Download - Ignition Capital
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
GANNON INTERNATIONAL LTD.
Plaintiff,
v. WALTER BLOCKER,
Serve:
Walter Blocker 21 Phung Khac Khoan Street Da Kao Ward District 1 Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
and
IGNITION CAPITAL PARTNERS, Serve:
Ignition Capital Partners 1500 4th Ave, Ste 200 Seattle, Washington 98101
and
SANDALWOOD INVESTMENTS LIMITED, Serve:
Ignition Capital Partners 1500 4th Ave, Ste 200 Seattle, Washington 98101
and
GANNON BREWERY JOINT STOCK COMPANY, Serve:
21 Phung Khac Khoan Street Da Kao Ward District 1 Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No. ___________________ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Case 4:10-cv-00835-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 1 of 21
2
and
THE GANNON COMPANY (HONG KONG) LTD. Serve:
11301 Olive Boulevard St. Louis, Missouri 63141
Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF
Plaintiff Gannon International Ltd. (“Gannon International”), for its Complaint for
Injunctive and Other Relief against Defendants Walter Blocker (“Blocker”), Ignition Capital
Partners (“Ignition Capital”), Sandalwood Investments Limited (“Sandalwood Investments”),
and Nominal Defendants Gannon Brewery Joint Stock Company and The Gannon Company
(Hong Kong) Ltd., states as follows:
INTRODUCTION Defendant Blocker has managed certain subsidiaries of Gannon International in Southeast
Asia for the past several years. Until April 29, 2010, Blocker was an employee of Gannon
International. Blocker has breached his fiduciary duties to Gannon International; has stolen and
misused hundreds of thousands of dollars belonging to Gannon International and its subsidiaries;
has falsely claimed ownership of Gannon International subsidiary companies; has tortiously
interfered with the contracts and business relationships of Gannon International and its
subsidiary companies; has refused to allow Gannon International access to the books and records
of companies owned by Gannon International; and is now attempting to take Gannon
International’s investment in Gannon Brewery Joint Stock Company. Ignition Capital and
Case 4:10-cv-00835-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 2 of 21
3
Sandalwood, either knowingly or unwittingly, have become partners in Blocker’s tortious and
illegal actions.
On April 29, 2010, Blocker announced his resignation from the Gannon International
subsidiary companies that he manages in Vietnam. Since that date, it has become clear that
Blocker continues to hold himself out as retaining control of certain Gannon International
subsidiary companies in Vietnam without Gannon International’s knowledge or approval. It was
revealed on May 5, 2010 that Blocker, with the assistance of Ignition Capital and Sandalwood, is
attempting to illegally and tortiously divest Gannon International of its ownership of Gannon
Brewery Joint Stock Company through a fraudulent call for capital contribution. The May 5,
2010 letter which communicates the call for capital contribution (“the Capital Call letter”)
purports to act under a Shareholders’ Agreement which Blocker has refused to provide to
Gannon International. The Capital Call letter demands that Gannon International, through its
subsidiary Gannon Vietnam Co., Ltd., commit to a capital infusion by 5:00 a.m. on May 7, 2010
(U.S. Central time zone) or else be divested of its shares in Gannon Brewery Joint Stock
Company. At the same time, Blocker has refused Gannon International’s requests for
information about this company, including such rudimentary information as shareholder
agreements, list of shareholders, corporate governance documents, even amount of the capital
call and its intended uses.
In essence, the Capital Call letter constitutes an attempt to divest Gannon International of
its investment on less than forty-eight hours notice, under Shareholder Agreements and other
documents that Gannon International has been unable to obtain, and is driven by individuals who
have no authority to act on behalf of Gannon Vietnam Co. Ltd.
Case 4:10-cv-00835-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 3 of 21
4
Gannon International is at a crucial juncture in its Vietnam activities, and is in danger of
losing its entire business unit in Vietnam, including but not limited to its investment in Gannon
Brewery Joint Stock Company. Gannon International has very recently uncovered evidence that
Blocker and perhaps others have diverted up to $4,000,000 dollars (USD) from The Gannon
Company (Hong Kong) Ltd. into an entity that he now claims to control. Therefore, Gannon
International seeks emergency injunctive relief to enjoin the immediate and irreparable harm that
Blocker, Ignition Capital, and Sandalwood Investments are causing and will cause to Gannon
International’s activities and investments in Vietnam. The harm suffered by Gannon
International through these illegal and tortious actions cannot be adequately compensated
through money damages.
