978-1285770178 Case Printout Case CPC-05-08 Part 1

subject Type Homework Help
subject Pages 17
subject Words 4672
subject Authors Roger LeRoy Miller

Unlock document.

This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
page-pf1
page-pf2
2
the maritime industry, lent his contacts and expertise in the maritime field to the
Terminal, Inc., New Orleans Paddlewheels, Inc., New Orleans Tours, Inc.,
New Orleans Tours and Convention Services, Inc., On The Town, Inc.,
RSC Management, Inc., River Rose Boat Company, Inc., Vermillion
Queen, Inc., and Visitor Marketing, Inc.
As time wore on, Smith began to look to the future, transferring a large portion of
law firm, who represented the Hospitality Companies in all legal matters including
corporate administration, contractual issues, and litigation.
Wednesday, September 6th Transcript (“Tr.T.”) at 73-74.
Recognizing Smith's desire to involve his children in the business more directly,
in the 1990s the two men began including Smith's sons as officers in the
development. At a momentous directors' meeting for the Hospitality Companies
conducted in January of 1999, the two families joined once again in an
agreement for joint and shared responsibility over management.
Reuther Exhibit (“WLR Exh”) 3.3. By the same vote of the board, Craig
Smith was elected secretary.
election, as well as Reuther's position as Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”).
WLR Exh. 3.11. Prior to this election, Reuther had been elected CEO of
NOP by resolution adopted on November 11, 1995, WLR Exh. 3.2.
But this was to be a short respite. Over the next few years animosities
developed and strengthened between Reuther and JES. Nevertheless, Reuther,
page-pf3
WLR Exh. 3.9. In 2000, he was replaced by his father. WLR Exh. 3.13.
The boards of the Hospitality Companies remained unchanged from 2000
forward. WLR Exh. 3.21, 4.1, 4.3, 4.4.
In February of 2000, the boards of the Hospitality Companies were
composed of Reuther, JES, Smith and Nancy Reuther. Officers of NOP
and the powers of the presidency.
Tr.T. at 122, 147.
The contents of that opinion were held by this Court to be privileged,
however, the fact that it was requested, was not. Tr.T. at 120-122.
It is worth noting at this juncture, that JES' law firm remained, throughout this
JES controlled the firm's operations or those who managed. Whether or not he
billed a single hour of legal time, it is clear to this Court that JES exercised legal
control over the firm.
WLR Exh. 5.3, Tr.T. at 70-72.
Tr.T. at 67.
For example, WLR Exh. 4.2, 3-6; 4.3, 3; 4.4, 3; 4.5, 2.
WLR Exh. 5.1, 5.2; Tr.T. at 63, 265; Monday, September 18 Transcript
(“Tr.T2”) at 85.
In October of 2001, JES unilaterally terminated Reuther as CEO and denied him
access to the business offices and records of the Hospitality Companies, literally
page-pf4
In a board of directors meeting of the Hospitality Companies, held in November
of 2001, deadlock ensued. The lines had been drawn and the directors,
Reuther, Smith, JES and Nancy Reuther, voted along family affiliations on each
and every issue.
boards of the Hospitality Companies met on the agenda noticed by Reuther.
At trial JES did not explain the basis for the temporary restraining order,
nor does this Court believe there was a legitimate, legal purpose other
than delay. Tr.T. at 172. This Court finds that JES delayed the meeting
of the boards for the sole purpose of allowing the executive committees of
president, vice president, secretary, and treasurer of NOP. At the time of this
meeting, the president was JES, the secretary Nancy Reuther, and the treasurer
Smith. No one held the office of vice president, and Reuther, the company's
CEO, was refused participation because he was not specifically named as a
member of the executive committee under the Bylaws.
overcome. JES proposed resolution after resolution which passed by the
predictable margin of one vote. JES even proposed amendments to the Bylaws
of the Hospitality Companies which were also adopted by the executive
committees.
