Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2023 11:39 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1320 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2023
EXHIBIT G
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2023 11:39 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1320 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2023
From: Scott Parker
Sent: Saturday, September 3, 2022 5:35 PM
To: Hill, Meghan E.
Cc: Sanjay Ibrahim; Mohler, Bryan T.; Younger, Stephen P.; Michele Kahn
Subject: RE: Tekiner v. Bremen House Inc. [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID449713]
Attachments: Tekiner - 9.3.22 ltr to M. Hill.pdf
**EXTERNAL**
Meghan, please see attached. We are available to meet and confer on all of these topics, plus the Santander subpoena,
on Tuesday until 2 pm.
Regards,
Scott
Scott Parker
NJ Office: 270 Davidson Avenue, Somerset, NJ 08873
NY Office: 5 Penn Plaza, Suite 2371, New York, NY 10001
Direct: +1 908.333.6220 | Main: +1 212.596.7037
www.piblaw.com
Confidentiality:
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, contact the sender via reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
From: Hill, Meghan E.
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 3:18 PM
To: Scott Parker
Cc: Sanjay Ibrahim ; Mohler, Bryan T. ; Younger,
Stephen P.
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Tekiner v. Bremen House Inc. [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID449713]
Scott – See attached correspondence in response to your August 24, 2022 email. Defendants’ next production of
documents will be transmitted under separate cover.
Please confirm by no later than 9:00 am tomorrow that the return date of the Santander Bank subpoena will be
extended to September 15, 2022 in order for the parties to meet and confer regarding the scope of the documents
requested.
Meghan
1
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2023 11:39 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1320 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2023
_______________________________________
MEGHAN E. HILL
PRYOR CASHMAN LLP
7 Times Square, New York, NY 10036-6569
mhill@pryorcashman.com
Direct Tel: 212-326-0808 (also reachable remotely at this number)
www.pryorcashman.com
A member of Interlaw, an International Association of Independent Law Firms
From: Scott Parker
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 10:26 AM
To: Hill, Meghan E.
Cc: Sanjay Ibrahim ; Mohler, Bryan T. ; Younger,
Stephen P.
Subject: RE: Tekiner v. Bremen House Inc. [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID449713]
Meghan, we would be happy to meet and confer about the scope of the Santander subpoena. But we also must address
the multiple other topics that we have written to you about that you continue to ignore (see attached).
For example – when is the Special Meeting going to be held? Back on July 22 (i.e., five weeks ago), you agreed that it
would be held during the week of August 29, and you expressed a preference for the meeting to be held early that
week, to which we agreed. It is now August 30th, yet you have still not even confirmed the date of the meeting, let alone
scheduled it.
Regards,
Scott
Scott Parker
NJ Office: 270 Davidson Avenue, Somerset, NJ 08873
NY Office: 5 Penn Plaza, Suite 2371, New York, NY 10001
Direct: +1 908.333.6220 | Main: +1 212.596.7037
www.piblaw.com
Confidentiality:
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, contact the sender via reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
From: Hill, Meghan E.
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 9:36 PM
To: Scott Parker
Cc: Sanjay Ibrahim ; Mohler, Bryan T.
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Tekiner v. Bremen House Inc.
Scott –
2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2023 11:39 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1320 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2023
I left you a voicemail earlier this evening. We would like to meet and confer about the scope of the Santander subpoena.
Please give me a call to discuss.
Thanks,
Meghan
_______________________________________
MEGHAN E. HILL
PRYOR CASHMAN LLP
7 Times Square, New York, NY 10036-6569
mhill@pryorcashman.com
Direct Tel: 212-326-0808 (also reachable remotely at this number)
www.pryorcashman.com
A member of Interlaw, an International Association of Independent Law Firms
***CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE***
This email contains confidential information which may also be legally privileged and which is intended only for the use
of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that forwarding or
copying of this email, or the taking of any action in reliance on its contents, may be strictly prohibited. If you have
received this email in error, please notify us immediately by reply email and delete this message from your inbox.
***CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE***
This email contains confidential information which may also be legally privileged and which is intended only for the use
of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that forwarding or
copying of this email, or the taking of any action in reliance on its contents, may be strictly prohibited. If you have
received this email in error, please notify us immediately by reply email and delete this message from your inbox.
3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2023 11:39 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1320 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2023
Writer’s Direct Contact:
908.333.6220 (Tel.)
PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP 212.596.7036 (Fax)
scott.parker@piblaw.com
www.piblaw.com
September 3, 2022
VIA E-MAIL
Meghan E. Hill
Pryor Cashman LLP
7 Times Square
New York, New York 10036-6569
Re: Yasemin Tekiner, et al. v. Bremen House Inc., et al.
Index No.: 657193/2020
Dear Meghan:
I write in response to your letter of August 31.
Special Meeting: You have now breached your July 22nd agreement to hold that meeting
during the week of August 29. Further, your clients continue to be in breach of Section 3.11(a) of
the By-Laws, which requires a Special Meeting to be held upon the demand of two directors.
Below is a history summarizing your and your clients’ ongoing refusal to schedule the Special
Meeting, which was first requested three and a half months ago:
May 19, 2022: Yasemin and Zeynep wrote to your clients, requesting “the earliest date
possible” for a Special Meeting of the Board for the purpose of discussing:
(1) the current financial status of Bremen House; (2) any material financial or business
changes experienced by Bremen House since December 1, 2020; and (3) any efforts
concerning recent, pending, and anticipated purchases, sales, leasing, and marketing of
properties owned or managed by Bremen House. Further, Yasemin and Zeynep
requested access to nine different categories of books and records.
May 26, 2022: Defendants (through Norton Rose) refused to comply with a single
request in Yasemin’s May 19th letter, and instead asserted: (1) Yasemin’s May 19th
letter was “inappropriate given the lawsuit”; (2) Yasemin was prohibited from
communicating directly with the Individual Defendants except through counsel; and
(3) Yasemin was prohibited from seeking any “corporate information from
[Defendants] outside the context of discovery” in this litigation.
May 27, 2022: Yasemin asked your clients to reconsider their positions. Your clients,
however, refused to do so.
July 1, 2022: Justice Cohen advised the parties that Yasemin has the right to review
the Company’s books and records and go to the office outside the scope of discovery
in this litigation.
New York Office: 5 Penn Plaza, Suite 2371 – New York, New York 10001 – 212.596.7037
New Jersey Office: 270 Davidson Avenue – Somerset, New Jersey 08873 – 908.725.9700
BOSTON – NEW JERSEY – NEW YORK – ORANGE COUNTY – PHILADELPHIA
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2023 11:39 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1320 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2023
July 1, 2022: Yasemin and Zeynep wrote to your clients again, reiterating their request
for a Special Meeting and for books and records.
July 21, 2022: We wrote to you, memorializing our agreement to adjourn the return
date on Yasemin’s motion for contempt, in exchange for your agreement that, among
other things, “[y]our clients will hold the Special Meeting requested in Yasemin’s May
19th and July 1st letters during the week of August 29, 2022” (emphasis added). At
your request, we also agreed to provide you with a list of questions for the meeting in
advance. We also asked you to “kindly confirm the exact date of the Special Meeting
as soon as you’re able” – which you never did.
August 17, 2022: During a call with you, we noted that, despite our repeated requests,
you had still not confirmed the date of the Special Meeting. In response, you told us
that it was your understanding that the meeting could be held on any of the first three
days of the week of August 29th.
August 22, 2022: We wrote to you, noting that you had still not confirmed the date of
the Special Meeting and had not responded to multiple requests from us in this regard.
Notwithstanding your ongoing, weeks-long lack of confirmation, we sent you the
proposed list of questions in advance of the Special Meeting.
August 24, 2022: We wrote to you again, noting that you had still not confirmed the
date of the Special Meeting.
August 31, 2022: You finally responded to us about the Special Meeting, confirming
that the meeting would not be held during the week of August 29th – despite your prior,
repeated agreement to the contrary – under the pretense that the meeting would be more
“productive” if we resubmitted our list of questions in light of (unidentified) documents
you claim that you have already produced.
