Opinion ID: 1799426
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fenestra's Position.

Text: On this de novo review, the position of plaintiff Fenestra is not easy of summary because it contains a veritable diary of events presented in its complaint covering 77 printed pages; in support of its judgment obtained below, it has also filed 3 briefs totaling 310 pages replete with 198 footnotes. Hopefully, our categorizations and summaries will sacrifice none of plaintiff's flavor. Plaintiff's position is that each and every defendant is engaged in a gigantic conspiracy, using unlawful means and pursuing unlawful ends, and that such conspiracy was pursued to the point where irreparable damage to the corporation was imminent and actual damage had already occurred. Plaintiff's position will not suffer from the emphasis of repeating, in part at least, from its complaint: The defendants, and each of them, participated in and had or are chargeable with knowledge and consented to the plan and conspiracy, and acted in furtherance thereof, hereinafter alleged.    The above acts of defendants and purpose of their plan and conspiracy are unlawful, as are the means by which such plan is to be carried out, which, if achieved and further carried out as above set forth, would perpetrate a fraud upon plaintiff and its minority stockholders and would be contrary to the law and public policy of the State of Michigan.    Unless the unlawful conspiracy of the defendants and the unlawful means by which said defendants seek to accomplish the purposes and ends of said unlawful conspiracy are enjoined and restrained forthwith, during pendency of this action, and permanently by this court of equity, plaintiff and its minority stockholders will suffer immediate great irreparable harm and damage. Fenestra says that as to the Gulf group the propriety of their actions must be tested by standards applicable to self dealing by a fiduciary. Fenestra says the action by Gulf ( i.e., G.A.L.C. Co.), as a controlling stockholder in Fenestra, in seeking to restrain the proposed Freeman acquisition was in violation of its fiduciary duty. As to the Pritzker group, plaintiff Fenestra says that they brought the deal to Gulf and that Jay Pritzker was the architect of the conspiracy. Fenestra says Pritzker devised the arrangement whereby Gulf would use Fenestra's assets to pay for its [Gulf's] purchase of the stock and to pay other indebtedness. Fenestra adds that Pritzker was thus aiding and abetting Gulf in a breach of fiduciary duty. Fiduciary standards are also applicable to the Brainin group, says Fenestra. But, says Fenestra, their application is not essential because they [Brainin] not only had adequate warning of Gulf's purposes and intentions to require them to investigate (before selling control), but that they had actual knowledge sufficient enough to make the sale wrongful even under `common honesty' standards.