| Preview
Full Doc
 | 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... |