Motion-Secondary: Yasemin Tekiner in her individual capacity, as a beneficiary and a Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust and derivatively as a holder of equitable interests in a shareholder or a member of the Company Defendants v. Bremen House Inc., German News Company, Inc., Berrin Tekiner, Gonca Tekiner, Billur Akipek in her capacity as a Trustee of the Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust, Zeynep Tekiner (Intervenor Plaintiff)

On December 21, 2020 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Yasemin Tekiner, Yasemin Tekiner In Her Individual Capacity, As A Beneficiary And A Trustee Of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust And Derivatively As A Holder Of Equitable Interests In A Shareholder Or A Member Of The Company Defendants, and 254-258 W. 35Th St. Llc, Berrin Tekiner, Billur Akipek In Her Capacity As A Trustee Of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust, Bremen House Inc., Bremen House Texas, Inc., German News Company, Inc., German News Texas, Inc., Gonca Tekiner, Zeynep Tekiner, for Commercial Division in the District Court of New York County.

Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2022 11:12 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 661 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2022

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK

YASEMIN TEKINER, Index No. 657193/2020

in her individual capacity, as a beneficiary and a Commercial Division Part 3
Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011
Descendants Trust and derivatively as a holder Hon. Joel M. Cohen
of equitable interests in a shareholder or a
member of the Company Defendants Mot. Seq. No. 33

Plaintiff,

-against-

BREMEN HOUSE INC., BREMEN HOUSE
TEXAS, INC., GERMAN NEWS COMPANY,
INC., GERMAN NEWS TEXAS, INC., 254-
258 W. 35TH ST. LLC, BERRIN TEKINER,
GONCA TEKINER, and BILLUR AKIPEK, in
her capacity as a Trustee of The Yasemin
Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust,

Defendants.

ZEYNEP TEKINER,

in her individual capacity, as a beneficiary and a
Trustee of The Zeynep Tekiner 2011 Descendants
Trust and derivatively as a holder of equitable
interests in a shareholder or a member of the
Company Defendants

Intervenor-Plaintiff,

-against-

Defendants.

1 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2022 11:12 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 661 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2022

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
COUNT TWELVE OF THE VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

PRYOR CASHMAN LLP
Todd E. Soloway
Meghan E. Hill
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
(212) 421-4100
Attorneys for Defendants

2 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2022 11:12 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 661 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND......................................................................2

I. PREVIOUS COMPLAINTS AND THE MOTION TO DISMISS ........................................2

II. THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ..........................................................................3

ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................4

I. LEGAL STANDARD .............................................................................................................4

II. YASEMIN CANNOT STATE A CLAIM FOR AIDING AND ABETTING A BREACH
OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST ANY OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS .........5

A. YASEMIN CANNOT STATE A CLAIM AGAINST BERRIN AND BILLUR FOR
AIDING AND ABETTING A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, BECAUSE BERRIN
AND BILLUR THEMSELVES ARE FIDUCIARIES ....................................................5

B. COUNT TWELVE SHOULD ALSO BE DISMISSED AS AGAINST GONCA, AS
YASEMIN DOES NOT AND CANNOT ALLEGE THE REQUISITE
SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE OR ENCOURAGEMENT ..........................................6

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................9

3 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2022 11:12 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 661 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2022

Defendants Bremen House Inc. (“Bremen House”), German News Company, Inc.

(“German News”), (collectively, the “Company Defendants”), Berrin Tekiner (“Berrin”), Gonca

Chelsea (“Gonca”), and Billur Akipek (“Billur”) (the “Individual Defendants,” and, together with

the Company Defendants, the “Defendants”) respectfully submit this Memorandum of Law

pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and 3211(a)(7) in support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count

Twelve of Plaintiff Yasemin Tekiner’s (“Plaintiff” or “Yasemin”) Verified Second Amended

Complaint.1

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiff Yasemin Tekiner (“Plaintiff” or “Yasemin”) continues to search for tort liability

where none exists. This Court previously dismissed Yasemin’s claim for tortious interference with

the Yasemin Trust asserted against the Individual Defendants (Dkt. No. 140) because Berrin and

Billur, as “parties to the agreement,” cannot interfere with it, and because there were insufficient

factual allegations to allege a claim that Gonca “was causing people [Berrin and Billur] who are

much more closely involved [with the Yasemin Trust] to breach [it].” Dkt. No. 151, 53:14-17.

