Brauvin Partnerships - Securities Class Action

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

Brauvin Partnerships Conclusion: The action was initially brought pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of themselves and all of the other Limited Partners, exclusive of the Defendants, members of their immediate families, and the legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of the Defendants.

In 1996, the general partners of four Brauvin partnerships owing ninety-four percent of the assets proposed a liquidation strategy to the approximately 10,000 investors in the partnerships. The partnerships sought the majority consent by vote of each of the partnerships through a public proxy to sell the assets to an affiliate at 100% of the appraised value of the assets. As consequence of this transaction a complaint was filed alleging self-dealing transaction. The complaint alleged that Defendants failed and refused to adequately solicit or consider alternative proposals for the sale of the Partnerships' assets to a third party in an arm's-length transaction. Instead, that they have agreed to sell the Partnerships to, or effect a merger with, Brauvin Real Estate Funds, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company which was recently formed by the Defendants for the specific purpose of acquiring the assets of the limited partnerships. The complaint further alleged that these transactions would result in the Limited Partners receiving a grossly inadequate price per unit. By so doing, the Defendants have breached their fiduciary duty, which they owe to the Limited Partners by virtue of their position as General Partners.

According to the closing Order, dated July 19, 2002 from U.S. District Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, the case was settled in a manner that resulted in an affiliate of the partnerships acquiring the assets. Further, as part of the settlement, the Brauvin defendants in the case were reimbursed for all of their litigation fees and expenses by the plaintiff class.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6500
Sector: Services
Industry: Real Estate Operations

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Brauvin Partnerships
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	PRIVATE
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.brauvin.com/

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

M. Barbara Christman, et al. v. Brauvin Partnerships, et al.

COURT: N.D. Illinois	DOCKET NUMBER: 96-CV-6025
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Joan B. Gottschall
DATE FILED: 09/18/1996	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/23/1996	CLASS PERIOD END: 09/18/1996
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
The Mills Law Firm 145 Marina Boulevard, San Rafael, CA, 94901 (voice) 415.455.1320, (fax) 415.455.1320, info@millslawfirm.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 09/18/1996

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

M. Barbara Christman, et al. v. Brauvin Partnerships, et al.

COURT: N.D. Illinois	DOCKET NUMBER: 96-CV-6025
JUDGE NAME: Hon. . Joan B. Gottschall
DATE FILED: 03/28/1997	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/23/1996	CLASS PERIOD END: 09/18/1996
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
The Mills Law Firm 145 Marina Boulevard, San Rafael, CA, 94901 (voice) 415.455.1320, (fax) 415.455.1320, info@millslawfirm.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint and Verifications of Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/24/1997
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 96-CV-6025
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 03/19/1998
List of Litigants
Type: Other		Date on the document: 03/19/1998
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 07/19/2002
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 10/09/2002

OTHER DOCUMENTS

Case Name and/or Number:
Type:		Date on the document:

WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.

Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top

