ÿWPCt &¨ –ìÝ^–ÉpFþX%k¹ß3ªØpMvª2È·g‰É9ölti@%Ý _Jô™’6VLÍ‘n/Ë7•ѼÍwEwÌEiáÕaq—ð² ÈpÄõòñŒˆDÒzV8ölµò‹PÏöWð¦b/b nÅ«ï¬ø–~õÃl¶WÈ¢ö½¸ÓRB8g,ÛÉãKôâÜMÏÑzïb? M°ç埌:‰Çû™’çš·kÙª@ã9>¥Ê|4RÞRqìøó⟠VŽª>]}2ß–g|0´˜w¥W˜ú˜ó𝛧!ŠjÃ%_}Ǫ ç>2T}5Pø¯<Ê!zK,†GÆš‰I%•Z:÷ŸKô~•2qwBï!g:•?û5¼½æÂêiq]žFm´3w¨t >µÔ dRÓr‘ËÉIóÓ*3±{u?–/WôkìÒ‘/­ H¾ÃZ…¿uËÖ%h‹×©Ê‹^ÍrA•CéF/è‹Âè 9ðÃU$ Ò¶m–U÷Õ RÄRÁÉ^ÐÒɉ}ãÖfå\ M û¦ùLqÙ~ðžü‹6ƒ÷fELéš‚«K2` T>Šüöˆò;¼F>FÓ+ñ•OY¬Š±à¿0ëÔ4~6¢(ñæU>¤†â 0 §h 0< 0nK 0 B¹ 0ˆû 0:ƒì½ 0Ñ© U>z B¸ 0CÕ ì ð 0:ô. 0¶>#ÁôUNµ %M ( N5^ 7wC4G[ m]ô\  `‹&Times New Roman' IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND Court0Court .   6: *ÿÿ4Heading 1Ô€XXXÔò òóóòòÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  Óó óóóÔ€XXXÔ<ÿÿ:Default Para< ÿÿ:Footnote TexÔ€ôôôÔÔ€XXXÔ<ÿÿ:Footnote Refòòóó0A ÿÿ.FooterÓ €€ #ÓÓA7€Ð(€Ø 0 ˆà8è@˜ðH! #AÓ:ÿÿ8Page Number âÝ ƒ ¤¿)ÝÒ€°ÒÒаÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÿªXXXÔÔ€XÿªXXXÿªÔÝ  ÝÓ! €€ #°œX!ÓÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÝ  ÝÔ€ôÛÔòXXÿªÔÔ€XÿªXòôÛÔÔÔ€ XÿªXXXÿªÔÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÓ$ €€ #€€ #$ÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿBÝÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿʃ ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XÿªXX XÿªÔ(©2¤¿$©©Ý ƒ„ !ÝÒ€°ÒÒаÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÿªXXXÔÔ€XÿªXXXÿªÔÝ  Ýô\  `‹&Times New Roman d(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó âÝ ƒ„ !ÝÒ€°ÒÒаÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÿªXXXÔÔ€XÿªXXXÿªÔÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ€ôÛÔòXXÿªÔÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿ©ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿÝòòÝ  Ýò…òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó…óÝ‚ÿÿÿƒÝóóÝ  Ý€Ahan€seems€to€acknowledge,€however,€that€under€certain€circumstances€the€shareholder€could€be€precludedÐ ° Ðfrom€exercising€this€right€by€application€of€the€ð ðone€recoveryðð€rule.€€That€is,€both€the€corporation€and€theÐ o¿ Ðstockholder€may€not€recover€damages€for€the€same€injury.€€However,€they€argue€that€that€rule€has€no€applicationÐ .~ Ðhere€since€the€corporation€did€not€recover€for€its€injury.€€FAI€settled€any€and€all€claims€that€it€might€have€againstÐ í= ÐModanlo€without€Modanlo€acknowledging€any€liability,€for€the€sum€of€$250,000.€€Ô€XÿªXòôÛÔÔ æÝ ƒ„ !ÝÒ€°ÒÒаÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÿªXXXÔÔ€XÿªXXXÿªÔÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ€ôÛÔòXXÿªÔÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿ©ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿÝòòÝ  Ýò…òÚ  Ú2Ú  Úó…óÝ‚ÿÿÿƒÝóóÝ  Ý€See€Nader€Modanloððs€Motion€to€Stay€Execution€of€Judgment€Pending€Appeal,€filed€December€14,€2004.Ô€XÿªXòôÛÔÔ(ù2Gi$¤¤Ý ƒ„ !ÝÒ€°ÒÒаÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÿªXXXÔÔ€XÿªXXXÿªÔÝ  ÝÓÓÔ€ÿªXXXÿªÔÒ°€ÒÒ°ÐÒòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó#|x(Ž„ $¡¡Ò€°ÒÒаÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÿªXXXÔÔ€XÿªXXXÿªÔ˜HP LaserJet 5MÈ,,,,È0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularXm”2â Ìlb2yweb0ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ„ !ÝÒ€°ÒÒаÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÿªXXXÔÔ€XÿªXXXÿªÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÓ   ÓÓ  ÓÑÈÑÑXÑÑX°ÑÑ8€ÿªXXdædÈ8ÑÖ€ ÿÿÖÓ  ÓIN€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€MONTGOMERY€COUNTY,€MARYLANDÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÌÌRAYMOND€SCHETTINO,€et€al.,à 8 àà  à*Ð b² ÐÌà Ø àPlaintiffs,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à*Ð . ~ ÐÌvs.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à*à è àCivil€No.€220156Ð ú J ÐÌNADER€MODANLO,€et€al.,à à àà 8 àà  à*Ð Æ   ÐÌà Ø àDefendants/Third€Party€Plaintiffs,à  à*Ð ’â  ÐÌvs.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à*Ð ^®  ÐÌMICHAEL€AHAN,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à*Ð *z  ÐÌà Ø àThird€Party€Defendant.à 8 àà  à*Ð öF ÐÌÌÌÝ‚ÿÝÔ€XÿªXXXÿªÔò òòòÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÔ& Ì ÔÝ‚ÿÿÿ‡ÝÝ  ÝOPINION€AND€ORDER݃ÿÿ‡ìÝÔ Ý ÈԌРŽÞ ÐŒÓ  Óó óóóÔ€XÿªXXXÿªÔÝ  Ýò òòòÔ'ÌŽàÔÌÌÓÓó óóóà Ø àThis€matter€comes€before€the€Court,€most€recently€on€Third€Party€Plaintiff€ð!ð€NaderÐ @ ÐModanloððs€(Modanlo)€Motion€to€Reconsider€Ruling€on€Post„Trial€Motions.