By her Second Amended Complaint, Yasemin seeks a second bite at the apple, asserting a

claim against the Individual Defendants for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty based

upon the exact same factual allegations that underlaid her tortious interference claim. But this

attempted reframing fares no better, and Yasemin’s Twelfth Cause of Action for aiding and

abetting breach of fiduciary – like her tortious interference claim – fails as a matter of law and

should be dismissed.

Initially, Berrin and Billur cannot be liable for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary

duty in connection with the Yasemin Trust, because they owe fiduciary duties to the trust. Under

1
A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Verified Second Amended Complaint is attached as Exhibit A to the
supporting Affirmation of Meghan E. Hill dated April 5, 2022 (“Hill Aff.”).

4 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2022 11:12 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 661 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2022

black letter Delaware law – which controls here – only nonfiduciaries may be liable for aiding and

abetting fiduciary breaches.

Yasemin also fails to state a claim for aiding and abetting against Gonca. While Plaintiff

baldly concludes that the Individual Defendants including Gonca “assisted in the planning” of

Berrin and Billur’s breaches and “coordinated with relevant decisionmaker(s) to effect them” (Hill

Aff. Ex. A, ¶ 163), there are no facts alleged to support an assertion that Gonca “materially

supported or encouraged” the fiduciary breach, as is required by Delaware law. As with her now-

dismissed tortious interference claim, Yasemin’s aiding and abetting claim fails to sufficiently

allege that Gonca materially supported Berrin and Billur’s alleged fiduciary breaches.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

I. Previous Complaints and the Motion to Dismiss

Yasemin commenced this action by Summons and Verified Complaint filed on January 3,

2021. Dkt. No. 2. On January 25, 2021, Yasemin filed her Verified First Amended Complaint

(the “Amended Complaint”). Dkt. No. 86. The Amended Complaint asserts eleven causes of

action, pled against various combinations of: Yasemin’s mother, Berrin Tekiner, Yasemin’s sister

Gonca Chelsea, close friend of their family, Billur Akipek, and entity defendants Bremen House,

Bremen House Texas, Inc., German News, German News Texas, Inc., and 254-258 W. 35th St.

LLC.

On February 26, 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint (the “Motion

to Dismiss”). Dkt. No. 92. After argument, the Court granted Defendants’ motion in part,

dismissing all claims as asserted against Bremen House Texas, Inc., German News Texas, Inc.,

and 254-258 W. 35th St. LLC. Dkt. 140. The Court also dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for unjust

5 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2022 11:12 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 661 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2022

enrichment, violation of the California Labor Code, and tortious interference asserted against the

Individual Defendants. Id.

Plaintiff’s now-dismissed tortious interference claim was premised on an allegation that

the Individual Defendants “interfered” with the Yasemin Trust (the “Trust Agreement”) to which

Berrin and Billur are parties. The Court dismissed this claim as against Berrin and Billur because

“parties to the agreement” cannot interfere with it. Dkt. No. 151, at 53:6. The Court also dismissed

the tortious interference claim as against Gonca because it failed to state a claim that Gonca “was

causing people who are much more closely involved [with the Yasemin Trust] to breach [it].” Id.

53:12-17.

II. The Second Amended Complaint

On June 22, 2022, Yasemin filed her Verified Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Hill

Aff. Ex. A. The factual allegations in the SAC are identical to the factual allegations in the

Amended Complaint. See Hill Aff. Ex. B, ¶¶ 18-93. The only substantive change is the addition

of Plaintiff’s Twelfth Cause of Action (“Count Twelve”) for aiding and abetting a breach of

fiduciary duty, alleged against each of the Individual Defendants – Berrin, who is alleged to be a

fiduciary of the Yasemin Trust; Billur, who is alleged to be a fiduciary of the Yasemin Trust; and

Gonca, who holds no role in connection with the Yasemin Trust.