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This is an action for breach of fiduciary duties, fraud, unjust enrichment,
conversion, tortious interference with contracts and business relationships, violation of Section
10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and civil conspiracy. Gannon International
seeks temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, in addition to other damages.
2. Gannon International seeks to enjoin Blocker, Ignition Capital and Sandalwood
Investments (a) from altering the corporate structure or share ownership percentages of Gannon
Brewery Joint Stock Company in any way without the express written consent of Gannon
International; (b) from interfering with Gannon International’s attempt to audit its Vietnam
subsidiaries through the firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers; (c) from any transfer of funds
belonging to The Gannon Company (Hong Kong) Ltd.; Gannon Vietnam Co., Ltd; The Gannon
Brewery Joint Stock Company; or any other Gannon affiliated entity; (d) from incurring any
obligations or debts to The Gannon Company (Hong Kong) Ltd.; Gannon Vietnam Co., Ltd; The
Case 4:10-cv-00835-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 4 of 21
5
Gannon Brewery Joint Stock Company; or any other Gannon affiliated entity; (e) from
destroying corporate books and records and other documents that are necessary to put Gannon
International’s corporate affairs in order.
PARTIES
3. Gannon International is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business
in St. Louis, Missouri. Gannon International acts through its subsidiaries as described herein.
This case arises in Missouri because it involves a scheme to defraud Gannon International.
4. Defendant Blocker is a citizen of the United States and was an employee of a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Gannon International. Blocker receives his salary from Gannon
International. Upon information and belief, Blocker is a resident of the State of Kentucky and
Blocker has often instructed Gannon International to send his mail to a home address in
Kentucky. Blocker has traveled to this District repeatedly and continuously in the course of his
employment with Gannon International and communicates extensively with employees of
Gannon International who are based in this District. Further, Blocker has illegally transferred
funds from a Gannon International subsidiary, The Gannon Company (Hong Kong) Ltd., into the
personal bank account of Gannon’s former Chief Financial Officer in this District. The letters
and emails attached to this Petition were sent to employees of Gannon International located in
this District. Blocker does business in Missouri through his substantial contacts with Gannon
International in Missouri.
5. Blocker was, until he resigned on April 29, 2010, the Chief Executive Officer of
Gannon Vietnam Co., Ltd., an American licensed, 100% foreign invested service company with
offices in Ho Chi Minh City, Bien Hoa City, and Hanoi, Vietnam.
Case 4:10-cv-00835-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 5 of 21
6
6. Defendant Ignition Capital is a private equity firm with its principal place of
business in Seattle, Washington. Upon information and belief, Ignition Capital is incorporated in
the State of Washington. Ignition Capital does business in Missouri through its substantial
contacts with Gannon International in Missouri.
7. Defendant Sandalwood Investments is an affiliate of Ignition Capital. Upon
information and belief, Sandalwood Investments is incorporated in the State of Washington.
Sandalwood Investments does business in Missouri through its contracts and other substantial
contacts with Gannon International in Missouri.
8. Nominal Defendant Gannon Brewery Joint Stock Company is a Vietnam joint
stock company and is named to the extent that this suit seeks injunctive relief relating to it.
9. Nominal Defendant The Gannon Company (Hong Kong) Ltd. is a Hong Kong
corporation and is named to the extent that this suit seeks injunctive relief relating to it.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332
because the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. This Court also has supplementary jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all Defendants under the Missouri long-
arm statute, Mo.Rev.Stat § 506.500. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a),
because Blocker has breached and has threatened to breach duties to Gannon International in this
District, has committed tortious acts in this District, including the illegal wire transfer of Gannon
funds into this District, and has performed contracts substantially connected to this District.
