Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA294110
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`07/08/2009
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91155460
`Defendant
`Chandaria, Sachen
`Michael A. Lisi
`HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ AND COHN LLP
`38500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 100
`Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5048
`UNITED STATES
`bwassom@honigman.com
`Request to Withdraw as Attorney
`Brian D. Wassom
`tmdocketing@honigman.com,bdw@honigman.com
`/Brian D. Wassom/
`07/08/2009
`2009-07-08 motion to withdraw with exhibits.pdf ( 60 pages )(1993063 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Opposition No.
`
`91155460
`
`Serial No.:
`
`76/315,955
`
`Interlocutory Attorney: Jennifer Krisp
`
`Mark: GIFT WRAP IT & DESIGN
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`3M COMPANY,
`
`Opposer,
`
`vs.
`
`SACHEN CHANDARIA,
`
`Applicant.
`
`PETITION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§2.19(b) and 10.40 and TBMP §§116.02 and 513.01, the law firm
`
`of Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP (“HMSC”) hereby respectfully requests leave to
`
`withdraw as counsel for Applicant Sachen Chandaria. In support of its motion, HMSC offers the
`
`following.
`
`Introduction
`
`Through no fault of its own, HMSC finds itself in the middle of an international, intra-
`
`family dispute. When HMSC took over
`
`representation of Sachen Chandaria as the
`
`Applicant/Respondent in this opposition, it did so at the request of its clients within the large,
`
`business-savvy Chandaria family. At that time, all of the Chandarias’ interests were aligned.
`
`But now Sachen Chandaria and his father are adverse to HMSC’s clients in at least two separate
`
`lawsuits pending in Canada and New York. Although HMSC is not counsel in either of those
`
`lawsuits, this rift between members of the Chandaria family puts HMSC in an impossible
`
`position. HMSC cannot represent someone who is directly adverse to its long-standing client.
`
`Therefore, the Board should permit HMSC to withdraw from representing Sachen Chandaria.
`
`1
`
`

`
`Relevant Background
`
`A.
`
`The Chandaria Family and Its Relationship to This Proceeding
`
`Applicant Sachen Chandaria, currently a resident of Nairobi, Kenya, is one member of
`
`the large Chandaria family that spreads from Toronto, Canada to the United Kingdom to East
`
`Africa. Among the businesses owned by members of the Chandaria family are Conros
`
`Corporation (“Conros”) and LePage’s 2000, Inc. (“LePage’s”), based in Toronto. Ex A (Lewis
`
`Aff.) ¶3.
`
`On September 21, 2001, a different law firm filed the application at issue in this
`
`proceeding, using Sachen Chandaria’s name as the Applicant. On December 31, 2002, Opposer
`
`3M filed its Notice of Opposition.
`
`For several years, HMSC has been one of multiple law firms representing Conros and
`
`LePage’s. Lewis Aff. ¶4. That has included representing Conros and LePage’s in other
`
`Opposition proceedings before the Board.1
`
`On June 16, 2005, HMSC first appeared as counsel for Sachen Chandaria in this
`
`opposition. Since that time, HMSC has worked diligently, albeit unsuccessfully, to negotiate a
`
`settlement of this opposition acceptable to both parties. Although acting in the name of Sachen
`
`Chandaria, HMSC was retained by LePage’s, paid by LePage’s,
`
`took its direction from
`
`LePage’s, and communicated with Sachen Chandaria only through its contact persons at
`
`LePage’s. Those contact persons included Navin Chandaria—the President of LePage’s—and
`
`his son, Sunir Chandaria. Lewis Aff. ¶5.
`
`1 See Consolidated Opposition Nos. 91155378, 91156162, and 91161913.
`
`2
`
`

`
`B.
`
`The Recent Rift Within the Chandaria Family
`
`On March 12, 2009, Ashok Chandaria—the father of Sachen Chandaria—filed a lawsuit
`
`in Canada against over 40 defendants, including HMSC’s clients Conros, LePage’s, Navin
`
`Chandaria, Sunir Chandaria, and Kapoor Chandaria (the “Canadian lawsuit”). Ex B. Among
`
`other things, the Canadian lawsuit claims that Ashok Chandaria, “on behalf of the family, [is
`
`entitled to] ownership of all . . . intellectual property for all of the family’s businesses.” Id. ¶21.
`
`Presumably, that includes the trademark application at issue in this Opposition. The lawsuit also
`
`alleges that Navin Chandaria, among others, has breached fiduciary duties allegedly owed to
`
`Ashok Chandaria.
`
`Although Sachen Chandaria, Ashok’s son, is not named as a plaintiff in the Canadian
`
`lawsuit, it is apparent that Sachen is aligned with the interests of Ashok and in opposition to
`
`defendant members of the Chandaria family. Lewis Aff. ¶9.
`
`On April 6, 2009, Kitaru Innovations, Inc., a Barbados corporation—which is also one of
`
`the defendants in the Canadian lawsuit—filed a lawsuit in New York against Ashok and Sachen
`
`Chandaria (the “New York lawsuit”). Ex C. Kapoor Chandaria (an HMSC client) is a director
`
`of Kitaru, and Kitaru has licensed certain intellectual property to LePage’s. Although that
`
`lawsuit involves claims of patent infringement that do not directly pertain to this Opposition, the
`
`lawsuit has only further crystallized the diversity in interest between the faction of the Chandaria
`
`family that includes Ashok and Sachen, and the faction that includes Navin Chandaria, Kapoor
`
`Chandaria and LePage’s, HMSC’s longstanding clients.
`
`3
`
`