Count Twelve principally alleges that: (i) Berrin owed Yasemin a fiduciary duty as “sole

member of the Yasemin Trust Protector Committee,” Hill Aff. Ex. A, ¶ 161; (ii) Billur owed

Yasemin a fiduciary duty as “a Trustee [member of the Trust Committee] of the Yasemin Trust,”

Id. ¶ 162; and (iii) each of “[t]he Individual Defendants aided and abetted Berrin and [Billur’s]

breaches of fiduciary duty.” Id. ¶ 163.

6 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2022 11:12 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 661 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2022

“In 2011, Berrin formed the Yasemin Trust under Delaware law.” Id. ¶ 22. Under the

formation document for the Yasemin Trust (the “Trust Agreement”), Berrin is the sole member of

the Trust’s Protector Committee (Trust Agreement at § 6(A)(3)), and Billur and Yasemin are

identified as the “initial members of the Trust Committee.” Hill Aff. Ex. C § 6(A)(3); 1. Under

the Trust Agreement, the Yasemin Trust is located in Delaware, and Delaware law governs the

Trust Agreement itself and the Yasemin Trust:

THIRTIETH: Governing Law
This instrument and each trust created by this instrument shall be construed and
governed in all respects by and in accordance with the law of the State of Delaware
and each trust created under this instrument hall have its situs and be administered
in the State of Delaware. Id. §30.

ARGUMENT

I. LEGAL STANDARD

In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7), the Court must

“accept the facts as alleged to be true and determine whether the Plaintiff's facts fit within any

cognizable legal theory.” Keitel v. E*Trade Fin. Corp., No. 652220/2015, 2017 WL 1426809, at

*2 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 17, 2017) (citation omitted). However, “the favorable treatment

accorded to a plaintiff's complaint is not limitless and, as such, conclusory allegations – claims

consisting of bare legal conclusions with no factual specificity – are insufficient to survive a

motion to dismiss.” Cagino v. Levine, 199 A.D.3d 1103, 1104 (2021) (citations omitted). Claims

must also be dismissed when “documentary evidence and undisputed facts negate or dispose of

the claims in the complaint or conclusively establish a defense . . . .” Silvester v. Time Warner,

Inc., 1 Misc. 3d 250, 255 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty. 2003), aff’d, 14 A.D.3d 430 (1st Dep’t 2005)

(citations omitted).

7 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2022 11:12 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 661 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2022

Delaware substantive law governs Plaintiff’s claim for aiding and abetting alleged breaches

of fiduciary duties owed by Berrin and Billur under the Trust Agreement. Courts applying New

York law routinely recognize that the law of the state in which an entity was formed governs

related claims for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. See Davis v. Scottish Re Grp.

Ltd., 46 Misc. 3d 1206(A), 9 N.Y.S.3d 592 (N.Y. Sup. 2014), rev’d on other grounds by,

30 N.Y.3d 247 (2017), aff’d, 160 A.D.3d 114 (1st Dep’t 2018); Allied Irish Banks, P.L.C. v. Bank

of Am., N.A., No. 03 CIV. 3748 (DAB), 2006 WL 278138, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2006).

Delaware law also applies to Count Twelve based on a traditional choice-of-law interests analysis

applicable to tort claims, because Delaware has the greatest interest in the alleged conduct, as

reflected by the parties’ choice to designate Delaware as the governing law for the Yasemin Trust.

In re Optimal U.S. Litig., 813 F. Supp. 2d 351, 375 (S.D.N.Y.), on reconsideration in part, 813 F.

Supp. 2d 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); Hill Aff. Ex. C § 30.

II. YASEMIN CANNOT STATE A CLAIM FOR AIDING AND ABETTING A
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST ANY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANTS

Under Delaware law, a cause of action for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty

requires: “(1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship, (2) a breach of the fiduciary's duty and (3)

knowing participation in that breach by the non-fiduciary.” Lockton v. Rogers, No. 2021-0058-

SG, 2022 Del. Ch. LEXIS 47, at *41 (Del. Ch. Mar. 1, 2022). The SAC fails to sufficiently allege

these elements against any of the three Individual Defendants, and therefore Count Twelve should

be dismissed in its entirety.