Case 4:10-cv-00835-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 6 of 21
7
BACKGROUND
Gannon International and Its Business
12. Gannon International is a 25-year-old privately held company with a family of
affiliated corporations, partnerships, and joint ventures around the world. Gannon International’s
subsidiaries and affiliated companies are organized into three distinct operating groups:
Information Technology, Real Estate, and International Trade & Development. The founder,
President, and Chief Executive Officer of Gannon International is William E. Franke (“Franke”).
13. The Gannon Pacific Company is a subsidiary of Gannon International, and is in
the business of trade and development in Southeast Asia.
14. The Gannon Company (Hong Kong) Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of The
Gannon Pacific Company. The Gannon Company (Hong Kong) Ltd. is incorporated in Hong
Kong.
15. Gannon Vietnam Co., Ltd. is a subsidiary of The Gannon Company (Hong Kong)
Ltd.
16. Gannon International guarantees certain debts and accounts of Gannon Vietnam
Co., Ltd.
Gannon International’s Activities in Vietnam
17. Gannon International, through its subsidiaries, possesses certain licenses and
relationships under which it is the sole distributor of certain products in Vietnam. For example,
Gannon International, through its subsidiaries, possesses a license to be the sole distributor of
products in Vietnam for InBev, including Anheuser Busch products.
Case 4:10-cv-00835-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 7 of 21
8
Blocker’s Illegal Acts
18. In May 2007, Blocker secretly caused a wire transfer of $415,000 (USD) from the
bank account of The Gannon Company (Hong Kong) Ltd. into his wife’s personal bank account.
No other officer or employee of Gannon International or its subsidiaries authorized this transfer
of funds from The Gannon Company (Hong Kong) Ltd.
19. Gannon International investigated the wire transfer of $415,000 and the
explanations offered by Blocker for the wire transfer. After extensive inquiry and investigation,
Gannon International determined that the wire transfer of $415,000 from The Gannon Company
(Hong Kong) Ltd. into the personal bank account of Blocker’s wife, which was performed or
caused by Blocker, was not for a legitimate business purpose. When confronted by Gannon
International, Blocker gave two conflicting explanations for this transfer, neither of which was
consistent with the facts revealed by Gannon International’s investigation.
20. In February 2009, Blocker caused a wire transfer of $40,000 from the bank
account of The Gannon Company (Hong Kong) Ltd. into the personal bank account of Gannon
International’s former Chief Financial Officer. Upon information and belief, these funds were
used by Gannon International’s former Chief Financial Officer to pay the monthly mortgage on
his home. No other officer or employee of Gannon International or its subsidiaries authorized
this transfer of funds from The Gannon Company (Hong Kong) Ltd.
21. Gannon International investigated the wire transfer of $40,000 and the
explanations offered by Blocker for the wire transfer. After extensive inquiry and investigation,
Gannon International determined that the wire transfer of $40,000 from The Gannon Company
(Hong Kong) Ltd. into the personal bank account of Gannon International’s former Chief
Financial Officer, which was performed or caused by Blocker, was not for a legitimate business
Case 4:10-cv-00835-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 8 of 21
9
purpose. Gannon International has asked Blocker repeatedly for documentation that would show
a legitimate purpose for this transfer, but none has been provided.
22. On February 2, 2010, Blocker sent an email to Gannon’s former Chief Financial
Officer in which he stated “Bill Franke is headed for the biggest crisis of all as Walter and Bob
pull back from subsidizing Bill’s madness that some people are entitled to produce and others are
born to consume.” See Exhibit 1.
Defendants Attempt to Divest Gannon International of Its Investment in Gannon Brewery Joint Stock Company
23. Gannon International, through its subsidiaries, is in the process of building a
brewery in Vietnam in a joint venture with InBev. Gannon International, through its
subsidiaries, formed Gannon Brewing Joint Stock Company to lease land for the brewery and to
own and operate the brewery. Then, without authorization from Gannon International, Blocker
entered into a long-term leasehold purchase agreement for a parcel of land in Vietnam on behalf
of Gannon International and its subsidiaries.
24. Despite Blocker’s unauthorized purchase of land, Gannon International and its
subsidiaries are moving forward with plans for the brewery and negotiations with prospective
investors in the brewery project. Upon information and belief, Blocker, and possibly Ignition
Capital and Sandalwood Investments, has interfered with Gannon International’s attempts to
negotiate with investors in furtherance of their illegal and tortious scheme.