WLR Exh. 4.2, 13:11-15:16, 26:11-27:21. The resolution adopted
were present at the meeting, the meeting had been properly noticed, and the
agenda circulated. An attorney from the JES firm was present and opined that
the actions of the executive committee were legal. When Reuther vehemently
page-pf5
5
WLR Exh. 4.2, 16:12-17:8.
WLR Exh. 4.2, 17:1-2.
On December 14, 2001, the boards of the Hospitality Companies met. Reuther,
Nancy Reuther, and JES were present. JES held a proxy to vote on behalf of
Smith. Not much was accomplished. The meeting culminated with JES
constitute a quorum after the meeting is called, does not deny the board
the right to proceed. Reuther and Nancy Reuther have not pressed this
point. Because this was a special meeting of the boards of the Hospitality
Companies, and the intent to remove and elect a new president was not
noticed on the original agenda, this motion was probably not valid. The
meeting, the Hospitality Companies' chief financial officer (“CFO”) admitted that
the financials of NOP did not include income received from Shreveport
Paddlewheels, LLC. Though Shreveport Paddlewheels, LLC was a wholly owned
subsidiary of NOP, both JES and the CFO related that the money was being
accounted for “off the books” of NOP. A separate accounting of those funds was
upon reasonable notice. The CFO confirmed that he had been instructed by
JES, after a specific request from the Reuthers, not to divulge the audited
financial information.
WLR Exh. 4.4, 48.
WLR Exh. 4.4, 59:8-12.
page-pf6
$1.4 million per year. Tr.T. at 248.
WLR Exh. 4.4, 89:23-91:12. JES and counsel did not acknowledge that
Robert Reuther, as a director, was entitled to full access to all financial
information and JES refused to accept even counsel's recitation that
shareholders holding 5% of the stock of the companies, on written request
Smith family members, JES, Smith, Jason Smith and Duane Smith. The slate
was defeated. Following the defeat of the Smith slate, Robert Reuther
nominated, as a Reuther slate, JES, Smith, Nancy Reuther and himself to the
boards. Reuther supported this motion and in so doing removed himself from the
boards of the Hospitality Companies, companies he both founded and in which
other Smith shareholders. The meeting was adjourned, and as was the practice,
a board of directors meeting immediately followed.
WLR Exh. 4.4 129:5-6.
Reuther's attempt to continue the balance of power was quickly turned against
him. The first order of business taken up by the boards of he Hospitality
WLR Exh. 4.5, 5:22-24.
Under fierce and audible opposition, JES then summarily dismissed Nancy
Reuther's further participation on the board. The board, comprised of JES, Smith
and Robert Reuther, then elected Craig Smith as secretary, Smith as treasurer,
and JES as president. The vote was recorded, JES voting for himself and Smith
page-pf7
7
decide if there is an issue.”
WLR Exh. 4.5, 12:18-22, 19:12-15.
WLR Exh. 4.5, 24:1-26:25. JES' compensation had been, and continued
outside auditors that reviewed them for accuracy. JES further declared that all
requests or questions regarding the financial information had to be presented to
him.
WLR Exh. 4.6, 4:1-18.
WLR Exh. 4.6, 8:5-12
these committees have all the same powers vested in the boards and may
exercise that authority in between meetings of the boards.
Tr.T. at 346.
Tr.T at 204. Perhaps JES feared that the Reuthers would vote to replace
the vacancy created by JES' challenge to Nancy Reuther with another
governing board. A finding of either would support the appointment of the
trustee.
; see also, ; ; .
Discussion
Malfeasance
was both CEO and a director, refusing him access to the books and records of
the companies, auditors or those preparing the financial information, and
prohibiting those with financial information from timely supplying it to Reuther. In
so doing, JES breached his duty to the boards of the Hospitality Companies and
page-pf8
8
overreached his authority.
Evidently financial information was being prepared regularly, because JES
testified that he received it monthly. Tr. T. 108. Additionally, the results
of an outside audit were also delivered to JES in this year, but the
Reuthers were denied access to this information in favor of “internal
financials.”