Your clients’ goal is now clear: to continue improperly delaying the Special Meeting for
as long as they possibly can. We reject your baseless, nine-days-later excuse that the list of
questions that we sent you on August 22nd is somehow “unworkable” because “numerous”
questions have already been answered. Indeed, other than one example of a question that you
believe has been answered already, you fail to cite to a single document that answers any of our
client’s questions.
And even as to the sole example that you cite, your suggestion that your clients do not want
to (or need to) discuss the Company’s 2021 Profit and Loss (“P&L”) Statement at the Special
Meeting is untenable. Good corporate governance requires the review and discussion at Board
meetings, together with the company accountants, of financial documents such as P&L statements.
The fact that you produced the actual 2021 P&L Statement hardly resolves that issue. Virtually
every well-run Board meeting includes distribution of financial statement and then a discussion of
the financial results. And if you believe you have, e.g., already produced documents that show
2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2023 11:39 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1320 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2023
where the net income of $19,263,177.30 reflected in the 2021 P&L Statement has gone, please
promptly identify those documents.
Finally – and critically – you fail explain why, even if you are correct (and you are not)
that “numerous” of our client’s questions have already been answered through document
production, that justified your breaching our agreement to hold the Special Meeting during the
week of August 29th. We held up our end of the bargain by adjourning the return date of our
client’s motion for contempt; we expected you to do the same.
All this being said, for purposes of trying to resolve this issue in good faith, we will send
you a revised list of questions by September 6th, in exchange for your agreement to: (1) hold the
Special Meeting one week from the date when we send you those questions, but no later than
September 13th, and regardless of whether you believe any of those questions have already been
answered by documents; and (2) promptly identify any documents that you believe fully respond
to any of our questions on the revised list.
Books and Records: Your letter complains extensively about the amount of documents
and information requested, arguing (without any support) that the requests are “duplicative”. But
nowhere do you say that you have actually produced the documents that have been requested.
Indeed, your position appears to be that, if you believe a request is duplicative, you have no
obligation to respond to it. That is incorrect. Regardless of what is (or is not) part of discovery in
this litigation, Yasemin is an officer and director of the Company. The Court made it very clear
that Yasemin is entitled to access the Company’s books and records as an officer and director, and
that edict does not change simply because you believe similar requests may have been propounded
for purposes of litigation. Your position is also inconsistent with Billur Akipek’s representation
in her July 20, 2022 affidavit that defendants were “committed to providing Yasemin and Zeynep
access to all the books and records of the Company.” (emphasis added)
As for your footnote citation to the number of documents that you have already produced,
that is irrelevant. You cannot refuse to produce relevant, responsive documents that are properly
requested by citing to the number of documents that you have already produced. Not to mention,
while you cite to “500+ pages” of books and records that you previously produced, as you know,
only 60 of those pages were new.
Finally, we must address your incredible statement that Yasemin is requesting documents
that, among other things, were “available to her when she was a director of Bremen House, Inc.”
Are you suggesting that, if Yasemin at one point had documents or information that was available
to her before she was terminated as a director in December 2020, defendants are not obligated to
provide it? Are you suggesting that during the months before her improper termination, Jasmin
had the right to inspect those documents – the very time that your client refused to give her access
to the Company’s financial records?
3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2023 11:39 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1320 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2023
Company emails: In our July 21st agreement, you also committed to have the Company
include Jasmin on substantive emails about Company business. To date, your clients have failed
to live up to this obligation. Billur has only answered one of Jasmin’s emails, and she has failed
to respond to her request that the she be advised as to how the Company plans to use the sales
proceeds from the Tanglewylde transaction. Please advise if your clients plan to rectify their
failure to abide by this aspect of our agreement.
Depositions: Jasmin is unavailable for deposition the week of September 19th. We
propose the following dates for the depositions of Jasmin, Berrin, Gonca, and Zeynep in the
following order of priority.
Jasmin: September 26 or 27
Berrin: September 28 or 29
Gonca: October 6
Zeynep (as per her counsel): week of October 10 (except October 14)
We also need you to immediately provide potential deposition dates for Steve Levine; Judi
Archer previously told us that she would reach out to his counsel and let us know when he is
available. Please do the same.