`
`C.
`
`HMSC’s Timely and Proper Efforts to Amicably Withdraw From This Matter
`
`Through no fault of its own, HMSC now finds itself in the middle of an intra-family
`
`dispute.
`
`In this Opposition, HMSC still technically represents Sachen Chandaria.
`
`In reality,
`
`however, HMSC’s actual client relationship with respect to this Opposition has always been with
`
`Navin Chandaria and LePage’s, who are now in litigation against Sachen Chandaria.
`
`On May 19, 2009, Opposer 3M served HMSC with written discovery requests. On June
`
`8, 2009—after consultation with Navin Chandaria of LePage’s—HMSC contacted Sachen
`
`Chandaria by e-mail and Federal Express concerning the status of this Opposition, and HMSC’s
`
`inability to proceed as counsel:
`
`Inc.
`firm has long represented LePage’s 2000,
`As you know, our
`(“LePage’s”). That representation has included defending the above-captioned
`trademark Opposition proceeding.
`In this proceeding, 3M Company (“3M”)
`challenges the application to register the mark GIFT WRAP IT & Design. That
`application was filed in your name.
`
`In light of recent legal developments in your relationship with LePage’s,
`however, our firm can no longer continue to act in your name. If you return to us
`a signed copy of the enclosed form revoking our power to represent you, we will
`file it immediately.
`If we do not hear from you, we intend to petition the
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board by June 15, 2009 for leave to withdraw from
`representing you. * * *
`
`We urge you to give immediate attention to this matter, and engage new
`counsel as soon as possible.
`
`Ex D. On June 15, 2009, HMSC received a response on Sachen Chandaria’s behalf from the law
`
`firm of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP—the same law firm representing Sachen in the New
`
`York lawsuit. Ex E. The letter expressly refused consent to HMSC’s withdrawal. Yet, for the
`
`ostensible purpose of “evaluating” that request, the letter demanded production of not only all of
`
`HMSC’s files related to the opposition, but also “a copy of all documents relating to Mr.
`
`[Sachen] Chandaria”—a request that goes far beyond the subject matter of this Opposition.
`
`4
`
`

`
`On June 16, HMSC responded with a letter enclosing the full USPTO file for the
`
`application at issue here, and the entire TTAB file for this opposition. Ex F. HMSC also
`
`advised that it had secured 3M’s agreement to extend the discovery response deadline by 30
`
`additional days, and that it would file this motion for leave to withdraw if Sachen did not give his
`
`consent by June 23.
`
`On June 17, Sachen’s New York lawyers reiterated their demand for each and every
`
`document relating to both the mark at issue here and Sachen Chandaria himself. Ex G. Again,
`
`the letter conditioned Sachen’s consideration of HMSC’s request to withdraw on its production
`
`of these unrelated documents.
`
`On June 18, HMSC responded by agreeing to produce everything in Sachen’s client file
`
`that he is legally entitled to, upon receipt of such a request from Sachen himself. Ex H. In the
`
`meantime, however, HMSC again advised that it would move to withdraw by June 23 if Sachen
`
`did not consent. As of the date of this Petition, HMSC has received no further communication
`
`from Sachen Chandaria or his New York lawyers.
`
`5
`
`

`
`A.
`
`Standards for Attorney Withdrawal
`
`Argument
`
`37 CFR §10.40(a) (and TBMP §§11602 and 513.01) provide that:
`
`A practitioner shall not withdraw from employment in a proceeding before the
`Office without permission from the Office . . . [and not] until the practitioner has
`taken reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client,
`including giving due notice to his or her client, allowing time for employment of
`another practitioner, delivering to the client all papers and property to which the
`client is entitled, and complying with applicable laws and rules.
`
`Subsection (b) of 37 CFR §10.40 lists various circumstances in which withdrawal is mandatory,
`
`while subsection (c) lists several grounds for permissive withdrawal.
`
`B.
`
`Sachen Chandaria’s Direct and Indirect Adversity to HMSC’s Client Conros
`Justifies—Indeed, Mandates—HMSC’s Withdrawal From This Opposition
`
`1.
`
`The Circumstances Make It Impossible for HMSC to Represent Sachen
`
`In 2005, when HMSC first
`
`took over representation of Sachen Chandaria in this
`
`opposition, the arrangement made sense. At least to HMSC’s knowledge, Sachen’s interests
`
`were aligned with HMSC’s client, LePage’s, and with the rest of the Chandaria family. Lewis
`
`Aff. ¶6. On multiple occasions, when HMSC requested (through Conros) Sachen’s cooperation
`
`in the Opposition, Sachen agreed—including by signing the document that appointed HMSC as
`
`counsel in this matter, and by signing a draft settlement agreement that HMSC negotiated but
`
`that 3M ultimately never agreed to. Ex I (signature page).
`
`HMSC could not have predicted that, four years later, Sachen Chandaria and his father,
`
`Ashok Chandaria, would be adverse to LePage’s (and its officers, Navin and Sunir Chandaria,
`
`HMSC’s principal client contacts) in two lawsuits. Lewis Aff. ¶6. But once that adversity arose,
`
`it destroyed any practical ability of HMSC to adequately represent Sachen Chandaria’s interests
`
`6
`
`

`
`in this matter. Id. ¶10. Throughout its role in this opposition, HMSC has received direction and
`
`payment from LePage’s. It has had no direct relationship with Sachen Chandaria.
`
`The Chandaria family rift puts HMSC in an ethical bind. HMSC continues to represent
`
`Conros and LePage’s. Even though HMSC is not counsel of record in the Canadian lawsuit, that
`
`lawsuit involves claims by Sachen’s father on behalf of his family,
`
`including Sachen, to
`
`ownership of all Conros and LePage’s intellectual property (including, presumably, the mark at
`
`issue here). Therefore, HMSC could not communicate with Sachen Chandaria about the subject
`
`matter of this Opposition without compromising Conros’ and LePage’s interests. Moreover, in
`
`the New York lawsuit, Sachen and Ashok are directly adverse to Kitaru, which is an affiliate of
`
`HMSC client LePage’s and of which HMSC client Kapoor Chandaria is a director. The
`
`impossibility of zealously serving both LePage’s and Sachen is made evident even by the
`
`response of Sachen’s New York attorneys to HMSC’s request to withdraw. Instead of limiting
`
`their consideration to the four corners of this Opposition, they have sought to obtain documents
`
`completely unrelated to this opposition.
`
`2.
`
`Withdrawal Is Mandatory
`
`A practitioner must withdraw when “practitioner's continued employment will result in
`
`violation of a Disciplinary Rule.” Disciplinary Rules for attorneys practicing before the Board
`
`are found in 37 CFR, Part 10. Section 10.66(b) requires withdrawal when an attorney’s
`
`obligations to multiple clients become irreconcilable:
`
`A practitioner shall not continue multiple employment if the exercise of the
`practitioner’s independent professional judgment in behalf of a client will be or is
`likely to be adversely affected by the practitioner’s representation of another
`client, or if it would be likely to involve the practitioner in representing differing
`interests . . . .
`
`7
`
`

`
`Here, there is no doubt that LePage’s and Navin Chandaria, on the one hand, and Sachen
`
`Chandaria, on the other hand, have “differing interests,” and that Conros would be “adversely
`
`affected” by HMSC’s continued representation of Sachen. Lewis Aff. ¶10. The reality is that
`
`HMSC has consistently represented, and acted in the interest of, LePage’s and Conros.
`
`It
`
`represented Sachen Chandaria’s interests only because LePage’s directed it to do so, and because
`
`those interests were aligned. Now that Sachen’s interests have diverged from Conros’ and
`
`LePage’s, HMSC cannot advocate on Sachen’s behalf, because to do so could injure Conros’ and
`
`LePage’s interests.
`
`C.
`
`At the Very Least, Withdrawal Is Justified and Advisable
`
`37 CFR §10.40(c) permits attorney withdraw where the client:
`
`(1)(iii) Insists that the practitioner pursue a course of conduct that is illegal or that
`is prohibited under a Disciplinary Rule;
`
`(iv) By other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the practitioner to carry
`out the employment effectively;
`
`(v) Insists, in a matter not pending before a tribunal, that the practitioner engage
`in conduct that is contrary to the judgment and advice of the practitioner but not
`prohibited under the Disciplinary Rule; or . . .
`
`(2) The practitioner's continued employment is likely to result in a violation of a
`Disciplinary Rule; . . . or
`
`(6) The practitioner believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending before the
`Office, that the Office will find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal.
`
`For the same reasons as those given above, HMSC submits that its withdrawal from this
`
`opposition is more than adequately warranted.
`
`D.
`
`HMSC Has Discharged All of Its Obligations to Sachen Chandaria in Good Faith
`
`37 CFR §10.40(a) requires practitioners to take “reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable
`
`prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due notice to his or her client, allowing time
`
`8
`
`