€€The€oppositionÐ  \ Ðof€the€Third€Party€Defendant€and€Counter€Plaintiff,€Michael€Ahan€(Ahan),€was€presentedÐ Ø( Ðorally€at€the€hearing€on€the€December€21,€2004.€€Ð ¤ô ÐÓ XÓBecause€of€the€number€and€the€complexity€of€the€issues€raised€in€Modanloððs€MotionÐ p!À  Ðfor€Judgment€Notwithstanding€Verdict€(JNOV),€after€reading€the€motion€to€reconsider,€theÐ <#Œ" ÐCourt€agreed€to€entertain€further€argument€on€a€limited€issue.€€At€the€conclusion€of€theÐ %X $ Ðhearing,€the€Court€took€the€matter€under€advisement.€€For€reasons€set€forth€below,€thoseÐ Ô&$"& Ðpreviously€set€forth€in€Ahanððs€Opposition€to€the€Motion€for€JNOV€and€those€presented€atÐ  (ð#( Ðâ âargument€on€the€motion€for€reconsideration,€the€Court€shall€deny€the€Motion€to€Reconsider.€€Ð l*¼%* ÐMany€significant€issues€are€raised€in€the€JNOV€and€the€motion€to€reconsider.€€Time,Ð ° Ðâ âhowever,€does€not€permit€the€Court€to€address€each€in€writing.€€In€this€Opinion,€the€Court€willÐ |Ì Ðfocus€on€the€principal€question€addressed€at€the€hearing:€€whether€Ahan,€a€stockholder€ofÐ H˜ ÐFinal€Analysis,€Inc.€(FAI),€has€standing€to€maintain€an€action€individually€against€ModanloÐ  d Ðfor€an€injury€suffered€by€the€corporation.€€Given€the€limited€issue,€the€Court€will€not€set€forthÐ à 0 Ðthe€facts€of€this€case€in€great€detail.€€The€Court€will€only€set€forth€those€facts€relevant€to€anÐ ¬ ü  Ðunderstanding€of€the€decision€reached€herein.Ð xÈ  ÐÓ XÓÓÓà Ø àÌÝ‚ÿÝÔ€XÿªXXXÿªÔò òòòÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÔ& Ì ÔÝ‚ÿÿÿ( ÝÝ  ÝFACTS݃ÿÿ( ÝÔ Ý i ԌР*z  ÐŒÓ  Óó óóóÔ€XÿªXXXÿªÔÝ  ÝÔ'Ì* ÔÌÌÓÓà Ø àInitially,€certain€shareholders€of€Final€Analysis€Communication€Systems€(FACS)Ð Ü, Ðbrought€a€derivative€action€for€fraud€and€related€claims€against€the€companyððs€president€andÐ ¨ø Ðchairman€of€the€board,€Nader€Modanlo.€€In€response,€Modanlo€brought€a€third€party€actionÐ tÄ Ðagainst€Ahan€and€others€for€contribution€and€indemnity.€€Ahan€in€turn€filed€a€counterclaimÐ @ Ðagainst€Modanlo€that€included€claims€for€breach€of€contract€and€breach€of€fiduciary€duty.€Ð  \ ÐCertain€of€Modanloððs€third€party€claims€against€Ahan€and€Ahanððs€counterclaims€againstÐ Ø( ÐModanlo€were€severed€from€FACSðð€derivative€claims€for€a€separate€trial.€€The€derivativeÐ ¤ô Ðclaims€were€tried€first,€June€16€to€July€1,€2003.€€The€claims€at€issue€here€were€tried€betweenÐ p!À  ÐOctober€4€and€22,€2004.€€Following€the€trial€of€the€instant€claims,€the€jury€awarded€AhanÐ <#Œ" Ðapproximately€$104€Million€Dollars€in€damages€on€each€of€the€two€counts€against€Modanlo,Ð %X $ Ðbreach€of€contract€and€breach€of€fiduciary€duty.€€The€parties€agreed€that€the€injury€was€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðsame€under€both€claims,€so€there€could€only€be€one€recovery.Ð  (ð#( Ðà Ø àThe€claims€between€Ahan€and€Modanlo€individually€arose€out€of€the€interest€they€heldÐ l*¼%* Ðin€two€corporations,€FAI€and€FACS.€€They€each€owned€50€percent€of€all€the€outstandingÐ 8,ˆ', Ðshares€of€FAI.€€FAI€in€turn€owned€a€controlling€interest€in€FACS€and€all€of€the€voting€stock.€Ð ° ÐFACS€was€created€to€establish€a€low€earth€orbit€satellite€communication€system.€€FAIÐ |Ì Ðprovided€the€engineering€and€related€services€necessary€to€design,€test€and€construct€theÐ H˜ Ðsatellites€needed€to€operate€the€system.€€Ð  d Ðà Ø àBecause€neither€stockholder€owned€a€majority€of€the€stock€of€FAI,€each€exercisedÐ à 0 Ðnegative€control€over€the€company€and,€in€turn,€over€FACS.€€Initially,€this€negative€controlÐ ¬ ü  Ðpresented€few,€if€any,€difficulties.€€The€parties€shared€a€common€vision€for€the€companies€andÐ xÈ  Ðwere€in€agreement€on€all€significant€issues.€€However,€as€time€passed€and€the€number€ofÐ D”  Ðdecisions€to€be€made€increased,€it€became€increasingly€difficult€to€reach€agreement€on€allÐ ` Ðissues€of€importance€to€the€companies.€€Absent€unanimous€agreement,€the€companies€couldÐ Ü, Ðnot€act.€€This€eventually€led€the€parties€to€recognize€that€the€existing€arrangement€threatenedÐ ¨ø Ðthe€companiesðð€very€existence.€€Ð tÄ ÐÓ XÓRecognizing€the€danger,€Modanlo€and€Ahan€entered€into€an€agreement€to€attempt€toÐ @ Ðrestructure€FAI€and€FACS€in€such€a€way€as€to€break€the€impasse€and€yet€preserve€theirÐ  \ Ðrespective€investments€in€both€companies.€€The€initial€agreement€was€set€forth€in€aÐ Ø( ÐMemorandum€of€Agreement€dated€April€19,€1999.€€This€in€turn€led€to€the€adoption€of€aÐ ¤ô ÐShareholdersðð€Agreement,€October€3,€1999.