Louisiana law provides that directors have full access to all corporate records
and those that prepare them. To hold otherwise would put directors in the
untenable position of being legally and personally responsible to shareholders for
malfeasance while denying them the tools necessary to determine if malfeasance
them is severely hampered. If questions of performance or honesty arise, it
would be a breach of duty to not inquire further. Directors have an absolute and
unqualified right to all corporate books and records. JES' continued refusal to
honor requests by directors for financial information or allow them direct access
to the employees or professionals that prepared or audited the financial
The lack of respect for this simple principle of corporate governance by JES is
evident in his exchanges with the board. On many occasions he is heard to
complain that board meetings are a “waste of time” and “disruptive” to what he is
trying to accomplish as president. While the *678 Court will acknowledge that
having to account to a hostile board may be difficult and frustrating, the fact
subsidiary of NOP, Shreveport Paddlewheels, LLC on debtor's schedules. He
claimed at the trial on these motions that the company was defunct because its
only asset, a minority interest in Hollywood Casinos, was worthless due to its
bankruptcy. However, it remains that Shreveport Paddlewheels, LLC supplied
substantial dividends to the debtor before this transpired. The testimony at trial,
page-pf9
JES testified at first that Hollywood Casinos filed for chapter 11 relief in
2003 and that dividends were not received for about a year preceding their
filing.. When the City of New Orleans revealed that Hollywood Casinos did
not file for relief until 2004, JES quickly lengthened the period of time that
dividends were not paid. Tr.T. at 306. The Court notes that regardless
NOP. This “off the books” accounting makes the records of the debtor inherently
untrustworthy. The Court accepts the testimony of the City's representative that
in meetings with the City in 2003, JES omitted the disclosure of significant
income in the form of dividends from Shreveport Paddlewheels, LLC when he
delivered financial statements of NOP to the City. Mr. Muse, Deputy Director of
ignore the facts when it suits him to do so. To omit a material stream of revenue
to the city by maintaining it was not the debtor's property, even as he argued to
the share holders that it belonged to NOP was, at a minimum, a sharp practice.
The Court believes that, in fact, NOP retained the ownership interest in
Shreveport Paddlewheels, LLC and that all dividends collected from Shreveport
(“Whitney”) were undistributed dividends from Shreveport Paddlewheels, LLC
and owned by NOP. This testimony is substantiated *679 by Patrick Gros, NOP's
outside certified public accountant who testified that he had been unable to
determine the nature of, or proper accounting for, an internal, negative balance,
in one of NOP's accounts at Whitney in the amount of $1,600,000. Neither the
Nor did the debtor disclose the existence of a $435,000 intercompany debt owed
page-pfa
10
by Hospitality Enterprises, Inc. to NOP on its Schedule of Assets and Liabilities.
JES' failure to account for this intercompany debt owed by its sister corporation
secretary of the corporation and its operations manager, offered testimony on the
debtor's financial condition, the desirability of the loan, and its terms.
Surprisingly, Mr. Smith was not particularly knowledgeable about the Hospitality
Companies, alternative financing, or the availability of payment on intercompany
debt. It appeared to the Court that Mr. Smith had not bothered to conduct even
alone exceeds the total line of credit offered by Whitney. Equally troubling was
the accountant's response that he had only been asked to look at intercompany
debt accounts two weeks prior to the hearings on these motions.
Debtor's outside accountant, hired after the filing, testified that Hospitality
Enterprises, Inc owed debtor in excess of $435,000 and that this debt was
have been eliminated.
Despite being the alleged secretary of each and every one.
Tr.T.2 at 185. This despite the U.S. Trustee's request for an accounting
of intercompany transfers at debtors' § 341(a) meeting in June of 2006
(Tr.T. at 105) and debtor's representation to the Court on August 21, 2006
substantial “off the books” income and a history, both pre and post petition, of
failing to disclose assets.
Tr.T. at 107.
