• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
32 results

James Fosshage Dr. v. Think Water Partners, LLC et al

Docket 654732/2019, New York State, New York County, Supreme Court (Aug. 19, 2019)
Joel M. Cohen, presiding
Case TypeCommercial Division
TagsCommercial Division, Commercial, Civil
Plaintiff - Petitioner James Fosshage DR.
Defendant - Respondent Think Water Partners, LLC
Defendant - Respondent WWW Asia Holdings, LLC
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION

Document James Fosshage Dr. v. Think Water Partners, LLC et al, 654732/2019, 31 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Jul. 10, 2020)
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 were read on this motion to
The motion is denied as moot, without prejudice, in light of the parties’ stipulation of discontinuance (NYSCEF 30).
THINK WATER PARTNERS, LLC Motion No. 001
cite Cite Document
Analyze

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN REPLY

Document James Fosshage Dr. v. Think Water Partners, LLC et al, 654732/2019, 26 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Nov. 25, 2019)
Because none of the Opposition’s arguments refute—or, in most cases, even respond to— Movants’ dispositive arguments, the Complaint should be dismissed.
However, none of these contract provisions supports the declaratory relief Plaintiff seeks.
Yet, the Opposition rebuts none of Movants’ arguments and thereby abandons Plaintiff’s claim to injunctive relief.
Yet, Movants already established that none of the at-issue corporate governance documents require the WWWH Board to vote on such financing.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION

Document James Fosshage Dr. v. Think Water Partners, LLC et al, 654732/2019, 25 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Nov. 6, 2019)
Plaintiff, Dr. James Fosshage, by his undersigned counsel, Mary Ann Kricko, respectfully submits this memorandum of law in opposition to Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the complaint (“Complaint”) pursuant to CPLR §§ 3211(a)(1), (3) and (7) (“Motion”).
The Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief precluding WWWH from voting it’s 25% membership to approve further indebtedness in WWWAsia without first obtaining the necessary written consent required by the preferred stockholders’ protective provisions.
al. v. Think Water Partners, LLC et al. Index 654732/2019 Page 9 of 21 To answer the question of whether a stockholder's claim is direct or derivative, the reviewing court must look to the body of the complaint and consider the nature of the wrong alleged and the relief requested.
The coordination committee, loyal to the Think directors, violated Dr. Fosshage’s protective provisions rights as a preferred stockholder by failing to request his written consent despite committee’s vote of Michael McDonald approving the financing.
Michael McDonald, a proclaimed “Wild Turkey” celebrator when the Fosshage family is mistreated by the Think group and a loyal executive to Prashant Mitta and Ravi Reddy, votes to protective these pre- emptive rights at WWWAsia.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

30

Document James Fosshage Dr. v. Think Water Partners, LLC et al, 654732/2019, 30 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Jul. 10, 2020)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

24

Document James Fosshage Dr. v. Think Water Partners, LLC et al, 654732/2019, 24 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Oct. 28, 2019)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

14

Document James Fosshage Dr. v. Think Water Partners, LLC et al, 654732/2019, 14 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Oct. 18, 2019)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

19

Document James Fosshage Dr. v. Think Water Partners, LLC et al, 654732/2019, 19 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Oct. 18, 2019)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 >>