`
`for employment of another practitioner, delivering to the client all papers and property to which
`
`the client is entitled.”
`
`HMSC has met these obligations. It notified Sachen Chandaria of its inability to proceed
`
`seasonably, after becoming aware of his conflict with Conros and receiving no communications
`
`from Sachen on the matter. HMSC’s June 8, 2009 letter to Sachen Chandaria came more than
`
`two weeks before the deadline for responding to 3M’s discovery requests, and HMSC took the
`
`initiative to secure Sachen an additional 30 days to respond. This is more than enough time for
`
`Sachen Chandaria to find alternate counsel—as evidenced by the fact that his New York lawyers
`
`have been acting on his behalf with respect to HMSC’s request since at least June 15. Moreover,
`
`once HMSC’s motion to withdraw is granted, “the Board will suspend proceedings for and allow
`
`[Sachen] a stated period of time (usually 30 days) in which to appoint a new attorney or other
`
`authorized representative.” TBMP 513.01. HMSC has also delivered to Sachen copies of all
`
`documents in the file for this application and proceeding, and has offered to deliver any other
`
`documents it may be required to produce (to the extent there are any) upon his request—a
`
`request he has not yet made.
`
`Conclusion
`
`For all of the foregoing reasons, HMSC respectfully requests that the Board GRANT its
`
`petition to withdraw as counsel for Applicant.
`
`Dated: July 8, 2009
`
`/s/ Brian D. Wassom
`Brian D. Wassom
`BWassom@honigman.com
`Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP
`2290 First National Building
`Detroit MI 48226
`Telephone: (313) 465-7594
`Fax: (313) 465-7595
`Attorneys for Applicant
`
`9
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on July 8, 2009, a copy of the foregoing document
`
`is being transmitted to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board over the Internet using the ESTTA
`
`system, and served on each of the following, by First Class US Mail, with a copy by electronic
`
`mail:
`
`Scott W. Johnston
`Merchant & Gould P.C.
`80 South Eighth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402-2215
`sjohnston@merchantgould.com
`
`Sachen Chandaria
`P.O. Box 48870
`Nairobi, Kenya
`
`Jason M. Sobel, Esq.
`Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
`180 Maiden Lane
`New York, NY 10038-4982
`jsobel@stroock.com
`
`/s/ Brian D. Wassom
`
`10
`
`

`
`Index of Exhibits
`
`Affidavit of Denise J. Lewis, Esq.
`
`Canadian Lawsuit
`
`New York Lawsuit
`
`June 8, 2009 Letter from HMSC to Sachen
`
`June 15, 2009 Letter from Stroock to HMSC
`
`June 16, 2009 Letter from HMSC to Stroock
`
`June 17, 2009 Letter from Stroock to HMSC
`
`June 18, 2009 Letter from HMSC to Stroock
`
`Draft Agreement Signed by Sachen
`
`A
`
`B
`
`C
`
`D
`
`E
`
`F
`
`G
`
`H
`
`I
`
`DETROIT.3732549.2
`
`11
`
`

`
`Exhibit A
`Exhibit A
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Opposition No.
`
`91155460
`
`Serial No.:
`
`76/315,955
`
`Interlocutory Attorney: Jennifer Krisp
`
`Mark: GIFT WRAP IT & DESIGN
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`3M COMPANY,
`
`vs.
`
`Opposer,
`
`SACHEN CHANDARIA,
`
`Applicant.
`
`AFFIDAVIT OF DENISE ,|. LEWIS, ESQ 1.
`
`Denise J. Lewis, Esq., being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
`
`1.
`
`I am a Michigan resident.
`
`l have first—hand knowledge of the facts stated herein
`
`and am competent to testify to them if called to do so.
`
`2.
`
`I am a partner in the law firm Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP
`
`(“HMSC”), which represents Applicant in the above-captioned matter.
`
`I sign this affidavit in
`
`support of HMSC’s Motion to Withdraw as counsel for Applicant (“Motion”).
`
`3.
`
`Applicant Sachen Chandaria, currently a resident of Nairobi, Kenya,
`
`is one
`
`member of the large Chandaria family that spreads from Toronto, Canada to the United Kingdom
`
`to East Africa. Among the businesses owned by members of the Chandaria family are Conros
`
`Corporation and LePage’s 2000, Inc. (collectively, “LePage’s”), based in Toronto.
`
`4.
`
`For several years, HMSC (principally through me) has represented LePage’s and
`
`several members of the Chandaria family.
`
`5.
`
`In 2005, HMSC first appeared as counsel for Sachen Chandaria in this opposition.
`
`Since that time, HMSC has worked diligently, albeit unsuccessfully, to negotiate a settlement of
`
`this opposition acceptable to both parties. Although acting in the name of Sachen Chandaria,
`
`HMSC was retained by LePage’s, paid by LePage’s, took its direction from LePage’s, and
`
`communicated with Sachen Chandaria only through its contact persons at LePage’s. Those
`
`

