| Preview
Subscribers | 2003 |
Opinion Letter
Opinion Letter (6K)
Doc #129917: Click preview link for longer preview.
[Thompson & Knight LLP Letterhead]
June 26, 2003
Texas Industries. Inc.
1341 West Mockingbird Lane, Suite 700W
Dallas, Texas 75247
Dear Sirs:
We have acted as special counsel for Texas Industries, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "COMPANY"), in connection with the Company's offer (the
"EXCHANGE OFFER") to exchange its 10.25% Senior Notes due 2011 to be registered
under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "EXCHANGE NOTES") for any and all of its
outstanding 10.25% Senior Notes due 2011 (the "OUTSTANDING NOTES"). The
Outstanding Notes are, and the Exchange Notes will be, fully and unconditionally
guaranteed (the "SUBSIDIARY GUARANTEES," and together with the Exchange Notes,
the "SECURITIES") on a joint and several basis by Athens Brick Company,
Brookhollow Corporation, Chaparral Steel Company, Chaparral Steel Holdings,
Inc., Chaparral Steel Texas, Inc., Chaparral (Virginia) Inc., Creole
Corporation, Riverside Cement Holdings Company, Texas Industries Holdings, Inc.,
TXI California Inc., TXI Cement Company, TXI Corp., and TXI Riverside Inc., each
a Delaware corporation; Chaparral Steel Trust, Texas Industries Trust, TXI
Operating Trust, each a Delaware statutory trust; TXI Operations, LP, TXI Star
Recycling, LP and Chaparral Steel Midlothian, LP, each a Delaware limited
partnership; Pacific Custom Materials, Inc. and Partin Limestone Products, Inc.,
each a California corporation; Riverside Cement Company, a California general
partnership; Brook Hollow Properties, Inc., Southwestern Financial Corporation,
TXI Aviation, Inc., TXI Power Company and TXI Transportation Company, each a
Texas corporation, Brookhollow of Alexandria, Inc., a Louisiana corporation and
Brookhollow of Virginia, Inc., a Virginia corporation (collectively, the
"INITIAL SUBSIDIARY Guarantors"). The Outstanding Notes have been, and the
Exchange Notes will be, issued pursuant to an Indenture dated as of June 6, 2003
(the "INDENTURE"), among the Company, the Initial Subsidiary Guarantors and
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee.
129917
|
Texas Industries
As referenced in this Opinion Letter:
Texas Industries. – THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
{TEXT}
{PAGE}
EXHIBIT 5.1
[Thompson & Knight LLP Letterhead]
June 26, 2003
Texas Industries. Inc.
1341 West Mockingbird Lane, Suite 700W
Dallas, Texas 75247
Dear Sirs:
We have
Texas Industries, – Lane, Suite 700W
Dallas, Texas 75247
Dear Sirs:
We have acted as special counsel for Texas Industries, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "COMPANY"), in connection with the Company's offer (the
"
Texas Industries – Holdings,
Inc., Chaparral Steel Texas, Inc., Chaparral (Virginia) Inc., Creole
Corporation, Riverside Cement Holdings Company, Texas Industries Holdings, Inc.,
TXI California Inc., TXI Cement Company, TXI Corp., and TXI Riverside Inc., each
Texas Industries – Cement Company, TXI Corp., and TXI Riverside Inc., each
a Delaware corporation; Chaparral Steel Trust, Texas Industries Trust, TXI
Operating Trust, each a Delaware statutory trust; TXI Operations, LP, TXI Star
Recycling,
Texas Industries, – opinion. We have
assumed the genuineness of all signatures, the authenticity of all documents
{PAGE}
Texas Industries, Inc.
June 26, 2003
Page 2
submitted to us as originals, the conformity to
dt 30700
;
 Wells Fargo Bank
As referenced in this Opinion Letter:
Wells Fargo Bank, Na – will be, issued pursuant to an Indenture dated as of June 6, 2003
(the "INDENTURE"), among the Company, the Initial Subsidiary Guarantors and
Wells Fargo Bank, Na tional Association, as Trustee.
In connection with such matters, we have examined the Indenture
(including the Subsidiary Guarantees contained therein), the registration
statement
_____________
dt 114614
;
|
 Thompson
As referenced in this Opinion Letter:
THOMPSON & KNIGHT – TYPE}EX-5.1
{SEQUENCE}6
{FILENAME}d06928exv5w1.txt
{DESCRIPTION}EX-5.1 OPINION OF THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
{TEXT}
{PAGE}
EXHIBIT 5.1
[Thompson & Knight LLP Letterhead]
June 26, 2003
Texas Industries.
[Thompson & Knight – txt
{DESCRIPTION}EX-5.1 OPINION OF THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
{TEXT}
{PAGE}
EXHIBIT 5.1
[Thompson & Knight LLP Letterhead]
June 26, 2003
Texas Industries. Inc.
1341 West Mockingbird Lane, Suite 700W
Dallas,
THOMPSON & KNIGHT – 1933
and the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission
thereunder.
Sincerely,
/s/ THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
{/TEXT}
{/DOCUMENT}
dt 31725
;
Brook Hollow Properties Inc.
|
| Preview
Subscribers | 2003 |
Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of SPG Plaintiffs' and Randall Smith's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of SPG Plaintiffs' and Randall Smith's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (68K)
Doc #256916: Click preview link for longer preview.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
------------------------------------------x
:
SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, INC.,
SIMON PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS, INC., :
AND RANDALL J. SMITH,
:
Plaintiffs, :
- against - CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-74799
:
TAUBMAN CENTERS, INC., A. ALFRED The Honorable Victoria A. Roberts
TAUBMAN, ROBERT S.TAUBMAN, LISA :
A. PAYNE, GRAHAM T. ALLISON, PETER Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan
KARMANOS, JR., WILLIAM S. TAUBMAN, :
ALLAN J. BLOOSTEIN, JEROME A.