25. Blocker has explicitly threatened to disrupt and destroy the business relationships
that Gannon International and its subsidiaries enjoy with its prospective investors in the brewery
project.
Case 4:10-cv-00835-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 9 of 21
10
26. Gannon International has demanded that Blocker provide full access to the books
and records of The Gannon Company (Hong Kong) Ltd. and Gannon Vietnam Co., Ltd. so that
Gannon International can make informed decisions regarding the brewery investment made by
Gannon International and its subsidiaries. Blocker has refused to provide Gannon International
with full access to these books and records.
27. Gannon International has also demanded access to documents relating to the
activities between Gannon Vietnam Co., Ltd. and Anheuser Busch which allow Gannon Vietnam
Co. Ltd. to distribute Anheuser Busch products in Vietnam. These documents are the property of
Gannon International and its subsidiaries, and are not Blocker’s property. Blocker has refused to
provide these documents to Gannon International.
28. In recent days it has been discovered that Blocker has diverted significant funds
from The Gannon Company (Hong Kong) Ltd. into Gannon Brewery Joint Stock Company
without authorization and in defiance of explicit direction from Gannon International.
29. On April 29, 2010, Blocker sent an email to Gannon International in which he
purportedly resigned from Gannon Vietnam Co., Ltd. See Exhibit 2.
30. On May 5, 2010, an employee of Ignition Capital and Sandalwood Investments,
claiming to act on behalf of Gannon Brewery Joint Stock Company, sent the Capital Call letter to
Gannon International’s subsidiary, Gannon Vietnam Co., Ltd. See Exhibit 3. The Capital Call
letter was then transmitted by Blocker to Gannon International via email. See Exhibit 4.
Gannon International, through counsel, responded to the Capital Call letter to protest
Defendants’ illegal and tortious scheme and to affirm its willingness to respond to legitimate
capital calls that are based on proper authority. See Exhibit 5.
Case 4:10-cv-00835-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 10 of 21
11
31. The attempt by Blocker, Ignition Capital and Sandalwood Investments to divest
Gannon International of its ownership interest in Gannon Brewery through a call for capital
contribution is illegal and tortious as set forth more specifically below.
COUNT I – BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES (against Blocker)
32. Gannon International hereby repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the
allegations which are contained in Paragraphs 1 through 31.
33. Blocker owes fiduciary duties to Gannon International because (a) he was and
continues to hold himself out to be Chief Executive Officer of Gannon Vietnam Co., Ltd. (b)
Gannon International gave Blocker a large degree of responsibility and independence in his
management and control of Gannon International’s interests, activities and investments in
Vietnam, and (c) Gannon International necessarily gave trust and confidence to Blocker to run its
subsidiaries in Vietnam.
34. Blocker breached his fiduciary duties to Gannon International by, inter alia,
wrongfully transferring The Gannon Company (Hong Kong) Ltd. funds to his wife and to
Gannon International’s former Chief Financial Officer by wire transfer for no legitimate business
purpose, by interfering or threatening to interfere in the contractual and business relationships of
Gannon International and its subsidiaries, by refusing to allow Gannon International access to the
books and records of The Gannon Company (Hong Kong) Ltd. and Gannon Vietnam Co., Ltd.,
by attempting to involuntarily dilute Gannon International’s interest in Gannon Brewery Joint
Stock Company, and by committing knowing fraud and deceit upon Gannon International
through the Capital Call letter.
Case 4:10-cv-00835-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 11 of 21
12
35. The breaches of the fiduciary duties owed by Blocker to Gannon International
have already caused Gannon International actual harm and threaten further immediate and
irreparable harm.
COUNT II – FRAUD (against Blocker)
36. Gannon International hereby repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the
allegations which are contained in Paragraphs 1 through 35.
37. In May 2007, Blocker transferred $415,000 from The Gannon Company (Hong
Kong) Ltd. into his wife’s personal bank account.
