum of money of
$125,000,00.
'.
2.
NOW THEREFORE, r~l parties to this I18reCl1\ent mutual~ I18ree the $125,000.00
to be contributed by Anil C. Thalerar will be the tull and tJ.nal monies he shall
be expected to contribute toward the entire project encompassing the 15 acre
proposed development, AND tor this amount he shall be included as a fUll and
equal partner/shareholder with each of Hooke, Suter, and Austin tor all phases
of the proposed project.
INITIAL MONIES invested by Anil C. Thakrar toward the implementation of
construction of the proposed Hol1d~ Inn on the site shall be held in escrow by
cm, pursuant to I18reements of sale executed on Harch, 1981 for the acquisition
of the 15 acre tract of llllld described in paragraph 2, page 1.
111 TIlE EVENT, purchase of the 15 acre industrial tract herein described, be
denied the parties to this I18reement for reasons of conditions contained in the
acreement of sale executed on Harch 1981, not beinc able to be fulfilled, or for
any other reason, all monies paid by Anil C. 'l'hakrar to the Group or parties to
this 1181'eement as escrow deposit monies shall be returned to Anil C. Thal{rar in full
wi thin a period not to exceed thirty days. /.11 other monieD spent up to that time
such as leCal and el1L:ineerinc fees shall not be returned.
ALL HOIJIES adva.'leed by Anil C. Thakrar to the parties to this aereement to
effectuate the build:lne of the proposed Holid~ Inn, and for the General advance-
ment of other projects to be completed on the site shall be used, wholly for the
acquisition of the site or for debts incurred incidental thereto such as eneineerinG,
surve;.', permits, road construction, leeal fees, or any other such costs incidental
to the furtherance of the entire project.
ALL PARTIES to this lIilreement agree to pursue all coed and accepted aecowltil1L:
practices possible to attempt to show the $125,000.00 interest of A~l C. Thwcrar
in said Corporation, above nllJ1led, at the future request of Anil C. Thalerar. Said
accountil1L: practice to be mutually agreeable to all parties to this &(.7l"eement.
THIS AGREEMENT will constitute the entire agreement between all parties to
this nereement.
Th''l'EIIDIIJG TO BE LEGALLY roUND, notwithstandil1L: death of anyone of the under-
sicned, all parties hereto fully and without any reserve whatsoever bind themselvea
to all clauses contained in this document.
WITIJESS:
. 10
. ~\..
-J,r"
~~ I
if:'
f/
~~c-G~ .,-
I)
't .
,,~('~ At'
Ja r/
./
.
/) ,
1-1"" , f
. I
J.' '1fJ A
. /
(,
. (1,,,._. .._
rL.-ib
'.. i~
~.I:
I i
, ()., .r:
"-, , .
'. ,
, .,::.: -;
'. ,
( 'j , ;--1
, ," ':J)
(:~ )
L~, '. %
~ ..J , >- ..') 2.'
L: tJJ
"''-: :.j 'J..
,. -
L'. CI '.:5
(.) '-" U
..... r-' >-
h: c l~~
,-
;' ~: N ~'5 -"
" q
u.J~
( ')., ...... '. .' ;.J
.;-~ ( , :".
1)_ (..l..~ " ;_:~
~~. ,.
TJ." \.J) . i~')
C.'I (.', -
lIJ ,.
, '- .Il U..i
(:':;' ,. ..., '~"-~ ,1..
,- -,
I , (:;, :5
e) <:1"' C,.)
"
,,",:.
~- (1) '>-
r.r; ". ~;
....\
1-';:; n) -'
11.' ~ C':'
c"
r= "-.
.l.. ...- J
( ..~
-' ( r.')
~_\~. r.:l
'--' !
U.J
_~+I " i-;-ij
u:: :J ::"::J , :1-
,- . ::5
Lt4 C'1
0 c. U
, ">,' '", ,/' ':' '/ ' " '" . ~'i \ :' , : ~,(' :'I;:I\~'~~~:;" .'~::::::.!:" ~*~,..;~~~"'~ I~>;, >' '~~" ;, ,",':;' "1,:" .'" ',: ::t ';~', :': ,<" .,' \;" I'," .' :' "~:,, " j :"~' , . ..
NEEMA THAKRAR,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
: NO. 1999-2666
WILLIAM H. HOOK, JR.;
CURT E. SUTER; and
JEFFREY A. AUSTIN;
EAGLE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION; and
CUMBERLAND MOTOR INNS, INC.
