Opinion ID: 2444522
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Brown requested a list of limited partners.

Text: On December 21, 2009, Brown wrote to the General Partner and requested a current list of the name and last known business, residence or mailing address of each Partner in Parkcentral. Brown wrote again to reiterate its demand on January 5, 2010. The General Partner responded that the demand failed to state a proper purpose for the request, as required by § 9.1(b) of the Partnership Agreement. The General Partner also denied the request because applicable law and Parkcentral's privacy policies purportedly prohibited the disclosure of nonpublic information. On January 15, 2010, Brown submitted a third request for a list of names and addresses of Parkcentral partners. Brown stated that it sought the information to: (a) contact other limited partners in order to investigate claims of the General Partner's mismanagement or breaches of fiduciary duty; (b) contact other limited partners to investigate the allegations made in the Texas litigation; (c) contact other limited partners to bring their attention to the Texas litigation and ascertain their desire to become associated with it or pursue similar actions; (d) contact other limited partners to investigate potential direct and derivative claims against the partnership's auditors; and (e) contact other limited partners to discuss whether any of them would desire to pursue a derivative and/or direct claim against the partnership's auditors. Brown further stated that it was investigating the allegations raised in the Texas litigation. On January 20, 2010, the General Partner's counsel responded that Parkcentral's privacy obligations limited the General Partner's ability to disclose information and suggested Brown's counsel contact them regarding the request.