38. In February 2009, Blocker transferred $40,000 from The Gannon Company
(Hong Kong) Ltd. into the personal bank account of Gannon International’s former Chief
Financial Officer.
39. When questioned by Gannon International and others about these transfers,
Blocker claimed that the transfers were for legitimate business purposes. Such claims were false
and material and Blocker knew of the falsity at the time he made the representations.
40. Blocker intended that Gannon International would rely on his false
representations because he wanted Gannon International to drop its investigation of the transfers.
41. Gannon International and its employees were ignorant of the falsity of Blocker’s
claims at the time the claims were made.
42. Gannon International and its employees relied on the misrepresentations being
true until their investigation revealed otherwise.
43. Gannon International had a right to rely on Blocker’s representations regarding
the expenditures and transfers of money to and from The Gannon Company (Hong Kong) Ltd.
Case 4:10-cv-00835-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 12 of 21
13
44. Blocker then demanded that Gannon International drop its investigation into the
wire transfers in exchange for Blocker agreeing to provide access to the books and records of
The Gannon Company (Hong Kong) Ltd. and Gannon Vietnam Co., Ltd., which Gannon
International refused.
45. Gannon International was consequently and proximately damaged by Blocker’s
false claims.
COUNT III – UNJUST ENRICHMENT (against Blocker)
46. Gannon International hereby repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the
allegations which are contained in Paragraphs 1 through 45.
47. The diversion by Blocker of $415,000 from The Gannon Company (Hong Kong)
Ltd. into his wife’s personal bank account for no legitimate business purpose constitutes a
benefit conferred upon Blocker by Gannon International and its subsidiaries.
48. Blocker appreciated the benefit of the fact that he had diverted $415,000 of
Gannon International’s money into his wife’s personal bank account.
49. It is inequitable for Blocker to accept and retain the benefit conferred by the
transfer of $415,000 from The Gannon Company (Hong Kong) Ltd. into his wife’s personal bank
account without paying the value thereof in that the transfer of such funds had no legitimate
business purpose.
COUNT IV – CONVERSION (against Blocker)
50. Gannon International hereby repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the
allegations which are contained in Paragraphs 1 through 49.
Case 4:10-cv-00835-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 13 of 21
14
51. Gannon International placed $415,000 into the account of The Gannon Company
(Hong Kong) Ltd. for the specific purpose of funding the operations of The Gannon Company
(Hong Kong) Ltd. and for other legitimate business expenditures.
52. At no time did Blocker have the right to ownership of the $415,000.
53. The diversion by Blocker of $415,000 from The Gannon Company (Hong Kong)
Ltd. into his wife’s personal bank account for no legitimate business purpose constitutes
conversion in that it was a tortious taking.
54. Gannon International placed $40,000 into the account of The Gannon Company
(Hong Kong) Ltd., and into the control of Blocker, for the specific purpose of funding the
operations of The Gannon Company (Hong Kong) Ltd. and for other legitimate business
expenditures.
55. At no time did Blocker have the right to ownership of the $40,000.
56. The diversion by Blocker of $40,000 from The Gannon Company (Hong Kong)
Ltd. into the personal bank account of Gannon International’s former Chief Financial Officer for
no legitimate business purpose constitutes conversion in that it was a tortious taking.
COUNT V – FRAUD (against Blocker)
57. Gannon International hereby repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the
allegations which are contained in Paragraphs 1 through 56.
58. On April 29, 2010, Blocker resigned as Chief Executive Officer of Gannon
Vietnam Co., Ltd. See Exhibit 2.
59. The Capital Call letter of May 5, 2010 is addressed to the “Legal Representative”
of Gannon Vietnam Co., Ltd. See Exhibit 3. The Capital Call letter is signed by an employee of
Case 4:10-cv-00835-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 14 of 21
15
Ignition Capital and Sandalwood Investments. See id. The letter was sent via email to Blocker
by Luu Thi Trang, an attorney in Vietnam working on behalf of Ignition Capital and Sandalwood
Investments. Blocker then forwarded the Capital Call letter to Gannon International. See
Exhibit 4.
