Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 40.1 kB
Pages: 2
Date: October 24, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 418 Words, 2,517 Characters
Page Size: 599.04 x 771.84 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/9325/27.pdf

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 40.1 kB)


Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1 :05-cv—00008-JJ F-LPS Document 27 Filed 10/24/2005 Page 1 of 2
FERRY JOSEPH Sc Pniuacir, P A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
E24 MARKET STREET
5`ETITE 904
R O. BOX 1351
Davm J. FE11111: Jiu WILMDQGTDN, DELAWARE tease TELEFAX
Miouam. B. Josm=·H+ —- (SDE) 575-17,4
Ronnmr K. Pmszon (555) 575'1555 _______
Tmromomz J. Tacoomsur ¤ .
EDWARD F. KUADER www.ferr;q0seph.c0m
Jomw D. Marrny _
RICK S_ MILLER ARTHUR E D1SA1aA·1·1No
Jason C. Powmr. H°¤B`E°°u
Lrsa L. Goooms H
§§jf§; ‘f,_‘,*Q‘_.‘§f,‘§‘** omaha 24, 2005
rsiuso rut mn)
{ +iu.so mr nm}
i¤¤.u.s¤ 1".L,M.A Am: NY BARS)
(++N•J HAR DITLY1
BY HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
844 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
RE: FTR Consulting, Inc. v. Soin, et 2}.
C.A. No.: [I5-8 (QQ)
Dear Judge Jordan:
This firm serves as local counsel for the Plaintiff in this action assigned to Your Honor.
To be clear, the Plaintiff takes no position on whether or not it would be appropriate to enter a
scheduling order at this time and the Plaintiff believes that this is a matter that the Court should
handle in the manner it Ends appropriate.
Nevertheless, the Plaintiff feels constrained to respond to Defendants’ characterization of
the strength ofthe pending motion. The Plaintiff strongly disagrees with positions taken by the
Defendants in this motion. The Plaintiff believes that the new SEC rule is irrelevant to this case
because, inter @1, it applies only to transactions between the issuer and the issuer’s officers and
directors. The transaction for which Defendants seek an exemption in this case was between the
issuer and the three individuals who were neither officers and directors of MTC Technologies.
For that reason and a number of other reasons that will be raised in the formal opposition to the
motion, the Plaintiff believes that the pending motion lacks merit.

Case 1 :05-cv—00008-JJF-LPS Document 27 Filed 10/24/2005 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
October 24, 2005
Page Two
If Your Honor has any questions regarding this matter counsel for the Plaintiff will be
available at the convenience of the Court.
Respectfully,
/ ii.-_
wz - L .
`*··l ,... ,
THEODORE J. TACCONELLI
TJT/meh
cc: Richard L. Horwitz, Esq. (by hand)
Paul B. Wexler, Esq. (by fax) ·
Glenn F. Ostrager, Esq. (by fax)
Robert J. Steam, Jr., Esq. (by band)
Geoffrey Ritts, Esq. (by fax)