Very truly yours,
Scott W. Parker
cc: Stephen P. Younger, Esq.
Michele Kahn, Esq.
4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2023 11:39 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1320 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2023
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2023 11:39 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1320 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2023 EXHIBIT G FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2023 11:39 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1320 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2023 From: Scott Parker Sent: Saturday, September 3, 2022 5:35 PM To: Hill, Meghan E. Cc: Sanjay Ibrahim; Mohler, Bryan T.; Younger, Stephen P.; Michele Kahn Subject: RE: Tekiner v. Bremen House Inc. [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID449713] Attachments: Tekiner - 9.3.22 ltr to M. Hill.pdf **EXTERNAL** Meghan, please see attached. We are available to meet and confer on all of these topics, plus the Santander subpoena, on Tuesday until 2 pm. Regards, Scott Scott Parker NJ Office: 270 Davidson Avenue, Somerset, NJ 08873 NY Office: 5 Penn Plaza, Suite 2371, New York, NY 10001 Direct: +1 908.333.6220 | Main: +1 212.596.7037 www.piblaw.com Confidentiality: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, contact the sender via reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Hill, Meghan E. Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 3:18 PM To: Scott Parker Cc: Sanjay Ibrahim ; Mohler, Bryan T. ; Younger, Stephen P. Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Tekiner v. Bremen House Inc. [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID449713] Scott – See attached correspondence in response to your August 24, 2022 email. Defendants’ next production of documents will be transmitted under separate cover. Please confirm by no later than 9:00 am tomorrow that the return date of the Santander Bank subpoena will be extended to September 15, 2022 in order for the parties to meet and confer regarding the scope of the documents requested. Meghan 1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2023 11:39 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1320 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2023 _______________________________________ MEGHAN E. HILL PRYOR CASHMAN LLP 7 Times Square, New York, NY 10036-6569 mhill@pryorcashman.com Direct Tel: 212-326-0808 (also reachable remotely at this number) www.pryorcashman.com A member of Interlaw, an International Association of Independent Law Firms From: Scott Parker Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 10:26 AM To: Hill, Meghan E. Cc: Sanjay Ibrahim ; Mohler, Bryan T. ; Younger, Stephen P. Subject: RE: Tekiner v. Bremen House Inc. [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID449713] Meghan, we would be happy to meet and confer about the scope of the Santander subpoena. But we also must address the multiple other topics that we have written to you about that you continue to ignore (see attached). For example – when is the Special Meeting going to be held? Back on July 22 (i.e., five weeks ago), you agreed that it would be held during the week of August 29, and you expressed a preference for the meeting to be held early that week, to which we agreed. It is now August 30th, yet you have still not even confirmed the date of the meeting, let alone scheduled it. Regards, Scott Scott Parker NJ Office: 270 Davidson Avenue, Somerset, NJ 08873 NY Office: 5 Penn Plaza, Suite 2371, New York, NY 10001 Direct: +1 908.333.6220 | Main: +1 212.596.7037 www.piblaw.com Confidentiality: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, contact the sender via reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Hill, Meghan E. Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 9:36 PM To: Scott Parker Cc: Sanjay Ibrahim ; Mohler, Bryan T. Subject: [EXTERNAL] Tekiner v. Bremen House Inc. Scott – 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2023 11:39 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1320 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2023 I left you a voicemail earlier this evening. We would like to meet and confer about the scope of the Santander subpoena. Please give me a call to discuss. Thanks, Meghan _______________________________________ MEGHAN E. HILL PRYOR CASHMAN LLP 7 Times Square, New York, NY 10036-6569 mhill@pryorcashman.com Direct Tel: 212-326-0808 (also reachable remotely at this number) www.pryorcashman.com A member of Interlaw, an International Association of Independent Law Firms ***CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*** This email contains confidential information which may also be legally privileged and which is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that forwarding or copying of this email, or the taking of any action in reliance on its contents, may be strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by reply email and delete this message from your inbox. ***CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*** This email contains confidential information which may also be legally privileged and which is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that forwarding or copying of this email, or the taking of any action in reliance on its contents, may be strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by reply email and delete this message from your inbox. 