8 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2022 11:12 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 661 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2022

A. Yasemin Cannot State a Claim Against Berrin and Billur
For Aiding and Abetting a Breach of Fiduciary Duty,
Because Berrin and Billur Themselves Are Fiduciaries__

Under Delaware law, it is well-settled that a claim for aiding and abetting a breach of

fiduciary duty “may only be alleged against nonfiduciaries.” Giuliano v. Gawrylewski, 112

A.D.3d 477, 479 (1st Dep’t 2014) (applying Delaware law and holding that “there also is no viable

aiding and abetting claim against the defendant wives, as they are fiduciaries and such a claim may

only be alleged against nonfidiciaries”). The principle underlying this rule is that “[i]f a defendant

has acted in a fiduciary capacity, then that defendant is liable as a fiduciary and not for aiding and

abetting.” Quadrant Structured Prod. Co., Ltd. v. Vertin, 102 A.3d 155, 204 (Del. Ch. 2014)

(allowing aiding and abetting claim to survive where, unlike here, the defendant “has not been

sued for breach of fiduciary duty”).

Plaintiff alleges in Count Twelve itself that Berrin and Billur are fiduciaries of the Yasemin

Trust. Hill Aff. Ex. A, ¶ 164. Yasemin even asserts direct claims for breach of fiduciary duty

against both Berrin and Billur. E.g., id. ¶¶ 99-102. Accordingly, under Delaware law, Berrin and

Billur’s potential liability is as fiduciaries and not as an aider and abettor. Firefighters’ Pension

Sys. of City of Kansas City, Missouri Tr. v. Presidio, Inc., 251 A.3d 212, 233 (Del. Ch. 2021)

(holding that the court may only “analyze[] [defendant’s] potential liability as a fiduciary rather

than as an aider and abettor” when the defendant “owed fiduciary duties”). Count Twelve should

be dismissed as against Berrin and Billur.

B. Count Twelve Should Also Be Dismissed Against Gonca, As Yasemin Does Not
and Cannot Allege the Requisite Substantial Assistance or Encouragement___

The SAC also fails to state a claim against Gonca, as Yasemin does not (and cannot)

adequately allege that Gonca substantially assisted and knowingly participated in any of Billur or

Berrin’s alleged fiduciary breaches.

9 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2022 11:12 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 661 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2022

Under Delaware law, “[b]ecause the involvement of secondary actors in tortious conduct

can take a variety of forms that can differ vastly in their magnitude, effect, and consequential

culpability, the element of knowing participation requires that the secondary actor have provided

substantial assistance to the primary violator.” In re Oracle Corp. Derivative Litig., No. CV 2017-

0337-SG, 2020 WL 3410745, at *11 (Del. Ch. June 22, 2020) (quoting In re Dole Food Co., Inc.

S’holder Litig., No.8703-VCL, No.9079-VCL, 2015 WL 5052214, at *41 (Del. Ch. Aug. 27,

2015)). To sustain a claim for aiding and abetting a fiduciary breach under Delaware law, a party

must sufficiently allege that the defendant “materially supported or encouraged” the fiduciary

breach. NuVasive, Inc. v. Miles, No. CV 2017-0720-SG, 2020 WL 5106554, at *14 (Del. Ch.

Aug. 31, 2020).

The SAC alleges no such underlying facts, as none exist. While Plaintiff baldly concludes

that the Individual Defendants “assisted in the planning” of Berrin and Billur’s breaches and

“coordinated with relevant decisionmaker(s) to effect them” (Hill Aff. Ex. A, ¶ 163), there are no

facts alleged to support these conclusory assertions. In fact, the factual allegations in the SAC

contradict these bald assertions.