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Neema Thakrar
You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Preliminary
Objections of Defendants to Plaintifrs Complaint within twenty (20) days from service hereof
or a judgment may be entered against you.
by:
5. Defendant Corporation has no duty to distribute profits nor is there a duty to
declare a dividend.
6. Absent a duty, there lies no cause of action ugainst the Defendant Corporation.
Therefore, Plaintiffs Complaint fails to allege the requisite elements of a cause of action for
minority shareholder oppression against Defendant Eagle Development Corporation.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request this Honorable Court strike Count II of Plaintiffs
Complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
III. Motion to Suike COllnt !!l of Plaintirrs Comnlaint
7. Count III of the Complaint seeks to assert a claim against Defendant Cumberland
Motor Inn, Inc. alleging Minority Shareholder Oppression because of an alleged refusal to
distribute profits among the shareholders.
8. Defendant Corporation has no duty to distribute profits nor is there a duty to
declare a dividend.
9. Absent a duty, there lies no cause of action against the Defendant Corporation.
Therefore, Plaintiffs Complaint fails to allege the requisite elements of a cause of action for
minority shareholder oppression against Defendant Eagle Development Corporation.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request this Honorable Court strike Count III of Plaintiffs
Complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: \!\\ CU/\ .--t1) \9 9Cl
by:
~~\~ 4~vv,-.tQ^-''-
William A. Duncan. Esquire
Supreme Court No. 22080
J Irvine Row
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-7780
..:)
, 10
I , ,
I
..
~'... .
(".'
L_ , , : ,
,
, ,
( .. ( ,
'I
II
I
II
II
.-----~I
M
U 8
1-
~> ......
... C; ;: t';1
o ~ 0 'c
:t.....o::;:
O ~~ C)..::::
~ !:: >-.
~ ~'E ~
E - =
r:: '" '"
~3r.:Cl..
~ ..... 0 ~
r::""= ..s
:::s 1:
~ 8
u
II
---___l
I
NEEMA THAKRAR,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
: NO, 1999-2666
WILLIAM H. HOOKE, JR;
KURT E. SUTER; and
JEFFREY A. AUSTIN;
EAGLE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION; and
CUMBERLAND MOTOR INNS, INC,
Defendants
ANSWER
I. PaJ'ties
I. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3, Admitted,
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted.
6, Admitted.
II. Jurisdiction
7. Admitted,
III. Factual Statemenls
8. Denied. It is a legal conclusion that Exhibit "A" attached to the Complaint
represents an enforceable agreement between the parties, it is admitted however, that there
cxists such a writtcn documcnt.
9, Denied. lr is a lcgal conclusion that Exhibit "A" attached to the Complaint
represents an enforceablc agrecmcnt between the parties. il is admitted however, that there
exists such a written document that contains the phrase referred to in paragraph 9.
10. Denied. It is a legal conclusion that Exhibit "A" attached to the Complaint
represents an enforceable agreement between the parties, it is also denied that the writing
referred to "land located in Cumberland County", rather, the writing referred to a specific 26
acre tract of land known as the "Bernard property".
II. Denied. It is a legal conclusion that Exhibit "A" attached to the Complaint
represents an enforceable agreement between the parties, it is admitted however, that there
exists such a written document that contains the language averred.
12. Denied. It is a legal conclusion that Exhibit A attached to thp. Complaint
represents an enforceable agreement between the parties. It is also denied that Anil Thakrar
did contribute $125,000.00 in connection with the writing described in Exhibit "A" attached to
Plaintifrs Complaint.
13. Denied in that Defendants are unable, from the phrasing of the questions to
ascertain whether Plaintiff avers that the alleged Agreement was signed on July 3, 1980 or
whether the corporation called Eagle Development Corporation was formed July 3, 1980. It
is admitted that a corporation called Eagle Development Corporation was formed,
14, Denied to the extent that Exhibit "A" attached to Plaintifrs Complaint was not the
basis for the formation of a corporation and subsequent membership on the Board of
Directors,
15. Denied, The parties did not purchase any land To the contrary, Eagle
Development Corporation purchased land in Cumberland County and constructed a Holiday
Inn,
16 Denied to the extent that Exhibit "AU attached to Plaintifrs Complaint was not the
basis for the formation of a corporation and subsequent membershio on the Board of
Directors.
17. Denied. ExhIbit "A" attached to Plaintifrs Complaint was not the basis for any
actions taken with regard to the later purchase of land or the formation of a corporation.