*680 The debtor argues that it has employed a new, independent certified public
accountant experienced with chapter 11 reorganizations and it is correcting these
2
the maritime industry, lent his contacts and expertise in the maritime field to the
Terminal, Inc., New Orleans Paddlewheels, Inc., New Orleans Tours, Inc.,
New Orleans Tours and Convention Services, Inc., On The Town, Inc.,
RSC Management, Inc., River Rose Boat Company, Inc., Vermillion
Queen, Inc., and Visitor Marketing, Inc.
As time wore on, Smith began to look to the future, transferring a large portion of
law firm, who represented the Hospitality Companies in all legal matters including
corporate administration, contractual issues, and litigation.
Wednesday, September 6th Transcript (“Tr.T.”) at 73-74.
Recognizing Smith's desire to involve his children in the business more directly,
in the 1990s the two men began including Smith's sons as officers in the
development. At a momentous directors' meeting for the Hospitality Companies
conducted in January of 1999, the two families joined once again in an
agreement for joint and shared responsibility over management.
Reuther Exhibit (“WLR Exh”) 3.3. By the same vote of the board, Craig
Smith was elected secretary.
election, as well as Reuther's position as Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”).
WLR Exh. 3.11. Prior to this election, Reuther had been elected CEO of
NOP by resolution adopted on November 11, 1995, WLR Exh. 3.2.
But this was to be a short respite. Over the next few years animosities
developed and strengthened between Reuther and JES. Nevertheless, Reuther,
WLR Exh. 3.9. In 2000, he was replaced by his father. WLR Exh. 3.13.
The boards of the Hospitality Companies remained unchanged from 2000
forward. WLR Exh. 3.21, 4.1, 4.3, 4.4.
In February of 2000, the boards of the Hospitality Companies were
composed of Reuther, JES, Smith and Nancy Reuther. Officers of NOP
and the powers of the presidency.
Tr.T. at 122, 147.
The contents of that opinion were held by this Court to be privileged,
however, the fact that it was requested, was not. Tr.T. at 120-122.
It is worth noting at this juncture, that JES' law firm remained, throughout this
JES controlled the firm's operations or those who managed. Whether or not he
billed a single hour of legal time, it is clear to this Court that JES exercised legal
control over the firm.
WLR Exh. 5.3, Tr.T. at 70-72.
Tr.T. at 67.
For example, WLR Exh. 4.2, 3-6; 4.3, 3; 4.4, 3; 4.5, 2.
WLR Exh. 5.1, 5.2; Tr.T. at 63, 265; Monday, September 18 Transcript
(“Tr.T2”) at 85.
In October of 2001, JES unilaterally terminated Reuther as CEO and denied him
access to the business offices and records of the Hospitality Companies, literally
In a board of directors meeting of the Hospitality Companies, held in November
of 2001, deadlock ensued. The lines had been drawn and the directors,
Reuther, Smith, JES and Nancy Reuther, voted along family affiliations on each
and every issue.
boards of the Hospitality Companies met on the agenda noticed by Reuther.
At trial JES did not explain the basis for the temporary restraining order,
nor does this Court believe there was a legitimate, legal purpose other
than delay. Tr.T. at 172. This Court finds that JES delayed the meeting
of the boards for the sole purpose of allowing the executive committees of
president, vice president, secretary, and treasurer of NOP. At the time of this
meeting, the president was JES, the secretary Nancy Reuther, and the treasurer
Smith. No one held the office of vice president, and Reuther, the company's
CEO, was refused participation because he was not specifically named as a
member of the executive committee under the Bylaws.
overcome. JES proposed resolution after resolution which passed by the
predictable margin of one vote. JES even proposed amendments to the Bylaws
of the Hospitality Companies which were also adopted by the executive
committees.
WLR Exh. 4.2, 13:11-15:16, 26:11-27:21. The resolution adopted
were present at the meeting, the meeting had been properly noticed, and the
agenda circulated. An attorney from the JES firm was present and opined that
the actions of the executive committee were legal. When Reuther vehemently
5
WLR Exh. 4.2, 16:12-17:8.
