-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
1/26
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION
VARIETY MEDIA, LLC,
Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant, Index No.651674/2013
-- against -- ANSWER &COUNTERCLAIM
REED ELSEVIER, INC., et al.,
Defendants and
Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.
ANSWER
Defendants Reed Elsevier, Inc., Variety, Inc., Reed Elsevier Properties, Inc., and Reed
Business Information, Ltd. (collectively, Defendants), by and through their undersigned
attorneys, submit the following Answer to the Complaint of Plaintiff Variety Media, LLC
(Plaintiff), dated May 8, 2013 (the Complaint):
THE PARTIES
1. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was and is a limited liability company dulyorganized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in the City
and County of Los Angeles.
RESPONSE: Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Reed Elsevier, Inc. is a Massachusettscorporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York.
RESPONSE: Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Variety, Inc. is a Delaware corporationwith its principal place of business in New York, New York.
RESPONSE: Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
*-&%/&8:03,$06/5:$-&3, */%&9/0
:4$&'%0$/0 3&$&*7&%/:4$&'
013
WER &
OUNTERCLAIMRCLAIM
WERR
r ety, Inc., Ree E sev er Propert es, Inc., aee E s ert es
y, Defendants), by and through their unDefendants , y and t
nswer to t e Comp a nt o P a nt Var etye Co a nt o P a nt
13 t e Comp a nt):3 t e Co nt):
HE PARTIESHE PARTI
a re evant t mes, P a nt was an s a mt t me ,r t e aws o t e State o De aware w t tss o t e State o
o Los Ange es.ge es
NSE De en ants eny now e ge or n oants eny e g
t o t e a egat ons n Paragrap 1 o t ea egat on aragrap 1
2. Upon n ormat on an2. n ormacorporation with its principal placeation wit i
RESPONSE De en ants aDe en
3. Uponwith its principal pwith its
RESPONSE
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
2/26
2
4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Reed Elsevier Properties, Inc. is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York.
RESPONSE: Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
5. Upon information and belief, Defendant Reed Business Information, LTD is an
entity organized and existing under the laws of England.
RESPONSE: Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
6. Defendants Reed Elsevier, Inc.; Variety, Inc.; Reed Elsevier Properties, Inc.; and
Reed Business Information, LTD are sometimes collectively referred to herein as Reed.
RESPONSE: Defendants admit that Paragraph 6 of the Complaint purports to define the term
Reed for purposes of the Complaint and otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the
Complaint.
7. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or
otherwise of defendants DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, and each of them, are unknown to
Plaintiff at this time and Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show their true names orcapacities when learned.
RESPONSE: Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
8. Upon information and belief, DOES 1-25 aided and abetted and conspired with
Defendants to perform the illicit acts alleged herein.
RESPONSE: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
9. Defendants, and each of them, were each the agents of the other in all the acts and
transactions hereinafter alleged, acting within the scope and course of said agency.
RESPONSE: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
.
ormat on, LTD s ann
t e Comp a nt.p a n
nc.; Ree E sev er Propert es, Inc.; ansev e ert es, nc.;
ct ve y re erre to ere n as Ree .erre to Ree .
o t e Comp a nt purports to e ne t e ter t e t purpor
ot erw se eny t e a egat ons n Paragrapeny t e s n Pa
or capacities, whether individual, corporator capa whethe ual, c
ES 1 t roug 25, nc us ve, an eac o t eS 1 t roug 2 , c us
a nt w amen t s Comp a nt to s owamen t s Comed.
e en ants eny now e ge or n ormat on ss eny no
a egat ons n Paragrap 7 o t e Comp a nn P ap
. Upon n ormat on an e e , DUpo rmat on an
e en ants to per orm t e c t acts a egee e s to per orm c t a
RESPONSEESPONSE De en ants eny t e an ants e
9. De en ants, anDe e
transact ons ere na ter a eere na
RESPONSERE De en
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
3/26
3
NATURE OF THE ACTION
10. This is an action for breach of contract and declaratory relief. Plaintiff purchasedcertain assets of Defendants related to the well-known Varietypublication pursuant to a written
asset purchase agreement that provided for Plaintiff to accept assignment of certain contracts that
were to be enumerated on a disclosure schedule. Only contracts that were disclosed on thatschedule were to be assigned and contracts not disclosed were excluded as were all liabilities
flowing from them.