IS. Denied. Exhibit "A" attached to Plaintifrs Complaint was not the basis for any
actons taken with regard to distribution of shares of the corporation and membership on the
Board of Directors.
19, Admitted.
20. Denied. Exhibit" A" attached to Plaintifrs Complaint was not the basis for any
actions taken with regard to further development. It is admitted that Cumberland Motor Inns,
Inc. did in fact lease and develop land purchased by Eagle Development Corporation and
constructed and currently operates an Econo-Lodge Motel.
2 I. Admited that the averments stated in paragraph 21 are correct to the extent that
the development has occurred on land later purchased by Eagle Development Corporation.
22, Admitted.
23. Admitted that each of the "Contracting" Parties served on the Board of Directors
of Defendant Corporations for the period in question. Denied that they all participated in all
major decisions involving the development of the Land, to the contrary, "the Land" as
referrrcd to by Plaintiff, was never purchased and therefore never developed, Additionally,
while Anil Thakrar attended Board meetings, he did not participate in management decisions.
24, Admitted that Anil Thakrar provided minimal or no assistance with the
management of the Holiday Inn and the Bcono-Lodge It is denied however as to Hooke.
Suter and Austin, To the contrary, Hooke. Suter and Austin provided substantial assistance
wi:h the management of the Holiday Inn and the Econo-Lodge. It is admitted that they
received no compensation for their work.
25. Admitted that payments were made to the shareholders. It is denied that the term
"distribution of income" applies to the payments.
26. Admitted as to the meeting of shareholders and vote to amend by-laws. It is
denied as to any vote or motion to remove Anil Thakrar from the Board of Directors.
27. Denied. Plaintiff and Anil Thakrar are still shareholders and are not excluded
from shareholder meetings.
28. Admitted.
29. Admitted.
30. Admitted.
3 J. Denied. The management functions are performed by Central Management
Services and not the two corporations or their employees. It is further denied that the
functions require only minimal time, to the contrary, Central Management Services provides
valuable management services.
32, Admitted that payment occurred. Denied that the services provided lacked the
requisite value to support the payment.
33. Admitted that payment occurred, Denied that the services provided lacked the
requisite value to support the payment.
34. Admitted that payment occurred. Denied that the services provided lacked the
requisite value to support the payment.
35. Admitted that payment occurred. Denied thatlhe services provided lacked the
requisite value to SUppolllhe payment.
36. Admitted.
37, Denied. Payments were made in the ordinary course of business for valuable
services provided.
IV. Causes of Action
COUNT I - Breach of Conh'Rct
38. -42. Count I is dismissed from the Complaint as per Court Order and no answer is
requi res.
COUNT II - Minolity Shareholder Oppression -- Eagle Development COlporntion
43. The answers contained in paragraphs one (I) through forty-two (42) above are
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein.
44. It is denied that Eagle Development Corporation has refused and failed to
distribute profits accruing from the operation of Eagle Development Corporation on a fair or
equal basis among the shareholders, to the contrary, all shareholders have received the same
distribution. As to the Individual Defendants, the averment is denied in that they, as
individuals, arc without the means or responsibility to distribute profits of the Corporation.
COUNT III - Minodty Shareholder OPlllessiou - Cumberland Motor inn, inc.
45. The answers contained in paragraphs one (I) through forty-four (44) above are
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein.
46, It is denied that Cumberland Motor Inns, Inc, has refused and failed to distribute
profits accruing from the operation of Cumberland Motor Inns, Inc. on a fair or equal basis
among the shareholders. to the contrary, all shareholders have received the same distribution.
As to the Individual Defendants, the averment is denied in that they, as individuals, arc
without the means or resonsibility to distribute profits of the Corporation,
N.:W MATIER
As a further and more specific Answer, Defendants aver the following New Maller:
4, 7. Paragraphs I through 46 arc incorporated by reference herein as though they were
set forth in lheir entirety.
48, The writing designated as Exhibit "A" on Plaintiff's Complaint is null and void
because the land referred to therein was never purchased.
49. The writing designated as Exhibit "A" on Plaintiff's Complaint is undated. It
cannot be assumed that the addendum clause which bears the date of June 12, 1980 is also
the date of the document. The writing in question is unenforceable because it is vague and
ambiguous.
50. The writing designated as Exhibit "A" on Plaintiff's Complaint is void because no
consideration was given to the Individual Defendants for the purchase of the land referred to
in the writing.