For example, Plaintiff alleges that Berrin, acting as the sole member of the Protector

Committee, engaged in “multiple actions” that constitute a breach of her fiduciary duties, including

removing Yasemin as a Trustee. Id. ¶ 100. But there is no factual allegation that Berrin discussed

any of her alleged breaching “actions” as member of the Protector Committee with Gonca; to the

contrary, Plaintiff alleges instead that Berrin signed the document removing Yasemin from her

trust “in secret.” Id. ¶ 83.

Similarly, as to Billur, the SAC repeatedly alleges that Billur is “beholden” to or

“controlled” by Berrin – not Gonca. See, e.g., Hill Aff. Ex. A, ¶ 101 (alleging that Billur “has

10 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2022 11:12 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 661 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2022

allowed her actions as a Trustee to be controlled by the self-interested directions of Berrin, who

exercises control over” Billur). There are no (and could be no) allegations that Gonca “controls”

Billur, or that Gonca in any other way materially supported or encouraged Billur’s alleged

fiduciary breaches, as is required to state a claim for aiding and abetting a fiduciary breach under

Delaware law.

Plaintiff also makes no serious effort to sufficiently allege that Gonca “participated in . . .

decisions made regarding Plaintiff and the Trust.” Id. ¶ 164. The Trust Committee has “sole and

absolute discretion” over distributions (see Hill Aff. Ex. C § 2(B)), and the SAC does not allege

when or how executives of the Company Defendants such as Gonca are involved in administration

of the Yasemin Trust. While Yasemin alleges that Billur abused her discretion as member of

Yasemin’s Trust Committee because the Yasemin Trust has not made any distributions, there is

no (and could be no) allegation that Gonca had anything to do with Billur’s exercise of her

discretion pursuant to the Trust Agreement. See id. ¶¶ 22-38.

If Plaintiff is (inartfully) claiming that Gonca, by casting her own vote as an officer and

director of the Company Defendants, somehow aided and abetted Billur’s vote to remove Yasemin

as officer and director of certain of the Company Defendants, that also fails. By voting, Gonca

was simply exercising her duty as an officer, not “materially supporting” any alleged breach by

Billur of her fiduciary obligations arising out of Billur’s own vote. There is no allegation (and

could be none) that Gonca provided substantial assistance or encouragement to Billur in casting

her vote.

Similarly, Plaintiff’s allegation that the Individual Defendants “coordinated their response”

to Yasemin’s December 10, 2020 demand is insufficient to state a claim for aiding and abetting.

Id. ¶ 164(c). Even accepting as true that Gonca was aware of Billur and Berrin’s alleged conduct,

11 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2022 11:12 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 661 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2022

under Delaware law “[m]ere awareness” of a tort “is insufficient to rise to the level of actionable

substantial assistance” to support an aiding and abetting claim. Riverside Fund V, L.P. v.

Shyamsundar, No. N14C1-0038 EMD CCLD, 2015 WL 5004924, at *5 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 17,

2015). Yasemin does not and cannot allege that Gonca substantially assisted either Billur or Berrin

in connection with their alleged conduct in response to Yasemin’s request that Billur authorize a

shareholder derivative action.

Last, Plaintiff alleges for the first time in Count Twelve that Gonca “advocated” for

Yasemin to be removed from her roles with the Yasemin Trust and with the Company Defendants.

SAC ¶ 164(b). But Plaintiff’s only factual allegation to support this claim is related to Yasemin’s

removal as a trustee of the Yasemin Trust in 2017, not the 2020 removals alleged in the SAC to

constitute breaches of fiduciary duties. Hill Aff. Ex. A, ¶¶ 2-4, 35-36. Since Plaintiff fails to make

any specific allegations about Gonca’s involvement in the 2020 removals underlying Plaintiff’s

fiduciary duty claims, this allegation too is insufficient to state a claim against Gonca for aiding

and abetting.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that this motion be granted in

its entirety.

Dated: New York, New York
August 5, 2022
PRYOR CASHMAN LLP

By: __________________________
Todd E. Soloway
Meghan E. Hill
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
(212) 421-4100
Attorneys for Defendants

12 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2022 11:12 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 661 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2022

Certification Required by Rule 17 of the
Rules of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court

I am the attorney who is filing this document. I hereby certify that this document, exclusive

of the caption, table of contents, table of authorities, and signature block contains 2,594 words as

counted by the word-processing system used to prepare the document.