€€It€is€this€agreement€which€Ahan€alleges€ModanloÐ p!À  Ðbreached.€€Ð <#Œ" ÐIn€the€Memorandum€of€Agreement,€Ahan€and€Modanlo€acknowledged€that€bothÐ %X $ Ðparties€were€presently€involved€in€the€day„to„day€operations€of€both€companies.€€TheyÐ Ô&$"& Ðexpressed€the€desire€to€establish€two€independent€companies€to€separately€and€independently€Ð  (ð#( Ðoperate€the€business€of€FAI€and€FACS.€€Ahan€would€operate€one€and€Modanlo€the€other.€Ð l*¼%* ÐWhile€some€steps€that€might€be€taken€to€achieve€this€objective€were€set€out€in€theÐ 8,ˆ', ÐMemorandum€of€Agreement,€no€precise€method€was€agreed€upon.€€The€parties€expresslyÐ ° Ðagreed€that€the€Memorandum€of€Agreement€was€not€binding,€except€insofar€as€to€requireÐ |Ì Ðthem€to€use€good€faith€efforts€to€achieve€their€objective.Ð H˜ ÐIn€furtherance€of€that€goal,€six€months€later€the€parties€entered€into€the€ShareholdersððÐ  d ÐAgreement.€€Up€to€this€point,€the€parties€had€been€unable€to€agree€on€what€form€theÐ à 0 Ðrestructuring€would€take.€€To€resolve€the€matter,€they€agreed€that€they€would€submit€the€Ð ¬ ü  Ðcompeting€proposals€on€the€restructuring€to€a€third€party,€the€FACS€Board,€and€would€beÐ xÈ  Ðbound€by€their€decision.€€To€accomplish€this,€they€executed€irrevocable€proxies€to€that€BoardÐ D”  Ðauthorizing€them€to€exercise€the€partiesðð€votes€as€100%€shareholders€of€FAI.€€They€furtherÐ ` Ðagreed€that€neither€party€would€ð ðuse€his€powers€as€an€officer€of€FAI€to€harm€or€prejudice€theÐ Ü, Ðotherððs€rights€as€an€officer€and€shareholders€of€FAI€ð8ð.ðð€€(Shareholdersðð€Agreement,€Ex.€C).Ð ¨ø ÐAhan€alleges€that€Modanlo€violated€this€provision,€as€well€as€a€general€obligation€toÐ tÄ Ðact€in€good€faith€and€fair€dealing,€by€using€his€power€as€Chairman€and€President€of€FAI€toÐ @ Ðconspire€with€and/or€direct€the€companiesðð€corporate€counsel,€Grammas,€to€undertakeÐ  \ Ðnumerous€actions€which€were€designed€to€destroy€Ahanððs€interest€in€both€companies.€€AhanÐ Ø( Ðmaintained€that€these€acts€not€only€breached€the€contract€but€also€a€fiduciary€duty€thatÐ ¤ô ÐModanlo€owed€directly€to€Ahan.€€The€Court€has€previously€ruled€that€because€both€Ahan€andÐ p!À  ÐModanlo€were€50€percent€shareholders€of€FAI€and€because€of€Modanloððs€position€in€theÐ <#Œ" Ðcompanies,€he€owed€a€fiduciary€duty€òòdirectlyóó€to€Ahan€separate€and€apart€from€the€fiduciaryÐ %X $ Ðduty€he€owed€to€the€corporations.Ð Ô&$"& ÐAhan€maintains€that€as€a€result€of€Modanloððs€actions,€the€restructuring€becameÐ  (ð#( Ðimpossible.€€FACS€was€forced€to€pursue€litigation€in€an€attempt€to€establish€who€controlledÐ l*¼%* Ðthe€company.€€This€made€it€impossible€for€the€company€to€engage€in€ongoing€business.€€AsÐ 8,ˆ', Ðwell,€it€made€it€impossible€for€FACS€to€go€forward€with€a€planned€public€offering€to€obtainÐ ° Ðfunds€it€desperately€needed€to€survive.€€Without€those€funds,€FACSðð€work€on€the€satelliteÐ |Ì Ðcommunication€system€came€to€a€halt.€€This€in€turn€led€FAI€to€declare€bankruptcy.€€AhanÐ H˜ Ðclaimed€that€as€a€result€of€Modanloððs€actions,€Ahanððs€shares€in€FAI€and€his€beneficial€interestÐ  d Ðin€FACS€became€worthless.€€He€presented€expert€testimony€that€the€value€of€those€shares,€butÐ à 0 Ðfor€the€acts€alleged,€would€have€been€hundreds€of€millions€of€dollars.€€Accordingly,€heÐ ¬ ü  Ðmaintained€that€he€was€entitled€to€recover€those€lost€profits€as€damages€for€the€breach€ofÐ xÈ  Ðcontract€or€in€the€alternative€the€breach€of€the€independent€fiduciary€duty.€€Ð D”  ÐThe€jury€agreed.€€Although€the€trial€took€more€than€a€week,€the€jury€took€only€a€fewÐ ` Ðhours€to€find€that€Modanlo€was€liable€to€Ahan€for€both€breach€of€contract€and€breach€ofÐ Ü, Ðfiduciary€duty.€€They€awarded€damages€to€Ahan€in€the€amount€of€$103,930,000.Ð ¨ø ÐFollowing€the€verdict,€Modanlo€filed€a€timely€Motion€for€JNOV.€€Plaintiffs€filed€anÐ tÄ Ðopposition€thereto.€€Both€sides€presented€extensive€memoranda€in€support€of€their€respectiveÐ @ Ðpositions.€€After€hearing€argument€and€considering€the€memoranda,€the€Court€denied€theÐ  \ Ðmotion.€€The€Defendant€now€seeks€reconsideration€of€that€decision.€€Ð Ø( ÐÓ XÓÓÓÌÝ‚ÿÝÔ€XÿªXXXÿªÔò òòòÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÔ& Ì ÔÝ‚ÿÿÿd-ÝÝ  ÝANALYSIS݃ÿÿd-É-ÝÔ Ý ¥-ÔŒÐ Š Ú ÐŒÓ  Óó óóóÔ€XÿªXXXÿªÔÝ  ÝÔ'ÌŠ ½-ÔÌÌÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ€ôÛÔòXXÿªÔÝ  ÝÓÓÝ‚ÿÿÿ‚.ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XÿªXòôÛÔÔà Ø àAs€previously€noted,€while€many€issues€are€raised€in€the€motions,€the€Court€limitedÐ <#Œ" Ðargument€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€reconsider€to€one.€€Initially,€the€issue€was€framed€asÐ %X $ Ðwhether€the€judgment€violated€the€ð ðone€recoveryðð€rule€in€light€of€FAIððs€settlement€withÐ Ô&$"& ÐModanlo€ostensibly€of€the€same€claim.€€Consideration€of€that€issue€quickly€turned€to€whetherÐ  (ð#( ÐAhan,€a€stockholder,€had€standing€to€bring€any€claim€against€Modanlo€for€an€injury€toÐ l*¼%* ÐFAI/FACS.€€Ýƒÿÿ‚.Î.݌Р8,ˆ', ЌԀXÿªXXXÿªÔÝ  ÝÑ€ l<` ÑÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ€ôÛÔòXXÿªÔÝ  ÝÓ XÓÝ‚ÿÿÿÁ1ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XÿªXòôÛÔÔBoth€sides€cite€as€authority€òòWaller€v.€Walleróó,€187€Md.€185€(1946),€the€seminal€case€inÐ ° ÐMaryland€on€this€issue.€€Modanlo,€focusing€on€the€nature€of€the€injury,€argues€that€Ahan€hasÐ |Ì Ðno€standing.€€In€his€view,€òòWaller€óóholds€that€where€a€stockholder€suffers€no€injury€distinctÐ H˜ Ðfrom€that€suffered€by€the€corporation€he€cannot€recover€against€a€director€for€an€injury€to€it.€Ð  d ÐAhan€insists€he€does€have€standing.€€He€focuses€on€the€duty€underlying€the€claim.€€He€arguesÐ à 0 ÐòòWalleróó€stands€for€the€proposition€that€where€a€duty€to€the€stockholder€exists€òòindependentóó€ofÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€duty€that€the€director€owes€to€the€corporation,€the€stockholder€may€bring€an€action€againstÐ xÈ  Ðthe€director€for€the€breach€of€that€duty,€even€though€the€company€suffers€the€same€or€similarÐ D”  Ðinjury€as€the€shareholder.Ý‚ÿÿÿÝòòÝ  ÝÑÈÑ׃×Ý ƒ ÿÿÝò…òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó…óÝ  Ý×  ×Ý‚ÿÿÿ6partÝóóÝ  Ý€€Modanlo€urges€the€Court€to€read€òòWalleróó€carefully€before€decidingÐ ` Ðwhether€to€reconsider€its€earlier€ruling€on€this€issue.€€ÝƒÿÿÁ1 2݌РÜ, ЌԀXÿªXXXÿªÔÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ€ôÛÔòXXÿªÔÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿ•7ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XÿªXòôÛÔÔSupport€for€both€positions€can€be€found€in€the€language€of€that€opinion.€€In€òòWalleróó,Ð ¨ø Ðsuit€was€brought€by€an€officer/shareholder€of€the€M.€Waller€Corporation€against€his€brother,Ð tÄ Ðthe€secretary€and€sales€manager€of€the€company€and€other€directors.€€The€plaintiff€sought€toÐ @ Ðrecover€damages€for€the€decrease€in€the€value€of€his€stock.€€He€alleged€that€while€he€wasÐ  \ Ðpresident€and€general€manager,€the€defendant€and€other€directors€devised€a€plan€to€ruin€himÐ Ø( Ðfinancially€by€depressing€the€value€of€the€stock€and€seizing€control€of€the€company.€€TheÐ ¤ô Ðplaintiff€appealed€from€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€a€judgment€on€demurrer€in€favor€of€theÐ p!À  Ðdefendants.€€The€trial€court€acted€based€on€the€general€rule€that€only€a€corporation€can€bringÐ <#Œ" Ðan€action€at€law€for€an€injury€done€to€it,€even€though€the€injury€indirectly€or€incidentallyÐ %X $ Ðâ âresults€in€diminishing€or€destroying€the€value€of€the€stock.݃ÿÿ•7Ï7݌РÔ&$"& ЌԀXÿªXXXÿªÔÝ  ÝÓ XÓà Ø àIn€affirming€the€trial€court,€the€Court€of€Appeals€observed€that€the€reason€for€the€ruleÐ ° Ðâ âis€that€the€cause€of€action€for€the€injury€to€the€corporation€is€in€the€corporation€and€such€anÐ |Ì Ðinjury€is€not€primarily€or€necessarily€a€damage€to€the€stockholder.€€They€noted€that€the€rule€isÐ H˜ Ðadvantageous€for€two€reasons.€€First,€it€avoids€the€possibility€of€a€multiplicity€of€lawsuits€byÐ  d Ðaffected€stockholders.€€Second,€any€damages€recovered€would€first€be€available€to€pay€anyÐ à 0 Ðdebts€of€the€corporation€and€only€thereafter€for€the€shareholders€in€proportion€to€their€shares.€€Ð ¬ ü  Ðà Ø àIn€arriving€at€its€decision,€the€Court€opined€that€the€rule€did€not€bar€a€stockholder€fromÐ xÈ  Ðbringing€suit€against€an€officer€or€director€of€a€corporation€for€a€violation€of€duties€owing€toÐ D”  Ðthe€corporation€if€the€acts€also€violated€a€contract€or€duty€ð ðowing€directly€from€the€officer€toÐ ` Ðthe€injured€shareholder€ð8ððð€€187€Md.€at€192.€€The€Court€cited€a€number€of€cases€in€support€ofÐ Ü, Ðthat€principle.Ð ¨ø Ðà Ø àIn€òòWalleróó,€the€court€found€there€was€no€such€duty€owing€directly€to€the€plaintiff.€€TheÐ tÄ Ðonly€duty€alleged€to€have€been€violated€was€that€which€the€defendants€owed€to€theÐ @ Ðcorporation.