3 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2023 11:39 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1320 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2023 Writer’s Direct Contact: 908.333.6220 (Tel.) PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP 212.596.7036 (Fax) scott.parker@piblaw.com www.piblaw.com September 3, 2022 VIA E-MAIL Meghan E. Hill Pryor Cashman LLP 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036-6569 Re: Yasemin Tekiner, et al. v. Bremen House Inc., et al. Index No.: 657193/2020 Dear Meghan: I write in response to your letter of August 31. Special Meeting: You have now breached your July 22nd agreement to hold that meeting during the week of August 29. Further, your clients continue to be in breach of Section 3.11(a) of the By-Laws, which requires a Special Meeting to be held upon the demand of two directors. Below is a history summarizing your and your clients’ ongoing refusal to schedule the Special Meeting, which was first requested three and a half months ago: May 19, 2022: Yasemin and Zeynep wrote to your clients, requesting “the earliest date possible” for a Special Meeting of the Board for the purpose of discussing: (1) the current financial status of Bremen House; (2) any material financial or business changes experienced by Bremen House since December 1, 2020; and (3) any efforts concerning recent, pending, and anticipated purchases, sales, leasing, and marketing of properties owned or managed by Bremen House. Further, Yasemin and Zeynep requested access to nine different categories of books and records. May 26, 2022: Defendants (through Norton Rose) refused to comply with a single request in Yasemin’s May 19th letter, and instead asserted: (1) Yasemin’s May 19th letter was “inappropriate given the lawsuit”; (2) Yasemin was prohibited from communicating directly with the Individual Defendants except through counsel; and (3) Yasemin was prohibited from seeking any “corporate information from [Defendants] outside the context of discovery” in this litigation. May 27, 2022: Yasemin asked your clients to reconsider their positions. Your clients, however, refused to do so. July 1, 2022: Justice Cohen advised the parties that Yasemin has the right to review the Company’s books and records and go to the office outside the scope of discovery in this litigation. New York Office: 5 Penn Plaza, Suite 2371 – New York, New York 10001 – 212.596.7037 New Jersey Office: 270 Davidson Avenue – Somerset, New Jersey 08873 – 908.725.9700 BOSTON – NEW JERSEY – NEW YORK – ORANGE COUNTY – PHILADELPHIA FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2023 11:39 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1320 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2023 July 1, 2022: Yasemin and Zeynep wrote to your clients again, reiterating their request for a Special Meeting and for books and records. July 21, 2022: We wrote to you, memorializing our agreement to adjourn the return date on Yasemin’s motion for contempt, in exchange for your agreement that, among other things, “[y]our clients will hold the Special Meeting requested in Yasemin’s May 19th and July 1st letters during the week of August 29, 2022” (emphasis added). At your request, we also agreed to provide you with a list of questions for the meeting in advance. We also asked you to “kindly confirm the exact date of the Special Meeting as soon as you’re able” – which you never did. August 17, 2022: During a call with you, we noted that, despite our repeated requests, you had still not confirmed the date of the Special Meeting. In response, you told us that it was your understanding that the meeting could be held on any of the first three days of the week of August 29th. August 22, 2022: We wrote to you, noting that you had still not confirmed the date of the Special Meeting and had not responded to multiple requests from us in this regard. Notwithstanding your ongoing, weeks-long lack of confirmation, we sent you the proposed list of questions in advance of the Special Meeting. August 24, 2022: We wrote to you again, noting that you had still not confirmed the date of the Special Meeting. August 31, 2022: You finally responded to us about the Special Meeting, confirming that the meeting would not be held during the week of August 29th – despite your prior, repeated agreement to the contrary – under the pretense that the meeting would be more “productive” if we resubmitted our list of questions in light of (unidentified) documents you claim that you have already produced. Your clients’ goal is now clear: to continue improperly delaying the Special Meeting for as long as they possibly can. We reject your baseless, nine-days-later excuse that the list of questions that we sent you on August 22nd is somehow “unworkable” because “numerous” questions have already been answered. Indeed, other than one example of a question that you believe has been answered already, you fail to cite to a single document that answers any of our client’s questions. And even as to the sole example that you cite, your suggestion that your clients do not want to (or need to) discuss the Company’s 