`
`contact persons included Navin Chandaria—the President of LePage’s—and his son, Sunir
`
`Chandaria.
`
`6.
`
`At the time HMSC took on this matter for Applicant,
`
`to my knowledge, the
`
`interests of LePage’s and Sachen Chandaria were aligned. I could not have predicted at that time
`
`that the current intra—family rift would develop.
`
`7.
`
`Within the past year, a distinct rift has developed between members of the
`
`Chandaria family, as demonstrated by the Canadian and New York Lawsuits attached to
`
`HMSC’s Motion.
`
`8.
`
`I and HMSC continue to represent LePage’s, and several members of the
`
`Chandaria family who are defendants in the Canadian lawsuit,
`
`including Navin, Sunir, and
`
`Kapoor Chandaria.
`
`9.
`
`Based on my representation of these clients, and from reviewing information
`
`related to the Canadian Lawsuit, it is clear to me that Sachen Chandaria has aligned himself with
`
`the interests of his father, Ashok Chandaria, in direct opposition to the interest of LePage’s.
`
`10.
`
`I do not believe that HMSC can continue in good faith to represent the interest of
`
`both Sachen Chandaria, on the one hand, and LePage’s, Navin, Sunir, Kapoor, and other
`
`Chandaria family members, on the other. Because HMSC’s client relationship with the
`
`Chandarias has always been primarily through LePage’s, I believe HMSC should be permitted to
`
`withdraw from representing Sachen Chandaria.
`
`ll.
`
`I have communicated HMSC’s intention to withdraw to Navin Chandaria,
`
`President of LePage’s, and he supports the decision.
`
`

`
`FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
`
`
`
`SS.
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`STATE OF MICHIGAN
`
`COUNTY OF WAYNE
`
`Subscribed and sworn to before me
`
`this 8th day of July, 2009
`4
`I’
`1 /
`\
`/f/:1 4“ _.'/“"~-7
`\~ / J‘,
`Nofury Publici
`County Michigan
`Acting in so
`~‘-
`My Commission Expires:
`<9
`
`W/-i:~v~ .»
`
`,
`
`, ~—"
`
`
`
`DE'I‘ROlT.37415‘)8.4
`
`

`
`Exhibit B
`Exhibit B
`
`

`
`12 Mar 09 O5:52p
`
`1
`
`p1
`
`TO: Honigman Miller
`
`A I
`
`I N; Ms Denise Lewis
`
`Fax: (313) 465 7465
`
`Total 25 Pages (Including Cover)
`
`March 12, 2009
`
`
`
`

`
`12 Mar 09 o5:53p
`
`1
`
`p.2
`
`
`Levine Sherkin Boussidan
`
`‘LARRYJ LEVINE, QC.
`
`BARRISTE-RS
`A PFOISSSIOFLSI Corporatxon
`“MESSOD BDUSSIDAN
`
`KEVIN D. SHERKIN
`
`SHERYL. L. SKOPIT
`
`JAMES F. DIAMOND
`
`ANJALI FUIANKOTIA
`
`ANDREW’ J. O‘BR|EN
`
`A Profassional Corporation
`
`Kevin D. Sherkin - Ext. 120
`
`Nlarch II, 2009'
`
`DELIVERED
`
`CONROS HOLDINGS LTD.
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A IX3
`
`CONROS CORPORATION
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A 1X3
`
`AIVIBOROUGH HOLDINGS LTD.
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A IX3
`
`CONROS INTERNATIOI\IAL LTD.
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A 1X3
`
`AMBER 2007 LIMITED
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A 1X3
`
`AMBER LIMITED
`
`I 25 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A 1X3
`
`AMBER HOLDINGS
`
`I25 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A 1X3
`
`PETROTRADE INC.
`
`125 Bennondsey Road
`North York, ON M=I»A 1X3
`
`CONSEAL PACKAGING PRODUCTS CORPORATION
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A 1X3
`
`TELEPHONE: 415-E2fi—24DO 0 FACSIMILE: 415-224-2408 - www.lsblaw.com
`2.3 LESN-1ILLFC'AD,SL.‘FTE3C|O I TORONTO I ONTARIO I M33 SP6
`‘
`:35,-1'.=Zf-‘so’ fly the raw Socr;9:).r-' of Uncle" Canada 35 E Specdaflsf m (Eu/If/'L/‘cigar/on.
`" In E$SOC':a.'.n'on war‘?
`
`

`
`12 Mar 09 o5:53p
`
`1
`
`p.3
`
`KAPOOR CI-IANDARIA
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A IX3
`
`NAVIN CIHANDARIA
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A 1X3
`
`NAVHEIN HOLDINGS LTD.
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A 1X3
`
`KAPFIN HOLDINGS LIMITED
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A 1X3
`
`BORIAN HOLDINGS INC.
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M414. 1X3
`
`LEPAGE FINANCIAL HOLDINGS
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A 1X3
`
`KAIKARA I-IOLDWGS LIMITED
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A 1X3
`
`708584 ONTARIO LIMITED
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A 1X3
`
`1389340 ONTIARIO INC.
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A 1X3
`
`1512638 ONTARIO LTD.
`
`125 Bermonclsey Road
`North York, ON M4A 1X3
`
`HELIOS 3 LIMITED
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A 1X3
`
`AMEC HOLDINGS
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A 1X3
`
`