RESPONSE: Defendants: (i) admit that Plaintiff purports to assert claims for breach of contract
and declaratory relief but deny that those claims have merit and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to
any relief; (ii) admit that Defendants entered into an asset purchase agreement with Plaintiff and
Daily Variety Media Ltd. on or about October 9, 2012 (the Asset Purchase Agreement or
APA) and refer to the APA for a complete and accurate account of its contents; and (iii)
otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
11. The asset purchase agreement provides that Defendants shall indemnify Plaintiff
against any liabilities flowing from undisclosed, excluded contracts.
RESPONSE: Defendants refer to the APA for a complete and accurate account of its contents
and otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
12. Plaintiff has been sued and has incurred and is continuing to incur costs and fees
in connection with contracts that Defendants withheld and failed to disclose in due diligence orin the disclosure schedule.
RESPONSE: Defendants: (i) admit that Plaintiff has been sued by Beverly Hills Media Group,
LLC in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC507496 (Apr. 30,
2013); (ii) refer to the complaint filed by BHMG (BHMG Complaint) for a complete and
accurate account of its contents; and (iii) otherwise deny knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
purc aseto a writtenn
n contracts t atcts t at
ose on t att atere all liabilitiesties
claims for breach of contractor breach of con
eny t at P a nt s ent t e toa s e e to
t purc ase agreement w t P a nt angreem t P a nt
12 t e Asset Purc ase Agreement ort set Purc a
n accurate account o ts contents; anurate a ts conte
p 10 o t e Comp a nt.10 o mp a
e agreement prov es t at De en ants s at prov t at De en a
from undisclosed, excluded contracts.om un ed, ex ntrac
ts re er to t e APA or a comp ete an accut e APA or a comp
t e a egat ons n Paragrap 11 o t e Com11 o t
P a nt as een sue an as ncurreas su
ct on w t contracts t at De en ants w t etract at n adisclosure schedule.ule.
ESPONSEE SE De en ants: ) a m t t at PDe en a
LLC n t e Super or Court o Ca ornLC n t e S Court o
2013); (ii) refer to the complaintii) refer t
accurate account o ts conteunt o
orm a e e as to t eor
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
4/26
4
13. Despite due demand therefor, Defendants have failed and refused to indemnify
Plaintiff.
RESPONSE: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. Reed and Variety
14. Reed is a global publisher and information provider operating in the science,medical, legal, risk and business sectors. Reed Business Information (RBI) is Reeds business
division and produces industry-specific data services and tools, online community and job sites,
and business magazines. Among the titles owned by Reed and RBI was Variety, the famousAmerican entertainment-trade magazine, which it acquired in 1987.
RESPONSE: Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
15. In 2008, Reed sought to divest itself of the entire RBI division but was unable to
do so given the burgeoning financial crisis. Following those aborted sales efforts, Reed shiftedthe focus of its RBI division away from print trade magazines and to paid content, data services
and online marketing solutions.
RESPONSE: Defendants admit that in 2008, Reed Elsevier Group announced its intention to
divest Reed Business Information Ltd. and later terminated discussions with potential bidders,
and otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
16. In July 2009, RBI announced its intention to sell most of its North American trade
publications and by April 2010, Reed had sold twenty-one U.S. trade magazines and announced
that an additional twenty-three would cease publication due to the weak economy.
RESPONSE: Defendants: (i) admit that on April 16, 2010, Reed Business Information issued a
press release titled Reed Business Information concludes the divestment of US controlled
circulation magazines; (ii) refer to that press release for a complete and accurate account of its
contents and for an account of Reed Business Informations July 2009 announcement and
subsequent divestitures; and (iii) otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the
Complaint.
fy
erat ng n t e sc ence,t e sc encn (RBI) is Reeds businessis Reeds busi
n ne commun ty an o s tes,mun o s tes,
RBI was arietyrie , t e amous, t e ousn 1987.
agrap 14 o t e Comp a nt.o t e C t.
tse o t e ent re RBI v s on ut was unat e e v s on
. Fo ow ng t ose a orte sa es e orts, Reet ose es e or nt tra e magaz nes an to pa content,nt tra z nes a o
t at n 2008, Ree E sev er Group announ8, Ree sev er Group
at on Lt . an ater term nate scuss onst on Lt . an r term
e allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complraph 15 of th
In July 2009, RBI announced its intention009, I anno
s an y Apr 2010, Ree a so twenty-pr 2 , ee
t ona twenty-t ree wou cease pu catty-t e w ceas
SPONSE De en ants: ) a m t t at on ADe e ts: ) a m t t
press release titled press re ase ti d eed Business Inforeed
c rcu at on magaz nes;at on m ) re er to)
contents an or an account oor an
subsequent divestitures;s
Comp a nt.Comp
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
5/26
5
17. In March 2012, Reed announced that, as part of RBIs efforts to shed U.S. print-
magazine holdings and focus more on data services, it would sell Variety. That announcement
was reported by various news outlets including theLos Angeles Times and the Wall StreetJournal.
RESPONSE: Defendants: (i) admit that on March 23, 2012, Reed Business Information, Ltd.
issued a press release titled Reed Business Information Announces Intention to Sell Variety;
(ii) refer to that press release for a complete and accurate account of its contents; (iii) admit that
RBIs announcement was reported by theLos Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, and other
news outlets; and (iv) otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint.
B. The Letter Agreement and Operating Agreement
18. Upon information and belief, on or about March 14, 2012, with Variety on the
auction block, Reed entered into a letter agreement (the Letter Agreement) with third partyBeverly Hills Media Group, LLC (BHMG) establishing a joint venture between the
contracting parties related to a contemplated Beverly Hills Entertainment Week, a planned
week-long festival focusing on film, television, new media and finance (the Festival).
RESPONSE: Defendants: (i) admit that defendant Variety, Inc. entered into a letter agreement
with BHMG on or about March 14, 2012 (the Letter Agreement); (ii) refer to the Letter
Agreement for a complete and accurate account of its contents; (iii) and otherwise deny the
allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
19. The Letter Agreement was temporary; it provided that it would terminate on the
earlier of sixty days following the agreements effective date or the entry by the parties into a
definitive agreement related to the operation of the Festival.
RESPONSE: Defendants refer to the Letter Agreement for a complete and accurate account of
its contents and otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint.
20. Sometime thereafter, Reed and BHMG executed an undated agreement entitledLimited Liability Company Agreement of BHEN Enterprises LLC (the Operating Agreement).
nt-
ement
reet
ormat on, Lt .n, Lt .
t on to Se Variety;
its contents; (iii) admit thatnts; (iii) admit t
e Wa Street Journaet J na , an ot er , ot er
aragrap 17 o t e Comp a nt.o t p a nt.
reementeem
n or a out Marc 14, 2012, w tout Ma 012, w t ariety o
eement t e Letter Agreement) w t t re Lett ent) wG) esta s ng a o nt venture etween t) es g a o e
p ate Bever y H s Enterta nment Wee ,te Bever y s Ente
, te ev s on, new me a an nance t e Fs on, new me a an n
admit that defendant Variety, Inc. entereddmit ndant Inc.
Marc 14, 2012 t e Letter Agreement);2012 t e Letter
mp ete an accurate account o ts contentso ts c
aragraph 18 of the Complaint.18 o e Co
9. The Letter Agreement was temporter Agre t was
er o s xty ays o ow ng t e agreementsty ays w ng t e agre
e n t ve agreement re ate to t e operat oe agreement re t e
RESPONSEESPONSE De en ants re er to t en ants re
its contents and otherwise deny tnts and o
20. SometimeoL m te L a ty ComL m
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
6/26
6
RESPONSE: Defendants refer to the Limited Liability Company Agreement of BHEN
Enterprises, LLC dated March 30, 2012 (the Operating Agreement) for a complete and
accurate account of its contents and otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the
Complaint.
21. The parties to the Operating Agreement are Variety, Inc. and BHMG. The
signatures on the Operating Agreement are not dated although the agreement states that it was
adopted and agreed to on March 30, 2012 -- sixteen days after RBI announced its intention tosell Variety.
RESPONSE: Defendants refer to the Operating Agreement for a complete and accurate account
of its contents and otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
22. BHMG did not exist as an entity in March 2012. According to Secretary of State
records, BHMG was formed on April 26, 2012. BHEN Enterprises was formed in July 2012.
RESPONSE: Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
23. Upon information and belief, the Operating Agreement was not entered into in
March 2012 as the Operating Agreement purports to indicate. The Operating Agreement, to theextent it was validly entered into at all, was formed after July 2012.
RESPONSE: Defendants refer to the Operating Agreement for a complete and accurate account
of its contents and otherwise deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
24. The Operating Agreement purports to grant BHMG a 50% share of grossrevenues achieved from sponsorships acquired in connection with the planned Festival with no
responsibility for the costs of the Festival, which are entirely to be borne by Variety, Inc.
Moreover, the Operating Agreement is also structured such that BHMG claims rights that aremuch broader than just the Festival.
n
0 o t e
, nc. and BHMG. TheHMG. The
e agreement states t at t wasnt sta at t was
er RBI announce ts ntent on tonc s n on to
ement or a comp ete an accurate accounta comp e ccurate a
n Paragrap 21 o t e Comp a nt.Parag o t e Co
ent ty n Marc 2012. Accor ng to Secreent ty 2012.
6, 2012. BHEN Enterpr ses was orme, 2012. BH nterpr
now e ge or n ormat on su c ent to or or n at on su c en
aragrap 22 o t e Comp a nt.grap 22 o t omp
n n ormat on an e e , t e Operat ng Agr Operat
e Operat ng Agreement purports to n catng Agreemalidly entered into at all, was formed aftertered i o at all
SE De en ants re er to t e Operat ng Aants er t Ope
ts contents an ot erw se eny now e ges an o se eny no
truth of the allegations in Paragraph 23 otruth o e all ations in
24. The Operating Ag4.revenues ac eve rom sponsc eve
respons ty or t e costs oor t
Moreover, the Operatingmuc roa er t an usmuc
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
7/26
7
RESPONSE: Defendants: (i) refer to the Operating Agreement for a complete and accurate
account of its contents; (ii) refer to the BHMG Complaint for a complete and accurate account of
its contents and otherwise deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
breadth of the rights claimed by BHMG; and (iii) otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 24
of the Complaint.
25. In that regard, while the terms of the Letter Agreement and Operating Agreement
are similar in certain respects, the Operating Agreement is significantly more onerous to Variety,Inc. For example, the Letter Agreement provided that it would expire 60 days after its execution
if no Operating Agreement was entered into before that time. By contrast, the Operating
Agreement exists in perpetuity and can only be terminated by the agreement of all members.
RESPONSE: Defendants refer to the Letter Agreement and the Operating Agreement for a
complete and accurate account of their respective contents and otherwise deny the allegations in
Paragraph 25 of the Complaint.
26. Moreover, the Operating Agreement contains a Conflicts of Interest provision
that provides:
If a Member wishes to operate or be a party to a festival outside of Beverly Hillsthat is similar to or otherwise achieves a similar purpose as the Festival, such
Member must not do so until it has first offered the Company an opportunity [to]
participate in such new festival on terms similar to those herein. For the removalof doubt, neither Member may operate or be involved in a festival outside of
Beverly Hills, which is similar to the Festival without the Companys written
consent; provided, however, that if the Company is given an opportunity to
participate in such new festival on at least the same terms herein but chooses notto do so, such consent shall be deemed given.
(Emphases supplied.)
RESPONSE: Defendants refer to the Operating Agreement for a complete and accurate account
of its contents and otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
27. Notably, the Conflicts of Interest provision of the Letter Agreement provided that
it would not apply in the event of a merger, consolidation or the acquisition by a third party of
e
account oo
e as to t ee
ions in Paragraph 24aph 24
eement an Operat ng AgreementOp ng ement
gnificantly more onerous to Variety,tly erou ar etwou exp re 60 ays a ter ts execut one 60 ter ts exec
t t me. By contrast, t e Operat ngy contras erat ng
nate y t e agreement o a mem ers.nat e agreem
greement an t e Operat ng Agreement oent an rat ng A
spect ve contents an ot erw se eny t e apect v ts an e
e Operat ng Agreement conta ns a ConOperat ng Ag ent c
r w s es to operate or e a party to a est varty tomilar to or otherwise achieves a similaror otherw
er must not o so unti it as irst o ere tot o so unti it
icipate in suc new estiva on terms simi auc estivdoubt, neither Member may operate orher mbe ay o
Bever y Hi s, w ic is simi ar to t e Fw ic i i ar t
consentnt; prov e , owever, t at t; pr , owever, t
participate in such new festival on aticipate in s w festto o so, suc consent s a e eeo so suc con
Emp ases supp e .)ases su
RESPONSEE De en ants reDe e
of its contents and othero
27. N2
t wou notou
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
8/26
8
all or substantially all of the assets of Variety. (Emphasis supplied). Thus, if the Operating
Agreement were deemed binding upon Variety, Inc., it would be subject in perpetuity to a broad
conflicts of interest provision requiring it to offer to BHMG the opportunity to participate in anyfestival or other similar event worldwide on the same onerous and financially disadvantageous
terms as those set forth in the Operating Agreement. Those obligations do not exist under the
terms of the Letter Agreement.
