the relevant portion of the reorganization plan, we grant the motion to dismiss all of the
counterclaims and claims in intervention.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, we grant the motions to dismiss. The

alternative motion to stay is moot.

Charles P. Kocoras

Chief Judge
United States District Court

Dated: _December 11, 2002



in intervention. Ultimately, Foxley asserted fraudulent inducement, fraud, and
commercially unreasonable disposition of collateral claims against Unicapital; Foxley
asserted a fraudulent misrepresentation claim against KBA; and Foxley’s company,
Litho, intervened to assert fraudulent inducement, fraud, tortious interference with
prospective economic advantage, breach of contract, and commercially unreasonable
disposition of collateral claims against Unicapital.

KBA moves to dismiss Foxley’s third party complaint against KBA, and
Unicapital moves to dismiss or stay all of Foxley’s and Litho’s claims against
Unicapital.

DISCUSSION
KBA’s Motion to Dismiss

After KBA filed its motion to dismiss Foxley’s third party complaint against it,
Foxley filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of that complaint with prejudice. Thus, the
motion is granted. The third party complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

L Unicapital’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay

Unicapital moves to dismiss or stay Foxley’s counterclaims and Litho’s claims
in intervention on the basis that they are barred under Unicapital’s reorganization plan
as ordered by the U.S. District Court for the Souther District of New York. Both

Foxley and Litho have failed to answer the motion. Having reviewed the motion and

-3-



Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Tlinois

Name of Assigned Judge Charles P. Kocoras Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge . than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 2685 DATE 12/11/2002
CASE Unicapital Funding vs. Foxley
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) im) Filed motion of { use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Qa Brief in support of motion due
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due.
(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on set for at :
(5) | Status hearing set for 1/15/2003 at 9:30 A.M..
(6) im Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at :
(7) o Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) Oo {Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) im This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
DOFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 CUFRCP41(a)(1) © FRCP41(a)(2).
CO [Other docket entry] Ruling held. ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION: We grant the motions
(Docs 16-1 & 21-1) to dismiss. The alternative motion (Doc 16-2) to stay is moot.
(il) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required.
Notices mailed by judge’s staff.
Notified counsel by telephone,
wo | Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form.
Copy to sft pags Audge.
courtroom desis 11930 20
SCT deputy’s 17 “
initials +
(fa Batshidhbtbceived in
0 1 4 E central Clerk's Office railing deputy iakials

¥



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNICAPITAL FUNDING CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOHN C. FOXLEY,
Defendant.

JOHN C. FOXLEY,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff,
vs.
UNICAPITAL FUNDING CORPORATION,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant.

LITHO COLOR PRINTING CORPORATION,
Intervenor/Cross-Plaintiff,
vs.
UNICAPITAL FUNDING CORPORATION,
Cross-Defendant/Plaintiff.

JOHN C. FOXLEY,
Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff,
vs.
KBA PLANETA NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Third Party Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHARLES P. KOCORAS, Chief District Judge:

I

02 C 2685

DOCKETED
DEC 1 2 2002

This matter comes before the court on two motions. Plaintiff Unicapital Funding

Corporation (“Unicapital”) moves to dismiss or, alternatively, to stay Defendant Jo]



Foxley’s counterclaims and Litho Color Printing Corporation’s (“Litho”) complaint in
intervention against Unicapital. Third-party Defendant KBA Planeta North America,
Inc. (“KBA”) moves to dismiss Foxley’s third party complaint against KBA. For the
reasons set forth below we grant the motions.
BACKGROUND

This lawsuit involves loans in default that were guaranteed by Foxley. Mr.
Foxley was the president and owner of Litho. On July 15, 1997, and September 12,
1997, Litho borrowed money from American Capital Resources, Inc. (“ACR”) to
finance the acquisition of new printing presses from KBA. To protect its loans (the
“Loans”), ACR took a security interest in various pieces of Litho’s equipment (the
“Collateral”) and required Mr. Foxley to personally guarantee the Loans. Mr. Foxley
executed guaranties (the “Guaranties”), personally guaranteeing payment “absolutely
and unconditionally” to ACR on July 15, 1997, and September 12, 1997, the same days
the Loans were made.

ACR assigned its rights under the Loans and Guaranties to Unicapital. When
Litho defaulted on the Loans, Unicapital looked to Mr. Foxley for satisfaction of the
debt. When Mr. Foxley declined to pay, Unicapital brought this action, alleging that
Mr. Foxley breached the Guaranties. Mr. Foxley denied liability, asserted

counterclaims and third party claims, and directed his company, Litho, to file claims

-2-