CHAZEN, AND S. PARKER GILBERT, :
Defendants. :
------------------------------------------x
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF SPG PLAINTIFFS' AND
RANDALL SMITH'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carl H. von Ende (P21867) WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER
Todd A. Holleman (P57699) 787 Seventh Avenue
MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK & New York, New York 10019
STONE, P.L.C. Telephone: (212) 728-8000
150 West Jefferson, Suite 2500 Facsimile: (212) 728-8111
Detroit, Michigan 48226-4415 Attorneys for SPG Plaintiffs
Telephone: (313) 963-6420
Facsimile: (313) 496-7500 SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
Attorneys for all Plaintiffs MEAGHER, & FLOM LLP
300 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: (213) 687-5000
Facsimile: (213) 687-5600
Attorneys for Randall J. Smith
{Page}
TABLE OF CONTENTS
{Table}
{Caption}
PAGE
{S} {C}
Table Of Authorities.......................................................................ii
Index To Appendix...........................................................................v
Statement of Issues Presented...............................................................x
Controlling Or Most Appropriate Authorities...............................................xii
A. Defendants Have Breached And Continue To Breach Their Fiduciary Duties................2
B. The "Group" Shares May Not Be Voted Under the Control Share Act......................11
C. A Preliminary Injunction Is Warranted................................................14
CONCLUSION.................................................................................15
{/Table}
i
{Page}
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
{Table}
{Caption}
PAGE(S)
{S} {C}
ALA. BY-PRODUCTS CORP. V. CEDE & CO., 657 A.2d 254 (Del. 1995)..........................................10
AM. STATES INS. CO. V. TAUBMAN CO., 352 F. Supp. 197 (E.D. Mich. 1972)..................................10
AVACUS PARTNERS, L.P. V. BRIAN, 1990 WL 161909
(Del. Ch. Oct. 24, 1990)............................................................................9
BANK OF NEW YORK V. IRVING TRUST CO., 528 N.Y.S.2d 482 (1988)...........................................14
BLASIUS INDUS., INC. V. ATLAS CORP., 564 A.2d 651 (Del. Ch. 1988)........................................3
BOROCK V. COMERICA BANK-DETROIT, 938 F. Supp. 428 (E.D. Mich. 1996).....................................10
CAMPAU V. MCMATH, 185 Mich. App. 724 (1990)..............................................................3
CARDIZEM CD ANTITRUST LITIG., 90 F. Supp. 2d 819 (E.D. Mich. 1999)....................................8, 9
CHESAPEAKE V. SHORE, 771 A.2d 293 (Del. Ch. 2000)........................................................6
CLARK V. SAKOWSKI, 2000 WL 33405937 (Mich. App. Oct. 13, 2000)...........................................9
CROWLEY V. LOCAL NO. 82, 679 F.2d 978 (1st Cir. 1982),
REV'D ON OTHER GROUNDS, 467 U.S. 526 (1984)........................................................14
CRTF CORP. V. FEDERATED DEP'T STORES, INC.,
683 F. Supp. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)....................................................................7
EMERSON RADIO CORP. V. INT'L JENSON, INC., 1996 WL 483086
(Del. Ch. Aug. 20, 1996)............................................................................7
FDIC V. HYDE PARK APARTMENTS, 1996 WL 138558 (9th Cir. Mar. 27,1996).....................................8
GAF CORP. V MILSTEIN, 453 F.2d 709 (2d Cir. 1971)......................................................132
IN RE GAYLORD CONTAINER CORP. S'HOLDERS LITIG., 747 A.2d 71 (Del. Ch. 1999)..............................9
GIBRALT CAPITAL CORP. V. SMITH, 2001 WL 647837 (Del. Ch. May 9, 2001)...................................11
GRAND METRO. V. PILLSBURY CO., 558 A.2d 1049 (Del. Ch. 1988).............................................7
HILTON HOTELS CORP. V. ITT CORP., 978 F. Supp. 1342 (D. Nev. 1997).......................................5
ii
{Page}
{Caption}
{S} {C}
HOFFMAN V. VULCAN MATERIALS CO., 19 F. Supp. 2d 475 (M.D.N.C. 1998)......................................8
K-N ENERGY, INC. V. GULF INTERSTATE CO., 607 F. Supp. 756 (D. Colo. 1983)...............................13
LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY GOV'T V. BELLSOUTH TELECOMM., INC., 14 Fed. Appx. 636 (6th Cir. 2001)....14
LIPTON V. NEWS INT'L, 514 A.2d 1075 (Del. 1986)..........................................................9
LOTHIAN V. CITY OF DETROIT, 414 Mich. 160 (1982)........................................................11
MCCANN V. BRODY-BUILT CONSTR. CO., 197 Mich. App. 512 (1992).............................................9
MEEK V. MICH. BELL TEL. CO., 193 Mich. App. 340 (1991)..................................................10
MM COS., INC. V. LIQUID AUDIO, INC., 813 A.2d 1118 (Del. 2003)...........................................4
NEARY V. MARKHAM, 155 F.2d 485 (10th Cir. 1946).........................................................11
OLDEN V. LAFARGE CORP., 203 F.R.D. 254 (E.D. Mich. 2001).................................................9
O'MALLEY V. BORIS, 742 A.2d 845 (Del. 1999)..............................................................6
OMNICARE, INC. V. NCS HEALTHCARE, INC., 809 A.2d 1163 (Del. Ch. 2002),
REV'D ON OTHER GROUNDS, 2002 Del. LEXIS 723 (Del. Dec. 10, 2002)....................................7
PACKER V. YAMPOL, 1986 WL 4748 (Del. Ch. Apr. 18, 1986).................................................14
PROF'L HOCKEY CLUB V. DETROIT RED WINGS, 787 F. Supp. 706
(E.D. Mich. 1992)...................................................................................8
IN RE SHELL OIL CO., 1990 WL 201390 (Del. Ch. Dec. 11, 1990).............................................7
STAHL V. APPLE BANCORP, INC., 579 A.2d 1115 (Del. Ch. 1990)..............................................4
STENBERG V. CHEKER OIL CO., 573 F.2d 921 (6th Cir. 1978)...............................................14
STEWART V ALVAREZ, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19195 (E.D. La. Oct. 8, 2002)...................................9
STROMBERG METAL WORKS, INC. V. PRESS MECH., INC., 77 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 1996)............................9
TOMCZAK V. MORTON THIOKOL, INC., 1990 WL 42607 (Del. Ch. 1990)...........................................4
IN RE TRI-STAR PICTURES, INC. LITIG., 634 A.2d 319 (Del. 1993)...........................................9
iii
{Page}
{Caption}
{S} {C}
UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS V. S.W. OHIO REG'L TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
163 F.3d 341 (6th Cir. 1998).........................................................................14
UNITRIN, INC. V. AM. GEN. CORP., 651 A.2d 1361 (Del. 1995)...............................................5
UNOCAL CORP. V. MESA PETROLEUM CO., 493 A.2d 946 (Del. 1985).............................................4
STATUTES
17 C.F.R. Sections 240 13d-3(a), 13d-5(b)(1),...........................................................11