€€While€the€law€recognized€such€a€duty€to€the€corporation,€it€did€not€give€rise€to€aÐ  \ Ðseparate€duty€flowing€directly€to€the€shareholders.€€There€was€no€privity€or€immediateÐ Ø( Ðconnection€between€the€directors€and€the€stockholder.€€Accordingly,€no€individual€action€byÐ ¤ô Ðthe€stockholder€would€lie.Ð p!À  Ðà Ø àModanlo€points€to€the€òòWaller€óócourtððs€discussion€of€the€nature€of€the€injury€and€theÐ <#Œ" Ðreasons€for€the€rule€to€support€its€argument€that€the€injury€must€be€the€focus€of€the€analysis€inÐ %X $ Ðdetermining€whether€a€cause€of€action€will€lie.€€Ahan€points€to€the€courtððs€language€about€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðnature€of€the€duty€to€argue€that€the€duty€owed€must€be€the€focus€of€the€analysis.€€In€òòWalleróó,Ð  (ð#( Ðunder€either€analysis€the€same€result€is€reached.€€The€only€injury€claimed€was€to€theÐ l*¼%* Ðcorporation.€€The€only€duty€was€that€which€was€owed€to€it€as€well.€€In€order€to€determineÐ 8,ˆ', Ðwhich€analysis€controls€€when€they€lead€to€different€results,€it€is€necessary€to€look€at€thoseÐ ° Ðcases€cited€in€òòWalleróó€for€the€proposition€that€an€individual€action€by€a€shareholder€is€notÐ |Ì Ðalways€barred.€€Ð H˜ Ðà Ø àOne€such€case€is€òòGeneral€Rubber€Co.€v.€Benedictóó,€215€N.Y.€18,€109€N.E.€96€(1915).€Ð  d ÐGeneral€Rubber€Co.€(GRC)€owned€all€but€18€shares€of€a€subsidiary,€General€Rubber€Co.€ofÐ à 0 ÐBrazil€(GRB).€€The€subsidiary€faced€competition€from€the€Moju€Company.€€The€defendantÐ ¬ ü  Ðwas€a€director€of€GRC€but€had€no€similar€relationship€with€GRB.€€He€also€owned€25€percentÐ xÈ  Ðof€Moju.€€The€general€manager€of€GRB,€who€also€held€an€interest€in€Moju,€improperlyÐ D”  Ðdiverted€approximately€$185,000€of€GRBððs€monies€to€Moju.€€GRC€filed€suit€against€theÐ ` Ðdefendant€alleging€that€he€was€aware€of€the€misappropriation€of€GRBððs€monies€andÐ Ü, Ðacquiesced€in€and€approved€it.€€Further,€he€concealed€that€information€from€GRC.€€GeneralÐ ¨ø ÐRubber€brought€suit€against€the€defendant€for€$185,000,€the€decrease€in€the€value€of€its€sharesÐ tÄ Ðin€GRB.€€Ð @ Ðà Ø àIn€a€four€to€two€opinion,€Cardozza,€J.€writing€for€the€majority,€the€Court€of€Appeals€ofÐ  \ ÐNew€York€held€that€an€action€by€the€shareholder,€General€Rubber,€would€lie.€€The€CourtÐ Ø( Ðobserved€that€generally€a€shareholder€cannot€maintain€an€action€against€a€third€party€for€anÐ ¤ô Ðinjury€done€to€a€corporation,€even€though€that€injury€results€in€a€devaluation€of€the€shares.€Ð p!À  ÐHowever,€they€opined€that€ð ðthe€principle€has€no€application€where€the€wrongful€acts€are€notÐ <#Œ" Ðonly€wrongs€against€the€corporation,€but€are€also€violations€by€the€wrongdoer€of€a€dutyÐ %X $ Ðarising€from€contract€or€otherwise,€and€owing€directly€by€him€to€the€stockholders.ðð€€215€N.Y.Ð Ô&$"& Ðat€22.€€Ð  (ð#( Ðà Ø àThe€Court€reasoned€that€since€the€defendant€was€a€director€of€GRC,€the€plaintiff,€heÐ l*¼%* Ðowed€a€duty€directly€to€it.€€The€duty€was€to€use€reasonable€care€to€protect€the€plaintiffððsÐ 8,ˆ', Ðproperty,€including€its€investment€in€GRB.€€A€violation€of€that€duty€rendered€the€defendantÐ ° Ðliable€to€the€plaintiff€for€the€harm€done€to€GRB.€€In€arriving€at€its€decision,€the€Court€statedÐ |Ì Ðthat€the€fact€that€the€plaintiff€was€a€corporation€and€owned€almost€all€of€the€shares€of€GRBÐ H˜ Ðmade€no€difference.€€The€result€would€have€been€the€same€if€the€plaintiff€was€an€individualÐ  d Ðand€was€one€of€many€stockholders.€€Ð à 0 Ðà Ø àThe€two€judges€that€dissented€arrived€at€the€opposite€result€analyzing€the€case€by€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðnature€of€the€injury.€€They€reasoned€that€since€the€injury€was€suffered€primarily€by€GRB,€theÐ xÈ  Ðaction€could€only€be€brought€by€that€company.€€It€could€not€be€maintained€by€a€shareholderÐ D”  Ðwho€is€injured€only€indirectly.€€They€explained:€€Ð ` ÐÓÓà Ø àà 0 àThere€was€but€a€single€loss,€although€that€loss€may€indirectlyÐ Ü, Ðà Ø àà 0 àand€collaterally€affect€the€creditors€and€stockholdersð8ð.€€A€Ð  Ðà Ø àà 0 àsingle€recovery€by€the€Brazil€company€would€afford€completeÐ ¨ø Ðà Ø àà 0 àindemnity€to€the€plaintiff€and€all€interested€parties.€€Each€of€Ð ŽÞ Ðà Ø àà 0 àthe€Brazil€company€and€the€plaintiff€has€not€the€right€to€Ð tÄ Ðà Ø àà 0 àrecover€$185,000.€€215€N.Y.€at€29.Ð Zª ÐÌÓÓà Ø àIn€its€opinion,€the€majority€responded€to€this€argument€stating,€ð ðThe€argumentÐ &v Ðconfuses€the€cause€of€action€with€the€damages.