/s/ Meghan E. Hill
Meghan E. Hill

13 of 13

Case Info

Judge

Joel M. Cohen Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

August 05, 2022

Case Filing Date

December 21, 2020

County

Parties

254-258 W. 35th St. LLC Defendant
Berrin Tekiner Defendant
Billur Akipek in her capacity as a Trustee of the Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust Defendant
Bremen House Inc. Defendant
Bremen House Texas, Inc. Defendant
CONKLIN, DONALD DAVID Attorney for the Plaintiff
DE SANTIS, JOSEPH VINCENT Attorney
Foley Hoag LLP Non Party
German News Company, Inc. Defendant
German News Texas, Inc. Defendant
GOLDBERG, ERIC A Attorney
GOLDBERG, ERIC ADAM Attorney for the Defendant
Gonca Tekiner Defendant
HARWOOD, ANTHONY J Attorney for the Plaintiff
HILL, MEGHAN ELIZABETH Attorney for the Defendant
IBRAHIM, SANJAY P Attorney for the Plaintiff
KAHN, MICHELE E. Attorney
KAHN, MICHELE E. Attorney for the Defendant
KEATING, LAWRENCE POLK Attorney for the Defendant
MANDEL, EVAN MORGEN Attorney for the Plaintiff
MANDELSBERG, STEVEN J. Attorney
Michele Kahn ESQ. Attorney for Proposed Intervenor-Plaintiff Non Party
MILLER, MATTHEW EDWARD Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MOHLER, BRYAN T. Attorney for the Defendant
Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLP Non Party
PARKER, SCOTT WESLEY Attorney for the Plaintiff
SCHLEIFSTEIN, DANIEL AARON Attorney for the Plaintiff
SHAW, RACHEL ELIZABETH Attorney for the Defendant
SOLOWAY, TODD E Attorney for the Defendant
TILTON, CLARE PRIMIANO Attorney for the Defendant
WEISSMAN, BENJAMIN HEALEY Attorney for the Plaintiff
WEISS, ZANDER ALOYSIUS Attorney for the Defendant
Yasemin Tekiner Plaintiff
Yasemin Tekiner in her individual capacity, as a beneficiary and a Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust and derivatively as a holder of equitable interests in a shareholder or a member of the Company Defendants Plaintiff
YOUNGER, STEPHEN PETERS Attorney for the Plaintiff
Zeynep Tekiner (Intervenor Plaintiff) Defendant
JUDITH ARCHER Attorneys for Defendants
Philip Michaels Attorney
MATTHEW KASINDORF Attorney
Steven Young Attorney
GARY TANNENBAUM Attorney
VICTORIA CORDER Attorneys for Defendants
SEAN TOPPING Attorney
MARGARET O'NEAL Attorney
ESTHER YU Attorney
Victoria Corder Attorney
JAY SIMENS Attorney
SETH MOTT Attorney
JEFFREY GOLDMAN Attorney
BETH KAUFMAN Attorney
JEREMY KAYE Attorney
PHILIP JAWORSKYJ Attorney
TIFFANY KO Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JANET DORE Attorney
DAVID SCHWARTZ Attorneys for Defendants
LISA SCHAPIRA Attorneys for Defendants
STEPHEN PAZAN Attorney
JOHN MCDONOUGH Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ROBERT HANEY Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MICHAEL KALAN Attorney
MITCHELL KAHN Attorneys for Defendants
GARY FREIDMAN Attorneys for Plaintiffs
PHILIP MICHAELS Attorney
DAVID EISENBERG Attorney
HERBERT WEISSMAN Attorney
ANTHONY CARUSO Attorneys for Defendants
WILLIAM PARKER Attorney
DANIEL HOWARD Attorney
MARTIN MURPHY Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Matt Hanley Attorney
BENJAMIN WEISMAN Attorneys for Plaintiffs

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties