Case Name: Randee BACH, individually and derivatively for the benefit of JT Sound Systems, Inc., d/b/a St. Louis Sound & Communications, Appellants, v. STL, INC., Stephen C. Leidholdt, William Halliburton and Joan Halliburton, STL Services, Inc. and Halliburton Financial Services, Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-04-12
Citations: 168 S.W.3d 486
Docket Number: No. ED 83442
Parties: Randee BACH, individually and derivatively for the benefit of JT Sound Systems, Inc., d/b/a St. Louis Sound & Communications, Appellants, v. STL, INC., Stephen C. Leidholdt, William Halliburton and Joan Halliburton, STL Services, Inc. and Halliburton Financial Services, Respondents.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 168
Pages: 486–487

Head Matter:
Randee BACH, individually and derivatively for the benefit of JT Sound Systems, Inc., d/b/a St. Louis Sound & Communications, Appellants, v. STL, INC., Stephen C. Leidholdt, William Halliburton and Joan Halliburton, STL Services, Inc. and Halliburton Financial Services, Respondents.
No. ED 83442.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
April 12, 2005.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 2, 2005.
Application for Transfer Denied Aug. 30, 2005.
Michael W. Newport, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Charles F. Dufour, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
In this consolidated appeal, Randee Bach ("Bach") appeals from the trial court's judgment entered on her petition individually and derivatively as a shareholder of JT Sound Systems, Inc. ("JTS"). Bach raises six points on appeal. JTS cross-appeals, raising five points on appeal. The respondents, STL, Inc., Steven Leid-holdt ("Leidholdt"), William Halliburton ("Halliburton"), Joan Halliburton, STL Services ("Services"), and Halliburton Financial Services ("HFS") also appeal, raising eleven additional points on appeal.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the extensive legal file, and transcripts on appeal. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.14(b).
. There were two motions taken with the case. Respondents requested to supplement the legal file and Bach requested attorneys' fees for litigating this appeal. These motions are denied.