ðð€€215€N.Y.€at€24.€€The€Court€distinguished€theÐ òB Ðdecrease€in€the€value€of€GRCððs€shares€from€the€actual€injury€to€GRB,€the€loss€of€$185,000.€Ð ¾ ÐThey€acknowledged€that€it€was€possible€that€the€decrease€in€the€values€of€the€share€mightÐ Š Ú Ðequal€$185,000.€€However,€they€observed€the€more€the€company€recovered,€or€the€more€likelyÐ V"¦! Ðrecovery€appeared,€the€less€likely€the€shares€were€to€depreciate.€€They€felt€the€likelihood€of€aÐ "$r# Ðdouble€recovery€was€illusory.€€Such€an€unlikely€event€would€not€and€should€not€in€theÐ î%>!% Ðmajorityððs€view€operate€as€a€bar€to€the€stockholderððs€claim.Ð º' #' Ðà Ø àAnother€case€discussed€in€òòWalleróó€is€òòBlakeslee€v.€Sottileóó,€194€N.Y.S.€752€(1922).€€TheÐ †)Ö$) Ðplaintiff€and€her€sister€owned€stock,€held€in€trust,€in€the€Blakeslee€Cadillac€Company€(BCC).€Ð R+¢&+ ÐThe€defendant€and€two€others€were€the€sole€directors€of€the€company€and€trustees€for€theÐ -n(- Ðplaintiff€and€her€sister.€€The€defendant€actively€managed€the€company.€€As€the€companyððsÐ ° Ðfranchise€to€sell€Cadillacs€neared€the€end€of€its€term,€the€defendant€persuaded€Cadillac€not€toÐ |Ì Ðrenew€the€franchise€and€instead€grant€it€to€a€second€company€in€which€he€held€an€interest.€Ð H˜ ÐThe€plaintiff€sued€the€defendant€for€loss€of€the€value€of€her€stock€in€BCC.Ð  d Ðà Ø àThe€defendant€filed€a€motion€for€judgment€arguing€that€the€plaintiff€could€not€bring€anÐ à 0 Ðindependent€action€for€the€injury€to€the€corporation.€€The€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€motionÐ ¬ ü  Ðwas€affirmed.€€The€court€reasoned:Ð xÈ  ÐÓÓà Ø àà 0 àð ðð8ð€Where€the€wrongful€acts€are€not€only€wrongs€againstÐ D”  Ðà Ø àà 0 àthe€corporation,€but€are€also€violations€by€the€wrongdoer€Ð *z  Ðà Ø àà 0 àof€a€duty€arising€from€contract€or€other€obligation,€and€Ð ` Ðà Ø àà 0 àowing€directly€by€him€to€the€stockholders,€ð8ð€an€individualÐ öF Ðà Ø àà 0 àaction€may€be€maintained,€regardless€of€the€fact€of€aÐ Ü, Ðà Ø àà 0 àcorporate€right€to€maintain€an€action€for€relief€on€its€ownÐ Â Ðà Ø àà 0 àbehalf.ðð€€194€N.Y.S.€752,€754.Ð ¨ø ÐÌÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÓ! €€ #°œX!ÓÝ  ÝÓB+€ €Ø 0 ˆà8è@˜ðH! #€€ #BÓÓÓÝ‚ÿÿÿN`ÝÝ  ÝClearly,€the€court€in€òòBlakesleeóó€focused€on€the€nature€of€the€duty,€not€the€injury.݃ÿÿN`Þ`݌РtÄ ÐŒÓ °œX€€ŒXÓÝ  Ýà Ø àThe€òòWalleróó€court€also€cites€with€approval€òòRitchie€v.€McMullenóó,€79€F.€522,€(1897)€anÐ @ Ðopinion€by€the€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Sixth€Circuit.€€The€plaintiff€in€òòRitchieóó€gaveÐ  \ Ðstock€to€the€defendants€as€collateral€for€certain€loans€they€had€made€to€him.€€Subsequently,€heÐ Ø( Ðdefaulted€on€the€loans.€€When€the€defendants€sold€the€stock€in€satisfaction€of€the€loanÐ ¤ô Ðobligations,€the€plaintiff€brought€suit€contesting€the€sale.€€He€alleged€that€the€defendants,€whoÐ p!À  Ðwere€also€directors€of€the€company€in€which€the€stock€was€held,€had€conspired€to€depress€theÐ <#Œ" Ðvalue€of€the€stock€so€that€they€could€purchase€it€at€far€less€than€its€fair€market€value.€€The€trialÐ %X $ Ðcourt€dismissed€the€plaintiffððs€complaint.€€Ð Ô&$"& Ðà Ø àThe€Court€of€Appeals€held€that€the€trial€court€was€incorrect€in€finding€that€the€plaintiffÐ  (ð#( Ðas€a€stockholder€could€not€bring€an€independent€action€for€the€alleged€wrongs€done€to€theÐ l*¼%* Ðcorporation.€€The€Court€stated€that€the€general€principle€which€bars€a€shareholder€fromÐ 8,ˆ', Ðbringing€an€action€against€a€third€party€for€an€injury€to€the€corporation€ð ðð8ð€has€no€applicationÐ ° Ðwhere€the€wrongful€acts€are€not€only€wrongs€against€the€corporation,€but€are€also€violationsÐ |Ì Ðby€the€wrongdoer€of€a€duty€arising€from€contract,€or€otherwise,€and€owing€directly€by€him€toÐ H˜ Ðthe€stockholders.ðð€€79€F.€522,€533.€€As€bailees,€the€defendants€owed€a€duty€to€the€plaintiff€toÐ  d Ðuse€reasonable€care€to€see€that€no€harm€came€to€the€property€in€their€care,€his€stock.€€AÐ à 0 Ðviolation€of€that€duty€would€give€rise€to€a€cause€of€action€by€the€plaintiff,€even€though€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðinjury€complained€of€was€also€an€injury€to€the€corporation.€€Nevertheless,€the€Court€affirmedÐ xÈ  Ðthe€trial€court€because€the€evidence€had€failed€to€establish€any€violation€of€that€duty.Ð D”  Ðà Ø àThese€cases€read€in€their€entirety€lead€inescapably€to€the€conclusion€that€the€focus€ofÐ ` Ðthe€analysis€under€òòWalleróó€is€on€the€duty,€not€the€injury€suffered.