`
`12 Mar 09 O5:53p
`
`1
`
`p.4
`
`KITARU INNOVATIONS LIMITED
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A IX3
`
`IBORIAN HOLDINGS INC.
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A IX3
`
`NAVINCHANDRA CHANDARIA
`
`I25 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A IX3
`
`SARLA CHANDARIA
`
`I25 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A IX3
`
`THE FIRST CI-EANDARIA CHILDREN’S TRUST
`
`I25 Bermondsay Road
`North York, ON M4A IX3
`
`THE SECOND CI IANDARIA CI~IILDR_I3N’S TRUST
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A IX3
`
`THE THIRD C I-LANDARIA CHILDREN‘ S TRUST
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A IX3
`
`THE FOURTH CHANDARIA C.HILDREN’S TRUST
`
`I25 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A IX3
`
`THE FIFTH CHANDARIA CHILDREN’S TRUST
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A IX3
`
`SUNIR CHANDARLA
`
`I25 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A IX3
`
`SHERNELE CHANDARIA
`
`125 Bcrmondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A IX3
`
`SHEENA CHANDARIA
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A IX3
`
`

`
`12 Mar 09 O5:53p
`
`1
`
`p.5
`
`LEPAGES 2000 INC.
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A 1X3
`
`Dear Sir/Madam:
`
`RE:
`
`Chandaria v. Cnnms et al
`Our file No: 1876-001
`
`Please be advised we are the solicitors for Ashok Chandaria. Attached please find our Statement of Claim with
`respect to the above-noted matter.
`
`We are bringing an urgent motion to the Court to tie up all of the properties listed on the attached schedules.
`It is customary to coordinate the dates for an urgent motion with counsel.
`I would appreciate it ifyou would
`have counsel speak with me within two days, failing which, I will unilaterally schedule the motion date with the
`court.
`
`Yours Very truly,
`
`
`
`V BOUSSIDAN
`
`ndarla)\conro et al let mar 11 D9 park Iane.wpd
`
`
`
`

`
`12 Mar 09 o5:53p
`
`1
`
`p.6
`
`B E T W E E N :
`
`OJVTAKIO
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
`
`(Commercial List)
`
`ASHOK CHANDARIA
`
`Court Fiie No. C i,"“C)C[""
`
`“ODE
`
`Plaintiff
`
`- and -
`
`, CONROS HOLDINGS LTD., CONROS CORPORATION, AIVIBOROUGH
`,:,I-I»O'I..DINGS LTD., CONROS INTERNATIONAL LTD., AMBER 2007 LIMITED,
`‘
`*
`"
`I 7) AMBER LIMITED, AMBER HOLDINGS, PETROTRADE INC., CONSEAL
`PACKAGING PRODUCTS CORPORATION, KAPOOR CHANDARIA,
`NAVIN CHANDARLA, NAVHEIN HOLDINGS LTD., KAPFIN HOLDINGS
`
`LIMITED, BORIAN HOLDINGS INC., LEPAGE FINANCIAL HOLDINGS,
`KLAIKARA HOLDINGS LIMITED, 708584 ONTARIO LIMITED,
`1389340 ONTARIO INC., 1512638 ONTARIO LTD., HELIOS 3 LIMITED,
`AMEC HOLDINGS, KITARU INNOVATIONS LIMITED, IBORIAN HOLDINGS
`
`INC, NAVINCHANDRA CHANDARIA, SARLA CHANDARLA, THE FIRST
`CHANDARIA CHILDREN’S TRUST, THE SECOND CHANDARLA CHILDREN’S
`TRUST, THE THIRD CHANDARIA CHILDREN’S TRUST, THE FOURTH
`
`,
`
`CHANDARIA CI-IILDREN’S TRUST, THE FIFTH CHANDARIA CHILDREN’S
`TRUST, SUNIR CHANDARIA, SHERNEE CHANDARLA, SHEENA CHANDARIA,
`BUTTERFIELD BANK, LEPAGES 2000 INC., ROYAL BANK and RBC FINANCIAL
`GROUP which inciudes ROYAL BANK OF CANADA TRUST COMPANY
`
`(CAYMAN) LIMITED,ROYAL BANK OF CANADA (CARIBBEAN)
`CORPORATION and DR. GORDON IVIURPHY, Trustee for the PANIBEN
`INTERNATIONAL TRUST
`
`Defendants
`
`TO: THE DEFENDANTS
`
`STATEIVIENT OF CLAIBI
`
`A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMIVIENCED AGAINST YOU by the
`Plaintiff. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages.
`
`IF YOU VVISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you 01' an Ontario lawyei‘ acting
`for you must prepare a Statement of Defence in Form ISA prescribed by the Rules of
`Civil Procedure, SBIVS it on the Plaintiffs lawyer or, Where the Plaintiff does not have a
`lawyer, serve it on the Plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service, in this court office,
`\VITHIN TVVENTY DAYS after this Statement of Claim is served on you, if you are
`served in Ontario.
`'
`
`