60. Blocker knew that he had resigned from Gannon Vietnam Co., Ltd. on April 29,
2010, yet as of May 5, 2010 still claimed that he serves in that capacity and possesses the
authority of that position.
61. The Capital Call letter of May 5, 2010 references “a written resolution of the
board of management of the Company dated 4 May 2010” yet such a resolution would be
impossible in light of Blocker’s resignation from Gannon Vietnam Co., Ltd. on April 29, 2010.
62. Blocker knew that Gannon International has never been provided with the Share
Subscription, the Shareholder Agreement of April 19, 2010, the Corporate Charter, the written
resolution of May 4, 2010, the “Schedule” or even the amount of the Capital Call referenced in
the May 5, 2010 letter.
63. Blocker acted with actual knowledge and intent to deceive and defraud Gannon
International in the course of causing the Capital Call, and throughout the allegations described
above.
COUNT VI – TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GANNON AND ITS PROSPECTIVE INVESTORS (against Blocker, Ignition Capital, and Sandalwood Investments)
64. Gannon International hereby repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the
allegations which are contained in Paragraphs 1 through 63.
65. Blocker, Ignition Capital, and Sandalwood Investments had knowledge of the
business relationships between Gannon International and its subsidiaries and certain prospective
Case 4:10-cv-00835-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 15 of 21
16
investors in Gannon International’s efforts to build a brewery in Vietnam. Blocker, Ignition
Capital, and Sandalwood Investments also had knowledge of Gannon International’s expectancy
that it would maintain its business relationship with these prospective investors, and had
knowledge of the fact that Gannon International has invested substantial resources in developing
and maintaining those relationships.
66. Despite having knowledge of these business relationships, Blocker, Ignition
Capital, and Sandalwood Investments have tortiously interfered with such business relationships,
without justification or excuse.
67. Further, upon information and belief, Blocker intends to further tortiously
interfere with Gannon’s contractual and business relationships, in a manner both willful and
intentional, without justification or excuse.
68. As a result of the actions of Blocker, Ignition Capital, and Sandalwood
Investments, Gannon International has been injured and faces irreparable injury. Gannon
International is threatened with losing or has lost its business partners, investors, income and/or
goodwill.
COUNT VII – INDUCEMENT OF BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (against Ignition Capital and Sandalwood Investments)
69. Gannon International hereby repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the
allegations which are contained in Paragraphs 1 through 68.
70. Blocker has breached his fiduciary duties and his duty of loyalty to Gannon
International and its subsidiaries.
71. Ignition Capital and Sandalwood Investments have either knowingly or
unwittingly aided, abetted, and participated in Blocker’s breach of his fiduciary duties and his
Case 4:10-cv-00835-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 16 of 21
17
duty of loyalty to Gannon International through their participation in the illegal and tortious May
5, 2010 Capital Call letter; their participation in Blocker’s attempt to illegally and tortiously
divest Gannon International of its investment in Gannon Brewery Joint Stock Company; their
participation in Blocker’s refusal to provide access to the corporate books and records of The
Gannon Company (Hong Kong) Ltd., Gannon Vietnam Limited Company, and Gannon Brewery
Joint Stock Company; and the impending involuntary dilution of Gannon International’s interest
in Gannon Brewery Joint Stock Company.
72. The breaches of the fiduciary duties owed by Blocker to Gannon International
have caused Gannon International actual harm and threaten irreparable harm, and have been
aided, abetted, and participated in by Ignition Capital and Sandalwood Investments either
through malice or negligence.
COUNT VIII – VIOLATION OF SECTION 10(b) OF THE SECURTIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
(against Blocker)
73. Gannon International hereby repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the
allegations which are contained in Paragraphs 1 through 72.
74. Blocker made materially misleading and false statements to Gannon International
in the days and weeks preceding the Capital Call which were intended to lead Gannon
International to believe that no capital calls or further efforts to alter the ownership structure of
Gannon Brewery Joint Stock Company would be undertaken.
75. The Capital Call letter of May 5, 2010 is misleading and fraudulent in that it
purports to act under a Shareholders’ Agreement which Blocker has repeatedly refused to
provide to Gannon International, violates the shareholder rights of Gannon International and its
subsidiary, and fails to recognize that Blocker has already made many unauthorized transfers of
Case 4:10-cv-00835-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 17 of 21
18
funds from The Gannon Company (Hong Kong) Ltd. into Gannon Brewery Joint Stock
Company.
