TP Orthodontics, Inc. v. Andrew Kesling, et al. - 8/6/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Tuesday  August 6, 2013 
1:30 PM  EST

1:30 p.m.  46A03-1207-MI-324. In 2010, the board of directors of TP Orthodontics, Inc. established a special litigation committee to determine whether to pursue a number of derivative claims brought by the Appellees.  After a year-long investigation, the committee issued a written report in which it recommended pursuing some claims of the Appellees’ claims, but not others.  TPO filed a motion to dismiss the rejected claims and attached a heavily redacted copy of the report.  The Appellees demanded access to the un-redacted report, but TPO resisted.  The trial court ultimately ordered TPO to produce the un-redacted report.  This interlocutory appeal followed.
TPO argues that there is no statutory basis for requiring it to produce the report, citing Indiana Code section 23-1-32-4.  The corporation also contends that allowing the Appellees access to the full report would violate the business-judgment rule and raise attorney-client privilege and work-product issues.  The Appellees claim that they cannot respond to TPO’s summary-judgment motion or challenge the committee’s determination without the full report.

Back to Events
Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT