Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/76500159/Bum
Timestamp: 2016-08-28 01:16:03
Document Index: 779193911

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1391', '§ 1331', '§ 78', '§ 1367', '§ 240', '§ 51', '§ 51', '§ 12', 'art. 2036', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12']

BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ************************************************* JOSEPH RADFORD * * VERSUS * * RED JACKET FIREARMS, L.L.C, WILLIAM * HAYDEN and RED JACKET, INC. * * ************************************************* COMPLAINT NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Plaintiff, JOSEPH RADFORD, a person of the full age of majority domiciled in the Parish of Livingston, State of Louisiana, who files the following Complaint: 1. Made Defendant herein is RED JACKET FIREARMS, L.L.C., a Louisiana limited liability company with its domicile listed at 9653 Mammoth Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70814. 2. Also made Defendant herein is WILLIAM HAYDEN, who upon information and belief, is a Louisiana resident with his domicile at 9643 Mammoth Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70814. 3. Also made Defendant herein is RED JACKET, INC., a Louisiana corporation with its domicile listed at 9643 Mammoth Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70814.
. § 1391(a). 1999. and the damages suffered by Plaintiff. Hayden.C. issued ten (10) Red Jacket. 17 C.JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. 6. known as Red Jacket Firearms. and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. acting in his capacity as an officer of Red Jacket. Inc. 15 U. § 1331 as some of the claims presented herein arise under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.’s primary business was the operation of a Baton Rouge firearms store and shooting range. Hayden. Red Jacket. 2002. On or around September 7. On April 6.F. Defendant. 8. Inc.S. Inc..C.S. registered Red Jacket.C. occurred in the Middle District of Louisiana. § 78a et seq. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U. stock certificates to Plaintiff.R. as the acts and omissions complained of. with the Louisiana Secretary of State.. Jurisdiction in this Court is based upon 28 U. 9.C. Venue is proper in the Middle District of Louisiana pursuant to 28 U. § 1367. 5. FACTS 7. Inc.10b-5.S.S. § 240.
” The television series focuses on Hayden’s operation of Red Jacket Firearms. The stock certificates stated that each was “one share of one hundred. known as “Sons of Guns™. William Hayden. into 100 preferred stock shares. Plaintiff believed that the stock certificates provided to him were legitimate.. 11.” 12. Inc. The certificates were signed by Defendant.. Sometime between September and October 2002. Inc. as 51% owners of Red Jacket.’s sole officer. Hayden began filming a Discovery Channel™ reality television series. Inc. valid and proper. divided Red Jacket. In 2010.000 per share. 16. Hayden created and circulated a prospectus for shareholders. and had no reason to know of any deficiencies in the stock certificates. and provided a par value of $1. named Hayden and his wife.
. The prospectus named Plaintiff as a ten percent (10%) owner of Red Jacket. 13. 15. A copy of the prospectus was provided to Plaintiff. Hayden issued these 10 stock certificates (or 10% of the company) to Plaintiff in payment for the cost of materials and labor incurred during a series of 2002 capital improvements performed by Plaintiff. 14.10. in his capacity as Red Jacket. Inc. Trudy Lee. Based on the representation made to Plaintiff by Hayden.
L. 2011.17. Inc. was registered with the Louisiana Secretary of State. failed to file an annual report with the Louisiana Secretary of State and as a result. Hayden and Red Jacket. Hayden listed the date of first use of the term “Red Jacket Firearms” as April 6. failed to provide any notice to Plaintiff of the transfer. Inc. Hayden (either alone or with other members of Red Jacket.) fraudulently transferred all assets. Hayden trademarked the name “Red Jacket Firearms” with the Louisiana Secretary of State.L. On or around May 7. On or around January 26. registered a separate limited liability company known as Red Jacket Firearms. On the trademark certificate. Inc. At some point in 2010 or 2011. “Sons of Guns™” aired in primetime on the Discovery Channel™.L.C. 19. three employees of Red Jacket. 23. 22. L. interest and goodwill out of Red Jacket. 1999 – the date Red Jacket. 2011. 2010. Inc. and upon information and belief.C. fell out of good standing. 2010.
