• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL POLICEEMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situatedshareholders of Landry’s Restaurants, Inc., andderivatively on behalf of nominal defendantLandry’s Restaurants, Inc.,Plaintiff,v.TILMAN J. FERTITTA, STEVEN L.SCHEINTHAL, KENNETH BRIMMER,MICHAEL S. CHADWICK, MICHAELRICHMOND, JOE MAX TAYLOR, FERTITTAHOLDINGS, INC., FERTITTA ACQUISITIONCO.,Defendants, andLANDRY’S RESTAURANTS, INC. Nominal Defendant.))))))) C.A. No. 4339-VCL)))))))))))))))
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE VERIFIED CLASS ACTIONAND DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System(“LMPERS” or “Plaintiff”), on behalf of the Class of public shareholders of the commonstock of Landry’s Restaurants, Inc. (“Landry’s” or the “Company”), by and through itsundersigned counsel, hereby move the Court, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 15(d),for leave to file and serve the Supplement to the Verified Class Action and DerivativeComplaint attached hereto as Exhibit A. This motion is based on the following:
 
21.Court of Chancery Rule 15(d) provides that the Court may allow a party toserve a “supplemental pleading setting forth transactions or occurrences or events whichhave happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented.”2.Although Rule 15(d) does not itself set forth the standard for grantingleave to file a supplemental pleading, the same liberality applies under Rule 15(d) asunder Rule 15(a).
 Parnes v. Bally Entertainment Corp.
, 2000 Del. Ch. LEXIS 23, *4(Feb. 8, 2000);
 Norm Gershman’s Things To Wear v. Dayon,
1992 Del. Ch. LEXIS 257,*3 (Dec. 8, 1992). In other words, “[i]n the absence of prejudice to another party, thetrial court is required to exercise its discretion in favor of granting leave . . . .”
Mullen v. Alarmguard of Delmarva, Inc.,
625 A.2d 258, 263 (Del. 1993) (stating liberality standardunder Court of Chancery Rule 15(a));
 Parnes
at *2 (granting leave to file supplementalcomplaint in absence of showing of inexcusable delay or prejudice).3.The proposed Supplement to the Verified Class Action and DerivativeComplaint adds new claims for breach of the fiduciary duty against Tilman Fertitta(”Fertitta”) and the Landry’s Board of Directors relating to a proposed transaction inwhich Fertitta would acquire the approximately 45% of Landry’s outstanding commonstock that he does not already own for $14.75 per share in cash (the “ProposedTransaction”). Just days prior to this motion, on November 4, 2009, Landry’s filed withthe United States Securities and Exchange Commission a Form 8-K describing theProposed Transaction.4.Plaintiff has not delayed and Defendants will suffer no prejudice from the proposed pleading.
 
3WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter an order  permitting the filing of the attached proposed Supplement to the Verified Class Actionand Derivative Complaint.Dated: November 10, 2009 /s/ John C. KairisBERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &GROSSMANN, LLPMark LebovitchAmy Miller Jeroen Van Kwawegen1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019212-554-1400GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.Stuart M. Grant (Del. I.D. #2526)John C. Kairis (Del. I.D. #2752)Mary S. Thomas (Del. I.D. #5072)Christian Kenney (Del. I.D. #5191)1201 North Market StreetWilmington, DE 19801(302) 622-7000
Counsel for Plaintiff 
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...