Ð Ü, Ðà Ø àModanlo€also€directs€the€Courtððs€attention€to€the€more€recent€case€of€òòDanielewicz€v.Ð ¨ø ÐArnoldóó,€137€Md.€App.€601€(2001).€€The€case,€however,€offers€no€support€for€his€argument.€Ð tÄ ÐThe€plaintiff,€Patricia€Danielewicz,€appealed€from€the€grant€of€a€motion€for€summaryÐ @ Ðjudgment.€€Plaintiff€was€a€beneficiary€of€two€or€more€trusts.€€One€trust€was€established€uponÐ  \ Ðthe€death€of€her€father€in€1995.€€That€trust€held€certain€shares€in€the€Arnold€Factory€SupplyÐ Ø( ÐCompany€(AFS).€€The€company€had€been€started€by€her€grandfather.€€Prior€to€1995,€she€had€aÐ ¤ô Ðremainder€interest€in€a€second€trust€which€also€held€stock€in€AFS.€€The€stock€was€held€in€trustÐ p!À  Ðfor€her€father€as€a€life€tenant,€with€the€remainder€going€to€Plaintiff€upon€her€fatherððs€death.€Ð <#Œ" ÐThe€plaintiff€brought€suit€against€the€trustees,€who€were€also€directors€of€AFS,€for€negligenceÐ %X $ Ðrelating€to€a€transaction€that€had€occurred€prior€to€her€fatherððs€death€in€1995.€€The€trial€courtÐ Ô&$"& Ðgranted€the€defendantsðð€motion€for€summary€judgment.Ð  (ð#( Ðà Ø àThe€Court€of€Special€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€court€holding€that€at€the€time€of€theÐ l*¼%* Ðalleged€misdeeds,€the€Plaintiff€had€no€ð ðpresent€possessory€interestðð€in€the€stock.€€137€Md.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐApp.€615.€€Accordingly,€she€lacked€standing.€€The€Court€distinguished€the€òòBlakesleeóó€line€ofÐ ° Ðcases€cited€in€òòWalleróó.€€They€noted€that€the€plaintiffððs€claim€was€based€solely€upon€the€dutyÐ |Ì Ðowed€by€the€directors€to€the€corporation.€€There€was€no€separate€duty€owing€directly€to€herÐ H˜ Ðalleged.€At€the€time€of€the€alleged€negligence,€her€father€was€the€trustee€of€her€beneficialÐ  d Ðinterest€in€the€stock€under€her€grandparentsðð€wills.€€He€had€not€been€named€as€a€defendant.€Ð à 0 ÐThe€trust€establishing€a€fiduciary€duty€between€the€defendants€and€the€plaintiff€only€came€intoÐ ¬ ü  Ðexistence€upon€her€fatherððs€death€in€1995.€€At€the€time€of€acts€complained€of,€there€was€noÐ xÈ  Ðprivity€arising€out€of€contract€or€any€other€legal€relationship€running€directly€between€theÐ D”  Ðplaintiff€and€the€defendants.€€Accordingly,€no€individual€action€would€lie.€€€€Ð ` Ðà Ø àIf€anything,€the€dicta€in€the€case€lends€support€to€Ahanððs€argument.€€The€òòDanielewiczóóÐ Ü, Ðcourt€noted€that€the€plaintiff€attempted€to€distinguish€òòWalleróó€by€alleging€that€she€had€sufferedÐ ¨ø Ðan€individual€harm,€the€dilution€of€a€controlling€interest€in€the€company.€€The€court€observedÐ tÄ Ðthat€the€plaintiff€in€òòWalleróó€suffered€a€similar€harm.€€That€fact,€however,€did€not€entitle€WallerÐ @ Ðto€bring€a€separate€claim€against€the€director.€€Therefore,€even€assuming€Ms.€Danielewicz€hadÐ  \ Ða€present€possessory€interest€in€the€stock,€and€she€suffered€an€injury€distinct€from€thatÐ Ø( Ðsuffered€by€other€shareholders,€the€òòDanielewicz€óócourt€opines€she€nevertheless€could€notÐ ¤ô Ðmaintain€an€independent€cause€of€action.€€They€focus€on€the€nature€of€the€duty.€€Not€theÐ p!À  Ðinjury.€€Ð <#Œ" Ðà Ø àFinally,€Modanlo€argues€that€in€deciding€whether€to€grant€the€motion€to€reconsider,Ð %X $ Ðthe€Court€should€be€guided€by€the€recent€opinion€issued€by€Judge€Platt€in€Michael€H.€AhanÐ Ô&$"& Ðand€Protolex€LLC€vs.€George€Grammas€and€Gardner,€Carten€&€Douglas€(hereinafter€GCD),Ð  (ð#( Ðin€the€Circuit€Court€for€Prince€Georges€County,€Maryland,€CAL€02„09937.€€There,€AhanÐ l*¼%* Ðalleged€that€Mr.€Grammas,€a€principal€in€GCD,€acting€as€corporate€counsel,€aided,€assistedÐ 8,ˆ', Ðand€encouraged€Mr.€Modanlo€in€his€efforts€to€wrongfully€deprive€Ahan€of€his€interest€in€FAIÐ ° Ðand€FACS.€€The€acts€which€give€rise€to€the€claims€against€Modanlo€in€the€instant€case.€€AhanÐ |Ì Ðmaintained€that€because€FAI€was€a€closely€held€corporation,€Grammas€owed€a€duty€directlyÐ H˜ Ðto€him,€as€one€of€two€equal€stockholders.€€He€also€claimed€that,€for€the€same€reason,€he€was€aÐ  d Ðthird€party€beneficiary€of€the€retainer€agreement€between€the€corporation€and€Grammas/GCD.Ð à 0 Ðà Ø àAt€trial,€the€jury€found€Mr.€Grammas€and€GCD€liable€and€awarded€Ahan€$17.2Ð ¬ ü  ÐMillion€Dollars€in€damages.€€On€Motion€for€JNOV,€the€court€set€aside€the€verdict€on€allÐ xÈ  Ðcounts€for€a€multitude€of€reasons.€€Most€are€not€directly€relevant€to€the€issue€discussed€herein.