Free Opening Brief in Support - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 152.5 kB
Pages: 3
Date: June 28, 2007
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 738 Words, 4,533 Characters
Page Size: 612.48 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8917/160-1.pdf

Download Opening Brief in Support - District Court of Delaware ( 152.5 kB)


Preview Opening Brief in Support - District Court of Delaware
Case 1 :04-cv-01565-SLR Document 160 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ARLIN M. ADAMS, Chapter 11 Trustee of
the Post-Confirmation Bankruptcy Estates of
CORAM HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, .
a Delaware Corporation, and of CORAM ·
INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 04-1565 (SLR)
Plaintiffs,
· v.
DANIEL D. CROWLEY, DONALD J. I
AMARAL, WILLIAM J. CASEY, L. PETER
SMITH, and SANDRA L. SMOLEY, . .
Defendants. /
SUPPLEMENT TO OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL D.
1 CROW'LEY'S MOTION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL
June 28, 2007 Jeffrey C. Wisler - #2795
r Christina M. Thompson · #3976
CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP
The Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
(302) 658-9141
-;md-
John W. Keker
Elliot R. Peters
R. James Slaughter
KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP
710 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 391-5400
Attorneys for Dejéndant DANIEL D. CROWLEY
l

Case 1 :04-cv-01565-SLR Document 160 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 of 3
Defendant Daniel D. Crowley submits this supplement to his Opening Brief in support of
his Motion to Continue the Trial (D.I. 158) because the court in the related insurance litigation
pending in the District of Colorado issued two orders this week that impact the Motion to
Continue the Trial (D.I. 157) tiled by 1\/lr. Crowley on June 22, 2007. I
First, as set forth in the Joint Notice of Recent Court Decision (D.l. 159 ) filed by the »
parties earlier today, on June 25, 2007, the court in the related insurance action, Genesis .
Insurance Company v. Daniel D Crowley and Arlin M Adams, Civil Action No. 05-cv—00335-
WDM-PAC (D. Colo.) (hereinafter "the Insurance Action") issued an order on the parties’
summary judgment motions. See Exhibit A to the Joint Notice of Recent Court Decision (Order
on Motions for Summary Judgment issued by Hon. Walker D. Miller on June 25, 2007). The
court found in favor of Mr. Crowley and the Trustee Arlin M. Adams, holding that (1) insurance
coverage of this lawsuit was not barred because adequate notice of the claims was provided to
Genesis Insurance Company within the policy period and that (2) coverage extends to acts and
events occurring after the policy’s expiration on January 27, 2001, where they are based on or
arising out of the alleged wrongful acts covered by the timely notices to the insurance company.
See id at 20. However, the district court in Colorado refused to decide on summary judgment
whether Genesis is required to cover the Outside Directors for the $9.55 million settlement they I
reached with the Trustee in this matter, holding that such a determination was premature because
a pending case before the Colorado Supreme Court bears on this coverage question. Id at 20-21.
Accordingly, some issues in the Insurance Action have been resolved such that the parties have a
better sense of who will bear certain costs of settlement and risks of litigation, but others remain
unresolved at this time.
Second, on June 27, 2007, the court in the Insurance Action, issued a Minute Order
scheduling a settlement conference before the magistrate judge on Friday, September 14, 2007
(the last business day before trial in this matter is scheduled to begin on Monday, September 17).
See Minute Order entered by Magistrate Judge O. Edward Schlatter on June 27, 2007, attached
hereto as Exhibit 1. That settlement conference presents an excellent opporttmity to resolve this
matter. See generally Opening Brief (D.l. 158) at pp. 4-5. However, given its close proximity to

Case 1:04-cv-01565-SLR Document 160 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 of 3
the beginning of trial in this case, the settlement conference is unlikely to serve that purpose as
the parties will be preoccupied with completing trial preparation and will have already expended
time, resources, and effort preparing for trial. · »
Counsel for Mr. Crowley continues to assess the impact of these recent developments in
the Insurance Action with respect to the Motion to Continue Trial and will discuss these issues in
more detail in the reply brief I
Dated: June 28, 2007 CONNOLLY Bova LODGE & HUTZ LLP
I Avvpvplp ‘(=`>, `V AV N
c. wma - #2795
Christina M. Thompson — #3976
The Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange Street
’ Wilmington, DE 19801
(302) 658-9141
-2md-
John W. Keker
‘ Elliott R. Peters
R. James Slaughter
KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP
710 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 391-5400
I Attorneys for Defendant
DANIEL D. CROWLEY
3