28 U.S.C. Section 1367...................................................................................9
Fed. R. Civ. P. 17.......................................................................................8
Fed. R. Civ. P. 19.......................................................................................8
Fed. R. Evid. 801(2)(D); 803(5), (6).....................................................................1
MCLs Sections.450 1791 (1), (2).....................................................................11, 12
Official Comments to Ind. Code 23-1-42-1................................................................12
{/Table}
iv
{Page}
INDEX TO APPENDIX
Volume I: Public Documents
{Table}
{Caption}
Page
{S} {C}
SPG Offer to Purchase for Cash, dated Dec. 5, 2002......................................................A1
SPG and Westfield Supplement to the Offer to Purchase, dated Jan. 15, 2003.............................A56
TCI Schedule 14D-9/A Amendment No. 3, dated Dec. 20, 2002..............................................A95
TCI Common Stock Prospectus, dated Nov. 20, 1992 (Defendants' Exhibit 7)..............................A158
TCI Articles of Incorporation, dated Aug. 9, 2000.....................................................A348
TCI Second Amendment and Restatement of Agreement of
Limited Partnership, dated Sept. 30, 1998.......................................................A383
TCI Form 8-K, dated Aug. 18, 1998 (Payne Exhibit 1)...................................................A448
TCI Form 8-K, dated Sept. 30, 1998 (Payne Exhibit 2)..................................................A468
TCI Schedule 14D-9, dated December 11, 2002 (Gilbert Exhibit 10)......................................A486
Press Release, Taubman Centers, Inc., dated Jan. 21, 2003.............................................A512
TCI Schedule 13D/A, dated Nov. 14, 2002...............................................................A516
Press Release, Taubman Centers, Inc., dated Dec. 17, 2002 ............................................A570
TCI Schedule 13D/A, dated Jan. 28, 2003...............................................................A573
{/Table}
v
{Page}
Volume II: Deposition Exhibits/Documents
{Table}
{Caption}
Page
{S} {C}
NOVA Restructuring and Recapitalization Plan Goldman Sachs as Advisor
to the NOVA Family (Rosenberg Exhibit 7).........................................................A600
Project NOVA Goldman Sachs Value Added (Rosenberg Exhibit 8)..........................................A602
Memorandum to IBD Innovation Award Committee, dated Nov. 18, 1998
(Rosenberg Exhibit 10)...........................................................................A608
Goldman Sachs Handwritten Notes (Bloostein Exhibit 3) ................................................A610
Separation and Relative Value Adjustment Agreement, dated Aug. 17, 1998...............................A775
REIT Flowchart (Bloostein Exhibit 2)..................................................................A845
Morgan Stanley Handwritten Notes (Niehaus Exhibit 3)..................................................A846
Letter from Morgan Stanley to the Taubman Partnership Committee and Board of
Directors, dated Aug. 17, 1998 (Niehaus Exhibit 8)...............................................A847
Minutes of Meeting of the Partnership Committee of TCI, dated June 24, 1998
(Gilbert Exhibit 3)..............................................................................A850
Project NOVA, Preliminary Transaction Term Sheet Unit Redemption Transaction,
revised June 29, 1998............................................................................A854
1998 Draft Press Releases (Taubman Exhibit 12)........................................................A861
TCI Ownership Structure, May 2001 Proxy (Rosenberg Exhibit 5) ........................................A912
Letter from Goldman Sachs to R. Taubman, dated Oct. 25, 2002 (R. Taubman Exhibit 9) ..................A914
Minutes of a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of TCI,
dated Oct. 28, 2002 (Rosenberg Exhibit 1)........................................................A923
Voting Agreements, dated Nov. 14, 2002 (R. Taubman Exhibit 13) .......................................A928
Letter from D. Simon to R. Taubman, dated Oct. 22, 2002 (Bloostein Exhibit 4) ........................A935
{/Table}
vi
{Page}
Volume III: Deposition Testimony/Cases & Authorities
{Table}
{Caption}
Page
{S} {C}
Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of Allan J. Bloostein, taken Jan. 14, 2003 ............................A938
Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of Simon Parker Gilbert, taken Jan. 9, 2003............................A984
Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of G. William Miller, taken Jan. 22, 2003.............................A1030
Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of Lisa Payne, taken Jan. 17, 2003....................................A1037
Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of Christopher J. Niehaus, taken Jan. 17, 2003........................A1060
Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of Adam Rosenberg, taken Jan. 24, 2003................................A1087
Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of David Simon, taken Jan. 24, 2003...................................A1119
Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of Robert Taubman, taken January 16, 2003.............................A1124
MICH. COMP LAWS Sections 450.1790-1799 .......................................................................A1163
DAVID M. EINHORN ET AL, REIT M&A TRANSACTIONS-PECULIARITIES AND
COMPLICATIONS, 55 BUS. LAW. (Feb. 2000) ..................................................................A1172
MILLER V. VILL. HILL DEV. CORP., No. 220297, 2001 WL 754050
(Mich. Ct. App. July 3, 2001) ..........................................................................A1214
MM CO., INC. V. LIQUID AUDIO, INC., No. 606, 2002, 2003 WL 58969
(Del. Jan. 7, 2003) ....................................................................................A1217
PACKER V. YAMPOL, 1986 WL 4748 (Del. Ch. 1986) ...............................................................A1228
PHILLIPS V. INSITUFORM OF N. AM., INC., Civ. A. No. 9173, 1987 WL 16285
(Del. Ch. 1987) ........................................................................................A1240
SCHAFFER EX REL. LASERSIGHT INC. V. CC INV., LDC, No. 99 Civ. 2821 (VM), 2002 WL
31869391 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2002)........................................................................A1249
SEILON, INC. V. LAMB, No. C 83-314, 1983 WL 1354 (N.D. Ohio July 27, 1983)....................................A1257
{/Table}
vii
{Page}
Volume IV
{Table}
{Caption}
Page
{S} {C}
SPG Press Release, dated Feb. 17, 2003........................................................................A1273
Computershare Report of Shares Tendered, dated Feb. 14, 2003..................................................A1275