76. Blocker knew when he sent the Capital Call letter of May 5, 2010 to Gannon
International that he had resigned from Gannon Vietnam Co., Ltd. and possesses no authority to
act on behalf of that entity, that the purported Shareholder Agreement of April 19, 2010 had
never been provided to Gannon International and was entered into without Gannon
International’s consent or approval, that the April 29, 2010 email from Blocker contained no
reference to an impending capital call and is factually inconsistent with the purported need for a
capital call, and that the capital call itself constitutes nothing more than a blatant attempt to take
Gannon International’s investment in Gannon Brewery Joint Stock Company.
77. Blocker acted with recklessness or intentional wrongdoing in making the
statements and in taking the actions described above, and such statements and actions were made
with the intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud Gannon International in the purchase or sale of
securities.
78. Blocker acted with a motive to personally enrich himself by raiding The Gannon
Company (Hong Kong) Ltd. of funds which he diverted to Gannon Brewery Joint Stock
Company, and by then attempting to dilute Gannon International’s interest in Gannon Brewery
Joint Stock Company through the illegal and tortious Capital Call.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Gannon International Ltd., prays for the following relief:
A. That Blocker, Ignition Capital, and Sandalwood Investments, along with any and
all of their agents, employers, employees, attorneys and those persons in active concert or
Case 4:10-cv-00835-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 18 of 21
19
participation with them, be enjoined through a temporary restraining order, preliminary
injunction, and permanent injunction:
1. From altering the corporate structure or share ownership percentages of
Gannon Brewery Joint Stock Company in any way without the express
written consent of Gannon International; and
2. From interfering with Gannon International’s attempt to audit its Vietnam
subsidiaries through the firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers.
3. From any transfer of funds belonging to The Gannon Company (Hong
Kong) Ltd.; Gannon Vietnam Co., Ltd; The Gannon Brewery Joint Stock
Company; or any other Gannon affiliated entity.
4. From incurring any obligations or debts to The Gannon Company (Hong
Kong) Ltd.; Gannon Vietnam Co., Ltd; The Gannon Brewery Joint Stock
Company; or any other Gannon affiliated entity.
5. From destroying corporate books and records and other documents that are
necessary to put Gannon International’s corporate affairs in order.
Such injunctive relief is required in order to prevent immediate and irreparable injury to
Gannon International, and Gannon International has no adequate remedy at law to compensate it
for the impending damage should Defendants not be so enjoined.
B. An Order requiring all Defendants to cooperate with investor visits and audits of
the investments and activities of Gannon International and its subsidiaries.
C. An Order requiring Blocker to disgorge himself of the funds he illegally
transferred into his wife’s personal bank account and into the personal bank account of Gannon’s
former Chief Financial Officer;
Case 4:10-cv-00835-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 19 of 21
20
D. An award to Gannon International of the damages it has suffered, including but
not limited to lost profits, in an amount to be proven at trial;
E. An award to Gannon International of attorneys’ fees and the costs of this action;
F. An award to Gannon International of compensatory and/or punitive damages for
Defendants’ tortious conduct;
G. An award to Gannon International of applicable pre-judgment interest; and
H. An award to Gannon International of all other legal and equitable relief to which
Gannon is entitled.
Dated: May 6, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
DOWD BENNETT LLP By:_/s/ Edward L. Dowd, Jr. Edward L. Dowd, Jr. #8341 John D. Comerford #1443742 7733 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1410 St. Louis, Missouri 63105 (314) 889-7300 (telephone) (314) 863-2111 (facsimile) HOWREY LLP John E. O’Neill (admission pro hac vice pending) 1111 Louisiana, 25th Floor Houston, Texas 77002-5242 (713) 654-7604 (telephone) (713) 787-1440 (facsimile) Attorneys for Plaintiff Gannon International Ltd.
Case 4:10-cv-00835-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 20 of 21
Case 4:10-cv-00835-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 21 of 21