€Ð D”  ÐHowever,€among€the€questions€addressed€by€Judge€Platt€is€the€same€issue€now€before€thisÐ ` ÐCourt,€whether€Ahan,€a€stockholder,€had€standing€to€bring€any€action€for€an€injury€to€theÐ Ü, Ðcorporation.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÓ XÓJudge€Platt€held€Ahan€did€not€have€standing.€€He€concluded€that€the€plaintiff€hadÐ tÄ Ðfailed€to€allege€or€prove€the€existence€of€a€duty€that€flowed€òòdirectlyóó€from€the€defendants€toÐ @ Ðhim.€€More€specifically,€the€court€opined€that€even€in€a€closely€held€corporation€with€only€twoÐ  \ Ðshareholders,€corporate€counsel€owes€a€duty€only€to€the€corporation€and€not€to€the€individualÐ Ø( Ðshareholders.€€Further,€the€court€found€that€Ahan€was€not€the€third€party€beneficiary€of€theÐ ¤ô Ðretainer€agreement€between€the€corporation€and€Grammas/GCD.€€ð ðð8ðThis€court€concludesÐ p!À  Ðthat,€as€a€matter€of€law,€the€plaintiff€had€no€fiduciary€relationship€with€the€defendants,Ð <#Œ" ÐGrammas€and€Gardner,€Carten€&€Douglas,€arising€from€either€contract€or€any€sourceÐ %X $ Ðò òindependent€ó óof€the€duty€owed€to€all€stockholders€of€FAI€and€FACS.ðð€€Opinion,€at€p.€10,€11.€€Ð Ô&$"& ÐHere,€unlike€the€Prince€Georgeððs€County€case,€Ahan€established€that€a€contractualÐ  (ð#( Ðrelationship€existed€between€himself€and€Modanlo.€€In€addition,€this€Court€has€previouslyÐ l*¼%* Ðruled€for€reasons€set€out€elsewhere€in€the€record€that€Modanlo€owed€Ahan€an€òòindependentóóÐ 8,ˆ', Ðfiduciary€duty.€€This€duty€is€separate€and€apart€from€that€which€Modanlo€owed€to€theÐ ° Ðcompany.€€Ð |Ì ÐÓ XÓà Ø àFor€the€reasons€aforegoing,€the€Court€holds€that€Ahan€has€standing€to€bring€the€claimsÐ H˜ Ðfiled€herein€for€breach€of€contract€and€breach€of€fiduciary€duty.€€Ð  d ÐÓ XÓOn€a€final€and€unrelated€matter,€Modanlo€appeals€to€the€Court€as€the€ð ðFinal€Arbiter€ofÐ à 0 ÐJusticeðð€(Motion€to€Reconsider,€p.€4)€to€right€the€wrong€represented€by€this€verdict,€to€set€itÐ ¬ ü  Ðaside€or€at€least€remit€it.€€How€can€justice€permit€Ahan€to€recover€so€much,€when€theÐ xÈ  Ðcompaniesðð€creditors€and€remaining€shareholder€have€recovered€so€little.€€Justice,€like€beauty,Ð D”  Ðis€in€the€eye€of€the€beholder.€€If€Ahan€and€his€witnesses€be€believed,€including€his€experts,Ð ` Ðthen€the€verdict€is€not€unjust.€€If€Modanlo€and€his€witnesses€be€believed,€the€opposite€result€isÐ Ü, Ðreached.€€That€decision€was€quickly€reached€by€the€jury€herein,€and€the€Court€finds€no€reasonÐ ¨ø Ðto€set€it€aside.€€Ð tÄ ÐInsofar€as€Ahan€being€rewarded€unfairly€at€the€expense€of€the€other€shareholders€andÐ @ Ðcreditors,€the€Court€observes€that€the€trustee€in€bankruptcy€could€have€pursued€a€claim€similarÐ  \ Ðto€Ahanððs,€if€she€deemed€it€advisable.€€Instead,€she€determined€to€release€all€claims€FAI€mightÐ Ø( Ðhave€against€Modanlo€for€$250,000.€€Ahan€has€spent€months€and€hundreds€of€thousands€ofÐ ¤ô Ðdollars€in€attorneyððs€fees€to€obtain€a€verdict/judgment€against€Modanlo.€€No€doubt€he€facesÐ p!À  Ðmonths€and€perhaps€even€years€of€additional€litigation,€as€well€as€additional€tens€of€thousandsÐ <#Œ" Ðof€dollars€in€fees€to€seek€to€have€the€judgment€upheld.€€Even€if€Ahan€is€successful€in€thatÐ %X $ Ðendeavor,€if€Modanlo€can€be€believedÝ‚ÿÿÿÝòòÝ  Ý׃×Ý ƒ ÿÿÝò…òÚ  Ú2Ú  Úó…óÝ  Ý×  ×Ý‚ÿÿÿ?Œ€offÝóóÝ  Ý,€the€judgment€is€next€to€worthless.€€Modanlo€has€noÐ Ô&$"& Ðmoney€or€assets€with€which€to€satisfy€the€judgment.€€He€is€penniless.€€Time€may€prove€thatÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€trustee€pursued€the€wiser€course€of€action€in€accepting€the€$250,000.€€Ahan€may€be€leftÐ l*¼%* Ðwith€only€the€satisfaction€of€knowing€a€jury€believed€him.€€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐFor€the€reasons€set€forth€herein,€as€well€as€all€those€set€forth€in€the€Opposition€to€theÐ ° ÐMotion€for€Judgment€Notwithstanding€Verdict€and€presented€in€open€court€on€December€21,Ð |Ì Ð2004,€it€is€this€_______€day€of€January,€2005,€by€the€Circuit€Court€for€Montgomery€County,Ð H˜ ÐMaryland,Ð  d ÐORDERED,€that€the€Motion€for€Reconsideration€shall€be€and€hereby€is€denied.Ð à 0 ÐÓ XÓÌÓÓÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à____________________________________Ð ^®  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àMICHAEL€D.€MASON,€JUDGEÐ D”  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àCircuit€Court€for€Montgomery€County,€MD.Ð *z  Ð