REIT Wrap, dated Feb. 18, 2003................................................................................A1276
TCI Schedule 14D-9A, dated Feb. 19, 2003......................................................................A1281
TCI Schedule 14D-9A, dated Feb. 4, 2003.......................................................................A1288
Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Third Request For
Production Of Documents.................................................................................A1293
The Rouse Company Letter to R. Taubman, dated May 1, 1998.....................................................A1298
TCI Closing Stock Price, May 1, 1998..........................................................................A1299
TCI 2002 Proxy Statement......................................................................................A1300
Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of Lucian Bebchuk, taken Feb. 19, 2003................................A1331
Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of Martin Cicco, taken Feb. 5, 2003...................................A1347
Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of Simon Parker Gilbert, taken Jan. 9, 2003...........................A1350
Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of M. Travis Keath, taken Feb. 13, 2003...............................A1352
Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of Peter Lowy, taken Feb. 19, 2003....................................A1368
Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of G. William Miller, taken Jan. 22, 2003.............................A1373
Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of Adam Rosenberg, taken Jan. 24, 2003................................A1381
Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of David Simon, taken Jan. 24, 2003...................................A1389
Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of Randall J. Smith, taken Feb. 14, 2003..............................A1393
Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of Robert Taubman, taken Jan. 16, 2003................................A1405
Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of Philip Ward, taken Jan. 17, 2003...................................A1409
viii
{Page}
{Caption}
{S} {C}
17 C.F.R. Sections 240. 13d-3(a), 13d-5(b)(1),................................................................A1415
IND. CODE ANN. Section 23-1-42-1..............................................................................A1419
AVACUS PARTNERS, L.P. V. BRIAN, Civ. A. No. 11001, 1990 WL 161909
(Del. Ch. Oct. 24, 1990)................................................................................A1423
CLARK V. SAKOWSKI, No. 210508, 2000 WL 33405937
(Mich. App. Oct. 13, 2000.).............................................................................A1432
EMERSON RADIO CORP. V. INT'L JENSEN INC., Civ. A. Nos. 15130, 14992,
1996 WL 483086 (Del. Ch. Aug. 15, 1996).................................................................A1436
FDIC V. HYDE PARK APARTMENTS, No. 94-56673, 1996 WL 138558
(9th Cir. Mar. 27. 1996)................................................................................A1457
GIBRALT CAP. CORP. V. SMITH, No. 17422, 2001 WL 647837
(Del. Ch. May 9, 2001)..................................................................................A1461
OMNICARE, INC. V. NCS HEALTHCARE, INC., No. 605, 649, 2002 Del. LEXIS 723
(Del. Ch. Dec. 10, 2002)................................................................................A1475
IN RE SHELL OIL CO., Civ. A. No. 8080, 1990 WL 201390
(Del. Ch. Dec. 11, 1990)................................................................................A1480
STEWART V. ALVAREZ, No. Civ. A. No. 02-1159, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19195
(E.D. La. Oct. 7, 2002) ................................................................................A1519
TOMCZAK V. THIOKOL, INC., Civ. A. No. 7861, 1990 WL 42607 (Del. Ch. Apr. 5, 1990).............................A1523
SPG Schedule TO/A, Amendment No. 16, dated Feb. 27, 2003......................................................A1537
Affidavit of Keith R. Pauley..................................................................................A1546
Affidavit of Robert H. Steers.................................................................................A1548
{/Table}
ix
{Page}
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED
(i) Whether defendants have discharged their burden under CAMPAU V.
MCMATH, 185 Mich. App. 724 (1990) of demonstrating that issuance of the Series B
to the Taubman family had a valid and proper corporate purpose rather than the
improper purpose of transferring control to the Taubman family.
THE PLAINTIFFS SAY: NO
(ii) Whether the defendants have discharged their "heavy burden of
demonstrating a compelling justification" for issuance of the Series B to the
Taubman family under BLASIUS INDUS., INC. V. ATLAS CORP., 564 A.2d 651 (1990).
THE PLAINTIFFS SAY: NO
(iii) Whether the defendants have discharged their burden under UNOCAL
V. MESA PETROLEUM CO., 493 A.2d 946 (Del. 1985) of demonstrating that issuance
of the Series B to the Taubman family in response to the unsolicited offer by
the Rouse Company to purchase the shares of TCI for $17.50 per share, was
reasonable, proportionate and non-preclusive to third party offers.
THE PLAINTIFFS SAY: NO
(iv) Whether TCI's board of directors is breaching its fiduciary
duties by relying upon the improperly-issued Series B to the Taubman family, and
refusing to allow shareholders to take advantage of the SPG/Westfield $20 per
share offer, despite the tender by approximately 85% of TCI's shares of common
stock into the SPG/Westfield tender offer.
THE PLAINTIFFS SAY: YES
(v) Whether, SPG, as a bidder-shareholder, has standing to assert its
breach of fiduciary duty claims where the defendant directors have breached and
are continuing to breach their fiduciary duties both before and after SPG became
a stockholder of TCI.
THE PLAINTIFFS SAY: YES
(vi) Whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
action, despite the absence of an entity called TG Partners Limited Partnership
("TG"), where defendant Alfred Taubman (a) controls TG, (b) is the beneficial
owner of TG's Series B and partnership units, (c) votes TG's Series B on behalf
of all the partners of TG, and (d) can adequately protect the interests of TG.
THE PLAINTIFFS SAY: YES
x
{Page}
(vii) Whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the
action where plaintiff Randall Smith, a TCI stockholder since 1993, (a) is
seeking an injunction to set aside the Taubman family's valuable Series B voting
rights, (b) the value of the injunction to the defendants, including the cost of
complying with the injunction, is more than $75,000, and (c) 28 U.S.C. Section
1367 explicitly permits supplemental jurisdiction to be exercised over claims by
plaintiffs joined under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20.
THE PLAINTIFFS SAY: YES
(viii) Whether Randall Smith's claims are derivative in nature where
Smith asserts that the Series B improperly interfered with his voting rights in
TCI because the Series B improperly diluted and shifted voting control away from
other public shareholders to the Taubman family.
THE PLAINTIFFS SAY: NO
(ix) Whether plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims are
time-barred where (a) SPG and other TCI shareholders first suffered injury from
the Taubman family's blocking position in November 2002 when that blocking
position was used -- by the Taubman family and the TCI board -- to thwart SPG's
all cash offer, (b) defendants are engaged in a pattern of wrongful conduct that
began in 1998 and which continues to this day, and (c) plaintiffs' equitable
fiduciary duty claims seek "purely equitable" relief.
THE PLAINTIFFS SAY: NO
(x) Whether the group formed in November 2002 for the purpose of
collectively voting their 33.6% voting interest against the SPG offer may vote
their shares against the SPG/Westfield offer, where TCI's shareholders have not
conferred voting rights on those shares in accordance with Michigan Control
Share Acquisitions Act.
THE PLAINTIFFS SAY: NO
(xi) Whether, absent injunctive relief, the plaintiffs will suffer
irreparable injury if the Series B is permitted to vote at an upcoming meeting
of TCI's shareholders, where the defendants have been engaged in a campaign of
disinformation designed to persuade shareholders that the Series B is valid and
that the SPG/Westfield offer cannot succeed absent a judicial ruling in this
litigation.
THE PLAINTIFFS SAY: YES
xi
{Page}
CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
DEFENDANTS HAVE BREACHED AND CONTINUE TO BREACH THEIR FIDUCIARY DUTIES
BLASIUS INDUS., INC. V. ATLAS CORP., 564 A.2d 651 (Del. Ch. 1988)
CAMPAU V. MCMATH, 185 Mich. App. 724 (1990)
HILTON HOTELS CORP. V. ITT CORP., 978 F. Supp. 1342 (D. Nev. 1997)
UNOCAL CORP. V. MESA PETROLEUM CO., 493 A.2d 946 (Del. 1985)
PLAINTIFFS HAVE STANDING
CRTF CORP. V. FEDERATED DEP'T STORES, INC., 683 F. Supp. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)
EMERSON RADIO CORP. V. INT'L JENSON, INC., 1996 WL 483086 (Del. Ch. Aug. 20,
1996)
THE COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
CARDIZEM CD ANTITRUST LITIG., 90 F. Supp. 2d 819 (E.D. Mich. 1999)
FDIC V. HYDE PARK APARTMENTS, 1996 WL 138558 (9th Cir. 1996)
OLDEN V. LAFARGE CORP., 203 F.R.D. 254 (E.D. Mich. 2001)
PROF'L HOCKEY CLUB V. DETROIT RED WINGS, 787 F. Supp. 706 (E.D. Mich. 1992)
STROMBERG METAL WORKS, INC. V. PRESS MECH., INC., 77 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 1996)
SMITH'S CLAIMS ARE INDIVIDUAL, NOT DERIVATIVE
IN RE TRI-STAR PICTURES, INC. LITIG., 634 A.2d 319 (Del. 1993)
LIPTON V. NEWS INT'L, 514 A.2d 1075 (Del. 1986)
PLAINTIFFS' BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM IS NOT BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS
BOROCK V. COMERICA BANK-DETROIT, 938 F. Supp. 428 (E.D. Mich. 1996)
CLARK V. SAKOWSKI, 2000 WL 33405937 (Mich. App. Oct. 13, 2000)
MCCANN V. BRODY-BUILT CONSTR. CO., 197 Mich. App. 512 (1992)
MEEK V. MICH. BELL TEL. CO., 193 Mich. App. 340 (1991)
xii
{Page}
THE GROUP SHARES MAY NOT BE VOTED UNDER THE CONTROL SHARE ACT
GAF CORP. V. MILSTEIN, 453 F.2d 709 (2d Cir. 1971)
Mich. Comp. Laws Sections 450.1791-1799
15 U.S.C. Section 78m(d)
17 C.F.R. Section 240.13d-5(b)(1)
Official Comments to Ind. Code 23-1-42-1
A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS WARRANTED
CROWLEY V. LOCAL NO. 82, 679 F.2d 978 (1st Cir. 1982)
LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY GOV'T V. BELLSOUTH TELECOMM., INC., 14 Fed.
Appx. 636 (6th Cir. 2001)
PACKER V. YAMPOL, 1986 WL 4748 (Del. Ch. Apr. 18, 1986)
STENBERG V. CHEKER OIL CO., 573 F.2d 921 (6th Cir. 1978)
xiii
{Page}
TCI's shareholders have now spoken: EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT (85%) of the
common shares of TCI, or some 44 MILLION out of 52 million common shares, have
been tendered in response to the SPG/Westfield $20 per share offer. SEE
A1273-75. This response demonstrates that TCI's shareholders overwhelmingly
favor the all-cash offer, that they want to accept the 50% premium created by
the offer, and that they want the TCI board to remove the impediments to the
offer put in place by the Taubman family.
Unfortunately for the shareholders, the directors do not care. Barely
an hour after the tender results were announced, and without even convening a
board meeting, TCI reiterated its implacable opposition to the offer, stating
that "the facts have not changed" because "more than 30 percent of outstanding
. . . voting shares [i.e., the Taubman family] have publicly announced their
opposition" to the offer. A1276-80; A1281, 1285. Robert Taubman has publicly
called the tender of shares "irrelevant." A1288, 1292. This startling response
proves that the group formed to oppose the offer is still alive and well, that
TCI is being run by and for the Taubman family, and that what the shareholders
want (even 85% of them) does not matter.