`
`12 Mar 09 O5:54p
`
`1
`
`p.7
`
`Ix.)
`
`If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of
`America, the period for serving and filing your Statement of Defence is forty days.
`If
`you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days.
`Instead of serving and filing a Statement of Defence, you may serve and file a Notice of
`Intent to Defend in Form 1813 prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will
`entitle you to ten more days within which to serve and file your Statement of Defence.
`
`IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PRO CEEDING, JUDGl\’IENT MAY BE GIVEN
`AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND ‘WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO
`YOU. IF YOU ‘WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO
`
`PAY LE-GAL FEES, LEGAL AID l\-'IAY BE AVAILABLE O TO YOU BY
`CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL ALD OFFICE.
`
`
`
`DATE: lYlO~f\‘C}<’\ OAK , km?
`
`Issued by:
`
`.
`‘
`'Chi‘lStl‘fia“lE'W'iT1
`Lgcal Registrar
`Address of Court office: ‘m'Sm“"
`Tom
`supemoa counr OF JUSTICE
`coup. SUPERIEUFIE DE JUSTICE
`BANKRUPTCY I CDMMEFIC-1AL
`couars
`330 UNlVEF:S1TY AVENUE
`7TH FLOOR
`TORONTO. ONTARIO MSG ‘IR?
`
`TO:
`
`CONROS HOLDINGS LTD.
`125 Bennondsey Road
`-
`,
`.
`-»
`North York’ ON M“ 1X3
`T
`COMES CORPORATION
`41 Lesrnill Road
`
`North York, ON M3B 2T3
`
`ANEBOROUGH HOLDINGS LTD.
`c/o Na‘/in Chandaria
`
`._3 Park Lane Circle
`
`Toronto, ON MBB 1Z8
`
`CONROS INTERNATIONAL LTD.
`cfio Navin Chandaria
`
`23 Park Lane Circle
`Toronto, ON M3B 1Z8
`
`AIVIBER 2007 LHVHTED
`
`125 Bemiondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A IE
`
`AMBER LIMITED
`cfo Naviri Chandaria
`23 Park Lane Circle
`
`Toronto, ON M3B 1258
`
`AIVIBER HOLDINGS
`c.«"o Navin Cliandaria
`23 Park Lane Circle
`
`Toronto, ON MBB 1Z8
`
`

`
`12 Mar 09 o5:54p
`
`1
`
`p.8
`
`PETROTRADE INC.
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON l\/I-4A 1X3
`
`CONSEAL PACILAGING PRODUCTS CORPORATION
`
`c/'0 Shernee Chandaria
`41 Lesmill Road
`
`Toronto, ON MBB 2T3
`
`IQAPOOR CHANDARIA
`
`cfo Navin Chandaria
`23 Park Lane Circle
`
`Toronto, ON M3B 1Z8
`
`NAVIN CPLANDARIA
`
`23 Park Lane Circle
`
`Toronto, ON l\-’l3B 1Z8
`
`NAVHEIN HOLDINGS LTD.
`
`41 LesmilI Road
`
`Toronto, ON M3B 2T3
`
`KAPFIN HOLDINGS LIIVHTED
`
`c,-"o Navin Chandaria
`23 Park Lane Circle
`
`Toronto, ON M378 1Z8
`
`BORIAN HOLDINGS INC.
`
`050 Navin Chandalia
`23 Park Lane Circle
`
`Toronto, ON MSB 1Z8
`
`LEPAGE FINANCLATL HOLDINGS
`
`KAIKARA HOLDINGS LIMITED
`c./o Navin Chandaria
`23 Park Lane Circle
`
`Toronto, ON M313 1Z8
`
`7085 84 ONTARIO LIIVIITED
`
`125 Bermondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A 1X3
`
`13 89340 ONTARIO INC.
`(:10 Navin Chandaria
`23 Park Lane Circle
`
`Toronto, ON IX-13B 128
`
`

`
`12 Mar 09 o5:54p
`
`1
`
`p.9
`
`151263 8 ONTARIO LTD.
`c/o Navin Chandaria
`
`23 Park Lane Circle
`
`Toronto, ON MSB 1Z8
`
`HELIOS 3 LIIVIITED
`c,-"0 Navin Chandaria
`
`23 Park Lane Circle
`
`Toronto, ON MSB 1Z8
`
`AIVIEC HOLDINGS
`o-"o Navin Chandaria
`23 Park Lane Circle
`
`Toronto, ON M313 IZ8
`
`KITARU INNOVATIONS LIIVIITED
`cfo Navin Chandaria
`-3 Park Lane Circle
`
`Toronto, ON M3B IZ8
`
`TBORIAN HOLDINGS INC.
`
`c,-"0 Navin Chanclaria
`23 Park Lane Circle
`
`Toronto, ON M313 1Z8
`
`INAVINCI-IANDRA CHANDARIA
`
`cfo Navin Chandaria
`23 Park Lane Circle
`
`Toronto, ON MSB 1Z8
`
`SARLA CI-IANDARIA
`
`C/‘O Navin Chandaria
`23 Park Lane Circle
`
`Toronto, ON INIBB IZ8
`
`THE FIRST CHANDARIA CI-IILDREN’S TRUST
`c/0 Navin Chanclaria
`23 Park Lane Circle
`
`Toronto, ON MSB IZ8
`
`THE SECOND CHANDARIA CHILDREN"S TRUST
`cfo Navin Chandaria
`23 Park Lane Circle
`
`Toronto, ON M313 IZ8
`
`THE THIRD CI-IANDARIA CHILDREN’S TRUST
`C.-"0 Navin Chandaria.
`23 Park Lane Circle
`
`Toronto, ON MSB 1Z8
`
`