. 21. On or around April 6. and into Red Jacket Firearms. On or around July 7. 18. Inc. Inc. Red Jacket. 20.
. Earlier this year. After consultation with Defendants (and ultimately their counsel). CAUSES OF ACTION I. in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. 25. 26. it is illegal for any person to directly.C. L. Plaintiff asserts a Rule 10b-5 action pursuant to federal law. make any material untrue statement or omission. Hayden are worthless. was still an operating business. Hayden registered a separate limited liability company known as Red Jacket International. Hayden told the Plaintiff that he should throw the stock certificates away because they were worthless. In fact. That same day. 28. Defendants contended that the shares issued by Mr. Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 10b-5. Inc. Plaintiff sought advice from counsel regarding his rights pursuant to the stock certificates issued by Hayden. or indirectly. after becoming aware that Red Jacket.24. FEDERAL RULE 10b-5 ACTION 27. use any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce to employ a device or scheme. or engage in any course of business that operates as a fraud upon any person.L.
’s assets without notifying Plaintiff. Plaintiff meets the purchaser-seller requirement as a “forced seller” because the value of his Red Jacket’s securities was affected as a result of the Defendant’s fraudulent transfer of assets.29. and Plaintiff had no reason to know of any deficiencies in the certificates.
. which was fraudulent. Hayden used instrumentalities of interstate commerce in liquidating the assets.’s sole officer. Plaintiff is the rightful owner of the securities because he earned the certificates in consideration for capital improvements made at the request of Hayden and Red Jacket. Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 forbids the use or employment of any deceptive device in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. 32. Inc. the certificates are signed by Red Jacket Inc. Defendants made a material misrepresentation and omission by transferring Red Jacket Inc.. 34. From Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.” 31. the Supreme Court of the United States has implied a private damages action for securities fraud known as a “Rule 10b-5 Action. 33. 30.
Plaintiff has standing to bring a Rule 10b-5 Action and show that the Defendants violated Rule 10b-5 through the fraudulent divestiture of the company’s assets and denial of Plaintiff’s equity stake.35. The fraudulent asset transfers and denial of Plaintiff’s ownership stake occurred “in connection with” the “forced sale” of Plaintiff’s securities in Red Jacket. 40. Defendants knew or should have known that denying Plaintiff’s ownership stake was fraudulent. Plaintiff relied on the validity of the certificates as consideration for the services and goods he rendered to Defendants. The Plaintiff’s economic loss is a direct result of the Defendants’ fraudulent transfer of assets and denial of Plaintiff’s ownership stake. Plaintiff experienced economic loss because the Defendants fraudulently transferred the assets and denied the value of his shares after the divestiture. 37.
. 38. Inc. 36. 39. Therefore.
it is unlawful for any person in connection with the offer or sale of any security.’s assets without notifying Plaintiff. STAT. 51:712(D). R. directly or indirectly. Defendants made a material misrepresentation and omission by transferring Red Jacket Inc. scheme. 45.S. R. 51:712(A)(2). it is unlawful for any person to offer to sell or to sell a security by means of any oral or written untrue statement or omission of a material fact when the buyer is not knowing of the untruth or omission. Inc. practice. LOUISIANA BLUE SKY LAWS – LOUISIANA REV. act. 44.
. STAT. Defendants made a material misrepresentation and omission by issuing facially valid stock certificates to Plaintiff in consideration for services and then denying Plaintiff’s 10% equity share in Red Jacket. Defendants therefore violated Louisiana securities laws pursuant to La. 42. R. 43. § 51:712(D) 41. § 51:712(A)(2) AND LOUISIANA REV.S. to employ any device. or to engage in any transaction. which was fraudulent.S. or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.II. Pursuant to La. Pursuant to La. 12:712(A)(2) and § 12:712(A)(2). or artifice to defraud.
Inc. art. and any subsidiary or spinout formed by Defendants.
IV. 51. this court may declare Plaintiff as a ten percent (10%) owner of Red Jacket. Inc.P. 2036. made or effected after the right of the obligee arose. art. 2036 50. status. Therefore. Inc. an obligee has the right to annul an act of the obligor. ART.
Pursuant to La.C.. C. and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.
REVOCATORY ACTION: LOUISIANA C. 49.P. that causes or increases the obligor's insolvency. Defendants signed the stock certificates and provided Plaintiff with a business prospectus naming Plaintiff as ten percent (10%) owner of Red Jacket.
Pursuant to La. art.LOUISIANA C.P. C. 47. 1871.
.C. 1871 46. Plaintiff requests that this court declare that Plaintiff is a ten percent (10%) owner of Red Jacket. 48.C. courts may declare rights. 1871.’s equity value. Pursuant to La.C.III. ART. C.C. Plaintiff’s stock certificates make the Defendants an obligor to the Plaintiff for his 10% share of Red Jacket Inc.
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT . and any subsidiary or spinout formed by Defendants.
and with that diligence. § 12:226(A) AND LOUISIANA REV. and skill. judgment and skill which ordinarily prudent men would exercise under similar circumstances in like positions. The asset transfer is.S. Defendant. STAT. 12:226(A) and La.
. Officers and directors are personally liable for intentionally tortuous conduct or an intentional breach of loyalty. judgment. STAT.S. 56. 12:91 provide that officers and directors must stand in a fiduciary relation to the corporation and its members. allowed and/or facilitated a fraudulent transfer of assets that violated the good faith. Defendants’ fraudulent transfer of assets caused or increased Red Jacket Inc. La. 55. 12:91. R. R. Hayden. R. 12:226(A) and La. 53. Hayden. diligence. care. art. which a corporate officer should exercise. care. and shall discharge the duties of their respective positions in good faith. breached his fiduciary duty to his shareholders (including Plaintiff) pursuant to La R. subject to revocation pursuant to La.C.
V.S. Defendant. therefore. 2036.52.’s insolvency.S. therefore. § 12:91 54. C. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY: LOUISIANA REV.
R. 12:219(C) provides that every member who receives any unlawful distribution of assets shall be liable to the corporation in an amount not exceeding the amount received by him. Defendant. Inc. 59.S. claimed to maintain fifty-one (51%) ownership of Red Jacket. 58. La.. STAT.
57. § 12:219(C) AND § 12:226(D). knowingly made a fraudulent transfer of assets without reasonable care and inquiry towards the shareholders. Hayden.
.S. 12:226(D) provides that when any unlawful distribution. Hayden. 61. La. making him a member alongside Plaintiff. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY: LOUISIANA REV. R. Hayden. Hayden. 60. voted in favor thereof shall be liable jointly and severally to the corporation in an amount equal to the amount of the unlawful distribution. In the prospectus. the directors who knowingly. 62. Defendant. was the sole officer of Red Jacket. or without the exercise of reasonable care and inquiry. Defendant. Inc. payment or return of assets be made to the members. The Defendant.VI. knowingly made a fraudulent transfer of assets.
Inc. 67. 65. Inc. S. Hayden.
DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE – FEDERAL COMMON LAW 64. Inc.
Defendant. therefore breached his fiduciary duty to shareholders pursuant to La.S.
. Plaintiff changed his position to his detriment because Plaintiff accepted the stock certificates instead of cash for the materials and labor he contributed to Red Jacket. issued the signed stock certificates and a prospectus showing Plaintiff as a ten percent (10%) shareholder. Defendant. pursuant to federal law. Plaintiff. therefore. which named Plaintiff as a ten percent (10%) owner of Red Jacket.63. Plaintiff was reasonable in relying on the stock certificates because the sole officer of Red Jacket. R. 66. Hayden. made a representation that the stock certificates were valid by signing the certificates and by issuing a prospectus. 12:219(C) and La. can recover damages suffered due to his detrimental reliance. 12:226(D). R.