WLR Exh. 4.2, 17:1-2.
On December 14, 2001, the boards of the Hospitality Companies met. Reuther,
Nancy Reuther, and JES were present. JES held a proxy to vote on behalf of
Smith. Not much was accomplished. The meeting culminated with JES
constitute a quorum after the meeting is called, does not deny the board
the right to proceed. Reuther and Nancy Reuther have not pressed this
point. Because this was a special meeting of the boards of the Hospitality
Companies, and the intent to remove and elect a new president was not
noticed on the original agenda, this motion was probably not valid. The
meeting, the Hospitality Companies' chief financial officer (“CFO”) admitted that
the financials of NOP did not include income received from Shreveport
Paddlewheels, LLC. Though Shreveport Paddlewheels, LLC was a wholly owned
subsidiary of NOP, both JES and the CFO related that the money was being
accounted for “off the books” of NOP. A separate accounting of those funds was
upon reasonable notice. The CFO confirmed that he had been instructed by
JES, after a specific request from the Reuthers, not to divulge the audited
financial information.
WLR Exh. 4.4, 48.
WLR Exh. 4.4, 59:8-12.
$1.4 million per year. Tr.T. at 248.
WLR Exh. 4.4, 89:23-91:12. JES and counsel did not acknowledge that
Robert Reuther, as a director, was entitled to full access to all financial
information and JES refused to accept even counsel's recitation that
shareholders holding 5% of the stock of the companies, on written request
Smith family members, JES, Smith, Jason Smith and Duane Smith. The slate
was defeated. Following the defeat of the Smith slate, Robert Reuther
nominated, as a Reuther slate, JES, Smith, Nancy Reuther and himself to the
boards. Reuther supported this motion and in so doing removed himself from the
boards of the Hospitality Companies, companies he both founded and in which
other Smith shareholders. The meeting was adjourned, and as was the practice,
a board of directors meeting immediately followed.
WLR Exh. 4.4 129:5-6.
Reuther's attempt to continue the balance of power was quickly turned against
him. The first order of business taken up by the boards of he Hospitality
WLR Exh. 4.5, 5:22-24.
Under fierce and audible opposition, JES then summarily dismissed Nancy
Reuther's further participation on the board. The board, comprised of JES, Smith
and Robert Reuther, then elected Craig Smith as secretary, Smith as treasurer,
and JES as president. The vote was recorded, JES voting for himself and Smith
7
decide if there is an issue.”
WLR Exh. 4.5, 12:18-22, 19:12-15.
WLR Exh. 4.5, 24:1-26:25. JES' compensation had been, and continued
outside auditors that reviewed them for accuracy. JES further declared that all
requests or questions regarding the financial information had to be presented to
him.
WLR Exh. 4.6, 4:1-18.
WLR Exh. 4.6, 8:5-12
these committees have all the same powers vested in the boards and may
exercise that authority in between meetings of the boards.
Tr.T. at 346.
Tr.T at 204. Perhaps JES feared that the Reuthers would vote to replace
the vacancy created by JES' challenge to Nancy Reuther with another
governing board. A finding of either would support the appointment of the
trustee.
; see also, ; ; .
Discussion
Malfeasance
was both CEO and a director, refusing him access to the books and records of
the companies, auditors or those preparing the financial information, and
prohibiting those with financial information from timely supplying it to Reuther. In
so doing, JES breached his duty to the boards of the Hospitality Companies and
8
overreached his authority.
Evidently financial information was being prepared regularly, because JES
testified that he received it monthly. Tr. T. 108. Additionally, the results
of an outside audit were also delivered to JES in this year, but the
Reuthers were denied access to this information in favor of “internal
financials.”