As for what defendants decry as a "lurid and utterly false picture" of
their conduct in 1998 (Def. Br. 1), the facts are not the invention of SPG, but
are straight out of the contemporaneous record documented by one of defendants'
then AND CURRENT professional advisors. Their author has not disavowed the
contents or accuracy of a single item in those materials, either in his
deposition or in any affidavit submitted to the Court.(1) That daily chronicle
of the deal, and not the revisionist history proffered by defendants, discloses
what really happened in 1998. And what happened in 1998 is even clearer now that
SPG has
--------
(1) Adam Rosenberg, a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School and
four-year veteran of the Skadden Arps law firm before he joined Goldman Sachs,
testified that he strives for truthful and honest written communications and
that he tried to make his notes as accurate as possible. A1382-1387b. He became
the ONLY member of the 1998 Goldman team to be assigned to the current defense
256916
|
Hilton Hotels
As referenced in this Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of SPG Plaintiffs' and Randall Smith's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction:
HILTON HOTELS CORP. – Ch. 1999)..............................9
GIBRALT CAPITAL CORP. V. SMITH, 2001 WL 647837 (Del. Ch. May 9, 2001)...................................11
GRAND METRO. V. PILLSBURY CO., 558 A.2d 1049 (Del. Ch. 1988).............................................7
HILTON HOTELS CORP. V. ITT CORP., 978 F. Supp. 1342 (D. Nev. 1997).......................................5
ii
{Page}
{Caption}
{S} {C}
HOFFMAN V. VULCAN MATERIALS CO., 19 F. Supp. 2d 475 (M.D.N.
_____________
HILTON HOTELS CORP. – HAVE BREACHED AND CONTINUE TO BREACH THEIR FIDUCIARY DUTIES
BLASIUS INDUS., INC. V. ATLAS CORP., 564 A.2d 651 (Del. Ch. 1988)
CAMPAU V. MCMATH, 185 Mich. App. 724 (1990)
HILTON HOTELS CORP. V. ITT CORP., 978 F. Supp. 1342 (D. Nev. 1997)
UNOCAL CORP. V. MESA PETROLEUM CO., 493 A.2d 946 (Del. 1985)
PLAINTIFFS HAVE STANDING
CRTF CORP. V. FEDERATED
_____________
HILTON HOTELS CORP. – if one was not legally required, as they contend -- is further evidence
that the primary purpose of the Series B was to seize control of TCI for the
family. SEE HILTON HOTELS CORP. V. ITT CORP., 978 F. Supp. 1342, 1349 (D. Nev.
1997) (enjoining restructuring plan designed to maintain control where board
"offered no credible justification for not seeking shareholder approval"
_____________
dt 1429582
;
Liquid Audio
As referenced in this Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of SPG Plaintiffs' and Randall Smith's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction:
LIQUID AUDIO, INC. – 1982)........................................................11
MCCANN V. BRODY-BUILT CONSTR. CO., 197 Mich. App. 512 (1992).............................................9
MEEK V. MICH. BELL TEL. CO., 193 Mich. App. 340 (1991)..................................................10
MM COS., INC. V. LIQUID AUDIO, INC. , 813 A.2d 1118 (Del. 2003)...........................................4
NEARY V. MARKHAM, 155 F.2d 485 (10th Cir. 1946).........................................................11
OLDEN V. LAFARGE CORP., 203 F.R.D. 254 (E.D.
_____________
LIQUID AUDIO, INC. – AND
COMPLICATIONS, 55 BUS. LAW. (Feb. 2000) ..................................................................A1172
MILLER V. VILL. HILL DEV. CORP., No. 220297, 2001 WL 754050
(Mich. Ct. App. July 3, 2001) ..........................................................................A1214
MM CO., INC. V. LIQUID AUDIO, INC. , No. 606, 2002, 2003 WL 58969
(Del. Jan. 7, 2003) ....................................................................................A1217
PACKER V. YAMPOL, 1986 WL 4748 (Del. Ch. 1986) ...............................................................A1228
PHILLIPS V. INSITUFORM OF N. AM., INC., Civ.
_____________
LIQUID AUDIO, INC. – as against the other shareholders and cannot be
permitted to stand."). Instead, the board "bears the heavy burden of
demonstrating a compelling justification for such action." MM COS., INC. V.
LIQUID AUDIO, INC. , 813 A.2d 1118, 1128 (Del. 2003); SEE STAHL V. APPLE BANCORP,
INC., 579 A.2d 1115, 1122 (Del. Ch. 1990) (noting a virtually "per se rule that
board
_____________
dt 1510002
;
Liquid Audio
As referenced in this Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of SPG Plaintiffs' and Randall Smith's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction:
LIQUID AUDIO, INC. – 1982)........................................................11
MCCANN V. BRODY-BUILT CONSTR. CO., 197 Mich. App. 512 (1992).............................................9
MEEK V. MICH. BELL TEL. CO., 193 Mich. App. 340 (1991)..................................................10
MM COS., INC. V. LIQUID AUDIO, INC. , 813 A.2d 1118 (Del. 2003)...........................................4
NEARY V. MARKHAM, 155 F.2d 485 (10th Cir. 1946).........................................................11
OLDEN V. LAFARGE CORP., 203 F.R.D. 254 (E.D.
_____________
LIQUID AUDIO, INC. – AND
COMPLICATIONS, 55 BUS. LAW. (Feb. 2000) ..................................................................A1172
MILLER V. VILL. HILL DEV. CORP., No. 220297, 2001 WL 754050
(Mich. Ct. App. July 3, 2001) ..........................................................................A1214
MM CO., INC. V. LIQUID AUDIO, INC. , No. 606, 2002, 2003 WL 58969
(Del. Jan. 7, 2003) ....................................................................................A1217
PACKER V. YAMPOL, 1986 WL 4748 (Del. Ch. 1986) ...............................................................A1228
PHILLIPS V. INSITUFORM OF N. AM., INC., Civ.
_____________
LIQUID AUDIO, INC. – as against the other shareholders and cannot be
permitted to stand."). Instead, the board "bears the heavy burden of
demonstrating a compelling justification for such action." MM COS., INC. V.
LIQUID AUDIO, INC. , 813 A.2d 1118, 1128 (Del. 2003); SEE STAHL V. APPLE BANCORP,
INC., 579 A.2d 1115, 1122 (Del. Ch. 1990) (noting a virtually "per se rule that
board
_____________
dt 1510029
;
|
Simon Property
As referenced in this Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of SPG Plaintiffs' and Randall Smith's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction:
SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, INC – 99.(A)(5)(X)
{SEQUENCE}3
{FILENAME}a2104795zex-99_a5x.txt
{DESCRIPTION}EXHIBIT (A)(5)(X)
{TEXT}
{Page}
Exhibit (a)(5)(X)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
------------------------------------------x
:
SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, INC .,
SIMON PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS, INC., :
AND RANDALL J. SMITH,
:
Plaintiffs, :
- against - CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-74799
:
TAUBMAN CENTERS, INC., A. ALFRED The Honorable Victoria A. Roberts
TAUBMAN, ROBERT S.TAUBMAN,
_____________
dt 1325366
;
More... |
| Preview
Subscribers | 2002 |
Letter Agreement
Letter Agreement (83K)
Doc #381039: Click preview link for longer preview.
CREDIT LYONNAIS SECURITIES (USA) INC.
Credit Lyonnais Building
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019-6022
(212) 261-7000
January 18, 2002
U.S. Concrete, Inc.
2925 Briarpark, Suite 500
Houston, Texas 77042
Attn: Michael Harlan
Dear Sirs:
U.S. Concrete, Inc. (the "Company") and Credit Lyonnais Securities (USA)
-------
Inc. ("CLS") previously entered into a letter agreement, dated September 5,
---
2001, as subsequently amended by a letter agreement, dated December 14, 2001
(the "September Agreement"), with respect to an underwritten equity line of
-------------------
credit facility arrangement. This current letter agreement amends and restates,
in its entirety, as of September 5, 2001, the September Agreement and sets forth
our understanding of the terms and conditions pursuant to which CLS will act as
the exclusive finder for a proposed underwritten equity line of credit facility
(the "Offering") of up to 1.8 million shares (the "Commitment Amount") of the
-------- -----------------
common stock (the "Common Stock" and the shares of Common Stock constituting the
------------
Commitment Amount, the "Shares") of the Company by an institutional investor to
------
be identified by CLS and agreed to by the Company (the "Investor") on terms to
--------
be mutually agreed upon between the Company and the Investor consistent with
Section 6(a) below.
1. Engagement.
----------
a. CLS will use its commercially reasonable efforts to identify an
Investor to underwrite the Offering. The Company expressly
acknowledges and agrees that CLS's obligations hereunder are to
attempt to identify an Investor to underwrite the Offering using its
commercially reasonable efforts and that the execution of this letter
agreement does not constitute a commitment by CLS to purchase the
Shares or any other shares of Common Stock, nor ensure that the
Investor will execute final agreements with the Company to underwrite
the Offering, nor constitute a commitment by CLS to guaranty the
obligations of the Investor under the final agreements or to secure
any other financing on behalf of the Company. The Company also
expressly acknowledges that CLS is acting exclusively as a finder
hereunder and not in any other capacity.
b. CLS's engagement as finder for the proposed equity line of credit
contemplated hereby shall be exclusive for a period commencing on
{PAGE}
September 5, 2001 (such date being hereinafter referred to as the
"Execution Date") and concluding on the date falling 365 calendar days
--------------
thereafter or on the earlier termination of this letter agreement in
accordance with the provisions of Section 13 hereof (the "Exclusive
---------
Period"). The term of CLS's engagement shall continue until the
------
conclusion of the commitment period under any underwriting agreement
between the Company and the Investor or until the earlier termination
of this letter agreement in accordance with the provisions of Section
13 hereof (the "Engagement Period"). During the Exclusive Period, the
-----------------
Company and its subsidiaries (each, a "Subsidiary" and collectively,
----------
the "Subsidiaries") or affiliates shall not, directly or indirectly,
------------
through any finder, placement agent, broker, investment banker, or
other representative or agent retained by the Company or otherwise,
solicit, initiate or encourage the submission of any other proposal or
offer from any other person or entity relating to the sale of the
Company's equity securities at market, or at a discount to market, in
the form of an equity line of credit facility (an "Alternative
-----------
Proposal"). The Company shall immediately cease and cause to be
--------
terminated any and all contacts, discussions and negotiations, whether
ongoing at the Execution Date or initiated through unsolicited
contacts during the Exclusive Period, regarding any Alternative
Proposal. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent or restrict the
Company's consultation with its legal counsel.
2. Fees. In consideration of the services to be rendered by CLS as finder, the
----
Company agrees to pay to or on behalf of CLS, the following fees and other
compensation:
a. an advance of $50,000 (the "Advance") for fees and expenses incurred
-------
by CLS to be paid within four business days of the Execution Date,
which amount shall be refunded to the Company within 60 days following
the Engagement Period if and to the extent that CLS has not incurred
fees and expense equal to or greater than the full amount of the
Advance;
b. a finder's fee payable upon the delivery of the Shares and payment
therefor (each, a "Settlement"") equal to (x) 3% of the aggregate
----------
purchase price paid for the Shares at such Settlement if the Company's
market capitalization is greater than or equal to $400,000,000 on the
date of delivery of the Capital Demand Notice (as defined in Section
6) relating to such Settlement and (y) 2.75% of the aggregate purchase
price paid for the Shares at such Settlement if the Company's market
capitalization is less than $400,000,000 on the date of delivery of
the Capital Demand Notice (as defined in Section 6) relating to such
Settlement. If the Investor and the Company use an escrow with respect
to a Settlement, the finder's fee with respect to such Settlement
shall be paid directly out of escrow; and
c. any filing fees incurred by CLS incident to securing any required
review by NASD Regulation, Inc. of the terms of sale of the Shares.
3. Public Announcement. The Company shall not provide or release any
-------------------
information with respect to this letter agreement or the Offering, including any
press release, except as required by
2
{PAGE}
law, by the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC") or of NASD Regulation, Inc., or with the consent of CLS or its agents.
4. Information. In conjunction with CLS's services as a finder hereunder,
-----------
the Company recognizes and confirms that CLS and its agents will be using and
relying on publicly available information filed by the Company with the SEC and
on the data, material and other information requested by CLS and its agents from
the Company. The Company shall supply and deliver to CLS and their respective
381039
|
U.S. Concrete
As referenced in this Letter Agreement:
U.S. Concrete, Inc – TEXT}
{PAGE}
Exhibit 1.3
CREDIT LYONNAIS SECURITIES (USA) INC.