C..VIII. 1967. art. RED JACKET. Inc.. L. Plaintiff was reasonable in relying on the stock certificates because the sole officer of Red Jacket. 1967 68. Therefore.L. court costs and other relief deemed reasonable by this Court. Plaintiff relied on these stock certificates to his detriment because Plaintiff accepted the stock certificates instead of cash for the materials and labor he contributed to Red Jacket.
WHEREFORE. WILLIAM HAYDEN. pursuant to La. Plaintiff prays that Defendants be served with copies of this Complaint and cited to appear and answer same and that after due proceedings are had there be judgment in favor of PLAINTIFF JOSEPH RADFORD and against DEFENDANTS. attorney’s fees. and RED JACKET FIREARMS. Hayden. 70. DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE: LOUISIANA C.C. ART. together with legal interest thereon from the date of judicial demand until paid. Inc. C.C. issued the signed stock certificates and a prospectus showing Plaintiff as a ten percent (10%) shareholder. knew or should have known that the stock certificates and prospectus issued to Plaintiff would induce Plaintiff to rely on his promise of an ownership stake in Red Jacket. Inc. awarding Plaintiff all damages. Defendant. Plaintiff can recover all damages suffered as a result of his detrimental reliance upon the representations of Defendant.
. Hayden. INC. 69. 71.
Ste. L. TAGGART MORTON.L. Louisiana 70163-2100 Telephone: (504) 599-8500 Facsimile: (504) 599-8501 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF.
s/Larry E. MOLINA (#31880) 1100 Poydras Street.Respectfully submitted. JOSEPH RADFORD
. 2100 New Orleans.C. Demmons LARRY DEMMONS (#24376) ROSS M.
Bum by Kill3r197143 viewsEmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)List price: $0.00Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedAyala Investment vs. Chingby Mj BrionesSettlement in Class-Action Suit Against Wells Fargoby Foreclosure FraudOng vs Roban Lending Corpby Geelyn CatindigEx Parte Application 05-11-11by Timothy McCandlessPartnership Digestby Carmela SantosProducer Bank v Excelsaby Andrea Gatchalian10000015560by Chapter 11 Dockets1st 6 pages cases.docxby Francis ArvyPartnership Full Text IIby Mary Sedigo CimeniGlobal Business Holding vs Surecomp Software by Anabelle Talao-UrbanoFannieby Pete_Vrettakos44983478-Schwend-v-Us-Bankby joshbarker444Gutierrez v. G&amp;M Oil Company, Inc.by www.BaileyDaily.com Heirs of Tan Eng Kee vs CAby Hafsah Dmc'goForeclosure Case Killerby Adam CarmichaelEkerson v. MERS, CitiMortgage Inc., Et Alby Foreclosure FraudMPRE_2002by gummyboy1984Agoo Rice vs Landbank Digest (1)by Steve Napalittxnb-176023298219by tomservo868Malong vs PNRby goma2110000027477by Chapter 11 DocketsPacific v CAby Daby BautistaLabor Law II Digestby Carl Vincent Quitoriano2nd Circ SECby DanRivoliBusOrg Cases Week 1by Paris LisonVitro Opinionby Chapter 11 DocketsAppraisal Fraudby Adrien HugginsAdr Cases Jan20by Lance KerwinSimilar to BumAyala Investment vs. ChingSettlement in Class-Action Suit Against Wells FargoOng vs Roban Lending CorpEx Parte Application 05-11-11Partnership DigestProducer Bank v Excelsa100000155601st 6 pages cases.docxPartnership Full Text IIGlobal Business Holding vs Surecomp Software Fannie44983478-Schwend-v-Us-BankGutierrez v. G&amp;M Oil Company, Inc. Heirs of Tan Eng Kee vs CAForeclosure Case KillerEkerson v. MERS, CitiMortgage Inc., Et AlMPRE_2002Agoo Rice vs Landbank Digest (1)txnb-176023298219Malong vs PNR10000027477Pacific v CALabor Law II Digest2nd Circ SECBusOrg Cases Week 1Vitro OpinionAppraisal FraudAdr Cases Jan20Man Cases (No.17)