Brundle v. Wilmington Trust, N.A., No. 1:2015cv01494 - Document 261 (E.D. Va. 2016)
Court Description: REDACTED MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 11/3/2016. (rban, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Brundle v. Wilmington Trust, N.A. Doc. 261 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division TIM P. BRUNDLE, on behalf of the ConstellisEmployee Stock OwnershipPlan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated Plaintiff l:15-cv-1494 (LMB/IDD) V. WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., as successor to Wilmington Trust Retirement and Institutional Services Company Defendant. REDACTED MEMORANDUM OPINION On October 20,2016, the Court issued an order denying defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of DanaMessina, granting in part anddenying in partplaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, anddenying defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. This memorandum opinion supplements the reasoning articulated in open court.' PlaintiffTimP. Brundle ("plaintiff' or "Brundle") is an employee of Constellis Holdings, Inc. ("Constellis"),^ and was a participant inanemployee stock ownership plan ("ESOP") established for the benefit of Constellis employees. Brundle has sued defendant Wilmington Trust N.A. ("defendant" or "Wilmington"), the trustee for the ESOP in connection with two transactions: the ESOP's acquisition of 100% of the outstanding voting shares of Constellis in ' Because therecord contains financial data thatis presently under seal, the Court has redacted the publicly available version of this memorandum opinion; however, all undersealfilings will be imsealedifthis civil action goes to trial because the financial data at issue are essential evidence and the trial will not be sealed. ^Constellis Holdings, Inc., acquired Constellis Group, Inc., onJuly 25,2014; references to "Constellis" in this memorandum opinion are to the latter. Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