`
`12 Mar 09 o5:54p
`
`1
`
`p.10
`
`_€_
`
`‘THE FOURTH CHANDARLA CHlLDREN’S TRUST
`
`cfo Navin Chandaria
`
`23 Park Lane Cnole
`
`Toronto, ON MSB 1Z8
`
`THE FIFTH CHANDARIA CHlLDREN’S TRUST
`ofo Navin Chandaria
`23 Park Lane Circle
`
`Toronto, ON M313 1Z8
`
`USUNIR CHANDARIA
`
`C/'0 Navin Chandaria
`23 Park Lane Circle
`
`Toronto, ON MSB 1Z8
`
`SHERNEE CHANDARIA
`41 Lesmill Road
`
`Toronto, ON M3-B 2T3
`
`SHEENA CHANDARIA
`ofo Navin Chandaria
`23 Park Lane Circle
`
`Toronto, ON M3B 1Z8
`
`BUTTERFIELD BANK
`The Bank of N.T.Butterfield & Son Limited
`
`65 Front Street, Hamilton HM AX, Bermuda
`
`LEPAGES 2000 INC.
`
`l25 Betrnondsey Road
`North York, ON M4A 1X3
`
`ROYAL BANK
`
`77 King Street West
`' Royal Trust Tower, 6”‘ Floor
`Toronto, ON lVl5‘W MlP9
`
`RBC FINANCIAL. GROUP wlijoh includes ROYAL BANK OF
`
`CANADA TRUST COBJIPANY (jCAYMAl\') LLMITED, ROYAL BANK
`OF CANADA (CARIBBEAN) CORPORATION
`Royal Bank of Canada Trust Company (Cagnnanjl Limited
`PO Box 1586 GT
`24 Sbedden Road
`
`Grand Cayman, KY1—1lO2 Cayman Islands. B.W.I.
`
`Royal Bank of Canada (Caribbean) Corporation
`PO. Box 986 Second Floor, Building 2
`Chelston Park Collymore Rook, St. Michael Barbados
`
`

`
`12 Mar 09 O5:54p
`
`1
`
`-6-
`
`DR. GORDON MURPHY, Tmstee for the
`PANIBEN L\TTE.RNATIONAL TRUST
`
`9 Farrington Close
`Paradise Heights
`St. James, Barbados
`
`
`
`

`
`12 Mar 09 o5:55p
`
`1
`
`p.12
`
`1.
`
`The Plaintiff claims as against the Defendants, Conros Holdings Ltd. (“Conros
`
`C L A I M
`
`Holdings”), Conros Corporation (_“Conros"’), Conros Inteinational Ltd_, Amber
`
`2007 Limited, Amber Limited,,A1nber Holdings, Petrotrade lnc., Conseal
`
`Packaging Products Corporation (“Conseal’”), Kapoor Chandaria,
`
`(“Kapoor”),
`
`Navin Chandaria, also known as Navincliandra Chandaria, (“Navin”), Navhein
`
`Holdings Ltd.
`
`(”.\laVhein”), Kapfin Holdings Limited (“Kapii11”f), Borian
`
`Holdings
`
`Inc.
`
`(“Borian”). Lepage Financial Holdings
`
`(“Lepage”), Kailtara
`
`Holdings Limited (“Kaikara”), 708584 Ontario Limited, 1389340 Ontario Inc,
`
`l5l2638 Ontario Ltd, Helios 3 Limited (“Helios"), Arnec Holdings (“Arnec”),
`
`Kitaru Innovations Limited (“Kitaru”), Kepten Holdings Limited (“Kepten"),
`
`Iboiian Holdings Inc. (“Iberian”), Sarla Chandaria (“Sa1'la"'), The First Chandaria
`
`Children’s Trust
`
`(“First Trust”), The Second Chandaria Childrcn’s Trust
`
`(“Second Trust”), The Third Chandaria Children’s Trust (“Third Trust"), The
`
`Fourth Chandaria Children’s Trust
`
`(“Fourth Trust”),
`
`The Fifth Chandaria
`
`Childr.e.n"s Trust (“Fifth Trust”), Sunir Chandaria (“Sunir”), Shernee Chandaria
`
`(“Sl1et"r1ee”), Sheena Chandaria (“Sheena”) and Lepages 2000 Inc. (“Lepages") as
`
`Follows:
`
`(:21)
`
`(b)
`
`(C)
`
`an interim injunction freezing the assets of the Defendant coijporations, as
`described below;
`
`an order granting the Plaintiff leave to issue and register a Certificate of
`Pending Litigation (“CPL”) against the properties more particularly listed
`in Schedule
`hereto (the “Properties”);
`
`an