51. The writing designated as Exhibit "A" on Plaintiffs Complaint is not reasonable
in that it is overly broad in scope, failing to sufficiently define the duties and responsibilities
of the parties, which renders it unenforceable.
52, The writing designated in Exhibit "A" on Plaintiff's Complaint in unenforceable
due to unconscionability in that the terms of the Agreement wcrc dictated solely by Anil
. Thakrar and presented to the Individual Defendants for signature at the instigation of Anil
Thakrar without giving the Individual Defendants the opportunity to have the document
revicwed by their attorneys, which gave Ani I Thakrar unfair bargaining power over the
Individual Defcndants, AddItionally. Dcfcndants had no opportunity to modify said
Agrccmcl1l. nor to have the Agrecmcnt prepared in proper legal form with terms and
l
'- 0', ~..-
ti.:; If: ~-.;
" :"j
;~.~ N ":, .~
." , '-'
' '. , .
C_:~ ~'J_ n .' "
" :;-~
{~': - ..
.:~.; ':' ,..., , .~
L...' ..... I
, C. 'j
L.::. I . , .l ~_L
c:: "
". 0, ':j
0 0'\ U
M
U ;:;
~ r-
C~~'"
~ "" .-
C::~~
t:~g~
CU ~._ ~
== 0 t: 2
"" E ';; "
~ 0 c ~
c:::o J
~< Vi
'" .-
I: 0::
::I '"
~ u
r
ANIL THAKRAR,
Plaintil1.,
IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERI.AND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
NIl. 1)(,.(,233 Civil Term
WILLIAM H. HOOK, JR.;
CURT E. SUTER; and
JEFFREY A. AUSTIN;
Defendant.
ACTION IN LAW
ANIL THAKRAR,
I'laintitl:
IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
ACTION IN EQUITY
'17.5635 EQUITY TERM
v.
WILLIAM JLIIOOKE, m..
KURT E. SUTER;
JEFFREY A. AUSTIN;
EAGLE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION; AND
CUMBERLAND MOTOR INNS. INC.
Ikfcnd:1I11s.
NEEMA THAKRAR.
Plaintiff.
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
v(1)OCKET NO. 99-2666 CIVIL
WILLIAM ILIIOOKF. JR,;
KURT E. SUTER;
JEFFREY A. AUSTIN;
EAGLE DEVEJ.<W1Il1'NT
CORPORATION; AND
CUMBERLAND MOl OR INNS. INC'.
Ikkndanls.
NEEMA T1IAKRAR.
Plainliff.
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: ACTION IN EQUITY
\'.
WILLIAM II, 1I1)!)KJ', JR.;
: Docket No. 99-2667 EQUITY
tll~j,"',U.1
.
VERIFICATION
I, Neema Thakrar, hereby aver and state that I have read the foregoing document
which has been drafted by my counsel. The factual statements contained therein aTe true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief although the language is that of my
counsel and, to the extent that the content of the foregoing document is that of counsel, I have
relied upon counsel in making this verification.
This statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 9 4904 relating to
unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if) make knowingly false statements, I
may be subject to criminal penalties.
Dated: /7Ift:;:; 11q
IV eervTo.
Neema Thakrar
!hat< ray
:'.... " ,\ :.,." ,;~', ~ ".' '. ',:,\ ", ',~ :/" ,: .~,' .~'.:,' , ~ .:': " ,'~:;'_,,~,:;,~, 10:';' . ::.~~,::~.; ....,~~'I~": \'~'..;J" ;', .'_~: ..{': .' ',:,',', ~',' :.,:.... " .;,', , .' -:':,' ',;., \ ',J :,' ", ;'.'..: . ",), :~' , :',.. . f: ,.', " ,~
~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On this /'/ffJay of December, 1999, I, Sherry L. Weigel, a secretary in the law offices of
Duane, Morris and Heckscher LLP, hereby cerlitY that I have served this day a true and correct
copy of the foregoing ANSWER & NEW MATTER in the above-captioned case, by depositing
same in the United States mai!, first-class, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to the
person and address indicated below:
William A. Duncan, Esq.
DUNCAN & OTTO, P.C.
One Irvine Row
Carlisle, P A 17013
~~l-/IJ~
?i; .- ~
M
~ N ::l~
~JP O~
) ..;. :c u
. ":!.-.' 9~
ft. -'.. a..
t.....'~_.: .~~
c,.., :.)-'
W('.. F5d5
fE'" :l:
I-<J" ..:1.: ~I)a..
,_. -, ::i:
tl. C) :.>
0 0 U
. ,