2021 Profit and Loss (“P&L”) Statement at the Special Meeting is untenable. Good corporate governance requires the review and discussion at Board meetings, together with the company accountants, of financial documents such as P&L statements. The fact that you produced the actual 2021 P&L Statement hardly resolves that issue. Virtually every well-run Board meeting includes distribution of financial statement and then a discussion of the financial results. And if you believe you have, e.g., already produced documents that show 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2023 11:39 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1320 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2023 where the net income of $19,263,177.30 reflected in the 2021 P&L Statement has gone, please promptly identify those documents. Finally – and critically – you fail explain why, even if you are correct (and you are not) that “numerous” of our client’s questions have already been answered through document production, that justified your breaching our agreement to hold the Special Meeting during the week of August 29th. We held up our end of the bargain by adjourning the return date of our client’s motion for contempt; we expected you to do the same. All this being said, for purposes of trying to resolve this issue in good faith, we will send you a revised list of questions by September 6th, in exchange for your agreement to: (1) hold the Special Meeting one week from the date when we send you those questions, but no later than September 13th, and regardless of whether you believe any of those questions have already been answered by documents; and (2) promptly identify any documents that you believe fully respond to any of our questions on the revised list. Books and Records: Your letter complains extensively about the amount of documents and information requested, arguing (without any support) that the requests are “duplicative”. But nowhere do you say that you have actually produced the documents that have been requested. Indeed, your position appears to be that, if you believe a request is duplicative, you have no obligation to respond to it. That is incorrect. Regardless of what is (or is not) part of discovery in this litigation, Yasemin is an officer and director of the Company. The Court made it very clear that Yasemin is entitled to access the Company’s books and records as an officer and director, and that edict does not change simply because you believe similar requests may have been propounded for purposes of litigation. Your position is also inconsistent with Billur Akipek’s representation in her July 20, 2022 affidavit that defendants were “committed to providing Yasemin and Zeynep access to all the books and records of the Company.” (emphasis added) As for your footnote citation to the number of documents that you have already produced, that is irrelevant. You cannot refuse to produce relevant, responsive documents that are properly requested by citing to the number of documents that you have already produced. Not to mention, while you cite to “500+ pages” of books and records that you previously produced, as you know, only 60 of those pages were new. Finally, we must address your incredible statement that Yasemin is requesting documents that, among other things, were “available to her when she was a director of Bremen House, Inc.” Are you suggesting that, if Yasemin at one point had documents or information that was available to her before she was terminated as a director in December 2020, defendants are not obligated to provide it? Are you suggesting that during the months before her improper termination, Jasmin had the right to inspect those documents – the very time that your client refused to give her access to the Company’s financial records? 3 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2023 11:39 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1320 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2023 Company emails: In our July 21st agreement, you also committed to have the Company include Jasmin on substantive emails about Company business. To date, your clients have failed to live up to this obligation. Billur has only answered one of Jasmin’s emails, and she has failed to respond to her request that the she be advised as to how the Company plans to use the sales proceeds from the Tanglewylde transaction. Please advise if your clients plan to rectify their failure to abide by this aspect of our agreement. Depositions: Jasmin is unavailable for deposition the week of September 19th. We propose the following dates for the depositions of Jasmin, Berrin, Gonca, and Zeynep in the following order of priority. Jasmin: September 26 or 27 Berrin: September 28 or 29 Gonca: October 6 Zeynep (as per her counsel): week of October 10 (except October 14) We also need you to immediately provide potential deposition dates for Steve Levine; Judi Archer previously told us that she would reach out to his counsel and let us know when he is available. Please do the same. Very truly yours, Scott W. Parker cc: Stephen P. Younger, Esq. Michele Kahn, Esq. 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2023 11:39 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1320 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2023