Louisiana law provides that directors have full access to all corporate records
and those that prepare them. To hold otherwise would put directors in the
untenable position of being legally and personally responsible to shareholders for
malfeasance while denying them the tools necessary to determine if malfeasance
them is severely hampered. If questions of performance or honesty arise, it
would be a breach of duty to not inquire further. Directors have an absolute and
unqualified right to all corporate books and records. JES' continued refusal to
honor requests by directors for financial information or allow them direct access
to the employees or professionals that prepared or audited the financial
The lack of respect for this simple principle of corporate governance by JES is
evident in his exchanges with the board. On many occasions he is heard to
complain that board meetings are a “waste of time” and “disruptive” to what he is
trying to accomplish as president. While the *678 Court will acknowledge that
having to account to a hostile board may be difficult and frustrating, the fact
subsidiary of NOP, Shreveport Paddlewheels, LLC on debtor's schedules. He
claimed at the trial on these motions that the company was defunct because its
only asset, a minority interest in Hollywood Casinos, was worthless due to its
bankruptcy. However, it remains that Shreveport Paddlewheels, LLC supplied
substantial dividends to the debtor before this transpired. The testimony at trial,
JES testified at first that Hollywood Casinos filed for chapter 11 relief in
2003 and that dividends were not received for about a year preceding their
filing.. When the City of New Orleans revealed that Hollywood Casinos did
not file for relief until 2004, JES quickly lengthened the period of time that
dividends were not paid. Tr.T. at 306. The Court notes that regardless
NOP. This “off the books” accounting makes the records of the debtor inherently
untrustworthy. The Court accepts the testimony of the City's representative that
in meetings with the City in 2003, JES omitted the disclosure of significant
income in the form of dividends from Shreveport Paddlewheels, LLC when he
delivered financial statements of NOP to the City. Mr. Muse, Deputy Director of
ignore the facts when it suits him to do so. To omit a material stream of revenue
to the city by maintaining it was not the debtor's property, even as he argued to
the share holders that it belonged to NOP was, at a minimum, a sharp practice.
The Court believes that, in fact, NOP retained the ownership interest in
Shreveport Paddlewheels, LLC and that all dividends collected from Shreveport
(“Whitney”) were undistributed dividends from Shreveport Paddlewheels, LLC
and owned by NOP. This testimony is substantiated *679 by Patrick Gros, NOP's
outside certified public accountant who testified that he had been unable to
determine the nature of, or proper accounting for, an internal, negative balance,
in one of NOP's accounts at Whitney in the amount of $1,600,000. Neither the
Nor did the debtor disclose the existence of a $435,000 intercompany debt owed
10
by Hospitality Enterprises, Inc. to NOP on its Schedule of Assets and Liabilities.
JES' failure to account for this intercompany debt owed by its sister corporation
secretary of the corporation and its operations manager, offered testimony on the
debtor's financial condition, the desirability of the loan, and its terms.
Surprisingly, Mr. Smith was not particularly knowledgeable about the Hospitality
Companies, alternative financing, or the availability of payment on intercompany
debt. It appeared to the Court that Mr. Smith had not bothered to conduct even
alone exceeds the total line of credit offered by Whitney. Equally troubling was
the accountant's response that he had only been asked to look at intercompany
debt accounts two weeks prior to the hearings on these motions.
Debtor's outside accountant, hired after the filing, testified that Hospitality
Enterprises, Inc owed debtor in excess of $435,000 and that this debt was
have been eliminated.
Despite being the alleged secretary of each and every one.
Tr.T.2 at 185. This despite the U.S. Trustee's request for an accounting
of intercompany transfers at debtors' § 341(a) meeting in June of 2006
(Tr.T. at 105) and debtor's representation to the Court on August 21, 2006
substantial “off the books” income and a history, both pre and post petition, of
failing to disclose assets.
Tr.T. at 107.
*680 The debtor argues that it has employed a new, independent certified public
accountant experienced with chapter 11 reorganizations and it is correcting these

Trusted by Thousands of
Students

Here are what students say about us.

Copyright ©2022 All rights reserved. | CoursePaper is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university.