Credit Lyonnais Building
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019-6022
(212) 261-7000
January 18, 2002
U.S. Concrete, Inc .
2925 Briarpark, Suite 500
Houston, Texas 77042
Attn: Michael Harlan
Dear Sirs:
U.S. Concrete, Inc. (the "Company") and Credit Lyonnais Securities (USA)
-------
Inc. ("CLS") previously entered into a
_____________
U.S. Concrete, Inc – the Americas
New York, New York 10019-6022
(212) 261-7000
January 18, 2002
U.S. Concrete, Inc.
2925 Briarpark, Suite 500
Houston, Texas 77042
Attn: Michael Harlan
Dear Sirs:
U.S. Concrete, Inc . (the "Company") and Credit Lyonnais Securities (USA)
-------
Inc. ("CLS") previously entered into a letter agreement, dated September 5,
---
2001, as subsequently amended by a letter agreement, dated December 14,
_____________
U.S. CONCRETE, INC – to working with you.
Sincerely,
CREDIT LYONNAIS SECURITIES (USA) INC.
By: /s/ Jeffery Posner
----------------------------------
Name: Jeffery Posner
Title: Managing Director
.
Agreed to and accepted this 18th day of January, 2002:
U.S. CONCRETE, INC .
By: /s/ Donald Wayne
-----------------------------
Name: Donald Wayne
Title: Vice President
14
{PAGE}
Attachment A
------------
Indemnification Provisions
1. Subject to the following sections of these Indemnification Provisions,
the Company agrees
_____________
U.S. Concrete, Inc – completion of the engagement provided for under the
terms of the Engagement Letter.
4
{PAGE}
Attachment B
------------
Forms of Opinions
ATTACHMENT B-1
--------------
[Letterhead of Donald Wayne, General Counsel of U.S. Concrete, Inc .]
_____ __, 200__
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This opinion is being furnished pursuant to Section 6(e) of the
amended and restated letter agreement dated January 18, 2002 (the "Engagement
_____________
U.S. Concrete, Inc – __, 200__
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This opinion is being furnished pursuant to Section 6(e) of the
amended and restated letter agreement dated January 18, 2002 (the "Engagement
Agreement") between U.S. Concrete, Inc ., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
and Credit Lyonnais Securities (USA) Inc. ("CLS"), relating to the issuance and
sale of _____ shares (the "Shares") of the Company's common stock,
_____________
dt 1548068
;
Chase Manhattan
As referenced in this Letter Agreement:
Chase Manhattan Bank, – Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of August 31, 2001, as amended,
the parties to which include the Company, the Guarantors named therein, the
Lenders named therein and The Chase Manhattan Bank, as administrative agent.
5. To my knowledge, except as described in or contemplated by the
Prospectus and except for stock options granted pursuant to the Company's
incentive plans
_____________
dt 1425411
;
|
Credit Lyonnais
As referenced in this Letter Agreement:
CREDIT LYONNAIS SECURITIES (USA) INC – {DOCUMENT}
{TYPE}EX-1.3
{SEQUENCE}4
{FILENAME}dex13.txt
{DESCRIPTION}AMENDED AND RESTATED ENGAGEMENT LTR AMGT
{TEXT}
{PAGE}
Exhibit 1.3
CREDIT LYONNAIS SECURITIES (USA) INC .
Credit Lyonnais Building
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019-6022
(212) 261-7000
January 18, 2002
U.S. Concrete, Inc.
2925 Briarpark, Suite 500
Houston,
_____________
Credit Lyonnais Securities (USA)
-------
Inc – 6022
(212) 261-7000
January 18, 2002
U.S. Concrete, Inc.
2925 Briarpark, Suite 500
Houston, Texas 77042
Attn: Michael Harlan
Dear Sirs:
U.S. Concrete, Inc. (the "Company") and Credit Lyonnais Securities (USA)
-------
Inc . ("CLS") previously entered into a letter agreement, dated September 5,
---
2001, as subsequently amended by a letter agreement, dated December 14, 2001
(the "September Agreement"), with respect to an
_____________
Credit Lyonnais Securities (USA) Inc – CLS: Credit Lyonnais Building
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019-6022
Attn: Jeffery Posner
Tel: (212) 408-5680
Fax: (212) 261-2516
With a copy to: Credit Lyonnais Securities (USA) Inc .
Credit Lyonnais Building
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019-6022
Attn: Richard V. Carlson, Esq.
Tel: (212) 261-7000
Fax: (212) 459-3170
13. Termination.
_____________
CREDIT LYONNAIS SECURITIES (USA) INC – original documents, a
facsimile transmission or copy of the original documents shall be as effective
and enforceable as the original.
13
{PAGE}
We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
CREDIT LYONNAIS SECURITIES (USA) INC .
By: /s/ Jeffery Posner
----------------------------------
Name: Jeffery Posner
Title: Managing Director
.
Agreed to and accepted this 18th day of January, 2002:
U.S. CONCRETE, INC.
By: /s/ Donald Wayne
-----------------------------
Name:
_____________
Credit Lyonnais Securities (USA) Inc – pursuant to Section 6(e) of the
amended and restated letter agreement dated January 18, 2002 (the "Engagement
Agreement") between U.S. Concrete, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
and Credit Lyonnais Securities (USA) Inc . ("CLS"), relating to the issuance and
sale of _____ shares (the "Shares") of the Company's common stock, par value
$0.001 per share ("Common Stock").
The Company has
_____________
dt 1488013
;
Baker Botts
As referenced in this Letter Agreement:
Baker Botts – are "significant subsidiaries,"
within the meaning of Section 102(w) of Regulation S-X, at the time of the
delivery of the opinion.]
8
{PAGE}
ATTACHMENT B-2
--------------
[Letterhead of Baker Botts L.L.P.]
_____ __, 200__
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This opinion is being furnished pursuant to Section 6(e) of the
amended and restated letter agreement dated January 18, 2002 (
_____________
dt 1546842
|