RESPONSE: Defendants: (i) refer to the Letter Agreement and the Operating Agreement for a
complete and accurate account of their respective contents; (ii) aver that the second and third
sentences of Paragraph 27 state legal conclusions as to which no response is required; and (iii)
otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
28. The Operating Agreement contains no indication that Variety, Inc. wasrepresented by counsel in connection with the agreement. According to BHMG, Variety, Inc,
was represented in the agreement by the personal attorney of an officer of Variety, Inc. and notReeds counsel.
RESPONSE: Defendants refer to the Operating Agreement for a complete and accurate account
of its contents and otherwise deny the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 28, and deny
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in the
second sentence of Paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
C. The Asset Purchase Agreement
29. Reeds efforts to sell Variety eventually culminated in an agreement withPenske Media Corporation (PMC) to purchase the assets of Variety, Inc., and PMC formed
Plaintiff for the purposes of the acquisition.
RESPONSE: Defendants: (i) refer to the APA for a complete and accurate account of its
contents; (ii) deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to why PMC formed
Plaintiff; and (iii) otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint.
30. On or about October 9, 2012, Plaintiff entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement
(the APA) with Defendants in which Plaintiff purchased certain assets owned by Defendants --
namely, the Variety publications and related intellectual property and other tangible assets (theTransaction).
g
a roa
ate n anyyantageouss
st un er t et
rat ng Agreement or ar a
that the second and thirdsecond and thir
o response s requ re ; an )s re e ; )
mp a nt.
s no n cat on t at Var ety, Inc. waso n at Var etagreement. Accor ng to BHMG, Var ety,ent. A to BH
rsona attorney o an o cer o Var ety, Inc.ney o o Var
e Operat ng Agreement or a comp ete anerat ng Agreement or a
eny the allegations in the first sentence of Pny the ons in sente
n su c ent to orm a e e as to t e trut ot to orm a e e as
aragrap 28 o t e Comp a nt.nt.
sset Purchase Agreementchase reeme
9. Ree s e orts to see or to s arietyariet evente Media Corporation (PMC) to purchasetion (P to p
nt or t e purposes o t e acqu s t on.e pur o t e acqu s
RESPONSERESP SE Defendants: (i) refer to theefendants
contents; ) eny now e ge or nents; ) w e
P a nt ; an ) ot erw se en ) o
30. On or a
t e APA) w t Dt e
namely, theamely, t VariTransact on)ans
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
9/26
9
RESPONSE: Defendants: (i) admit that they entered into the APA on or about October 9, 2012;
(ii) refer to the APA for a complete and accurate account of its contents; and (iii) otherwise deny
the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint.
31. As part of the APA, Defendants assigned, and Plaintiff accepted the assignmentof, various contracts to which Defendants were parties in connection with their ownership of the
Variety publications and the related intellectual property and other assets.
RESPONSE: Defendants refer to the APA for a complete and accurate account of its contents
and otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint.
32. The scope of the assets and liabilities conveyed to and accepted by Plaintiff under
the APA is defined by Article II. Specifically regarding contractual liabilities, under Section2.1(d), only those Contracts identified on Section 2.1(d) of the Sellers Disclosure Schedule were
included as Assigned Contracts. All other contracts of Defendants not disclosed to Plaintiff on
Section 2.1(d) of the Sellers Disclosure Schedule are Excluded Contracts and were nottransferred or conveyed to Plaintiff under the APA. Among the Excluded Liabilities, which
remain with the Sellers, are all Liabilities arising out of, relating to or in connection with the
Excluded Contracts and other Excluded Assets.
RESPONSE: Defendants refer to the APA and the Sellers Disclosure Schedule for a complete
and accurate account of their respective contents and otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph
32 of the Complaint.
33. The contracts assigned to Plaintiff that were identified in a Sellers Disclosure
Schedule were also provided to Plaintiff for its review and consideration as part of Plaintiffs due
diligence efforts prior to the close of the Transaction.
RESPONSE: Defendants: (i) refer to the APA and the Sellers Disclosure Schedule for a
complete and accurate account of their respective contents; (ii) admit that certain contracts were
provided to Plaintiff prior to the execution of the APA; and (iii) otherwise deny the allegations in
Paragraph 33 of the Complaint.
, 2012;
erwise denyny
accepte t e ass gnmentt e ass gnn with their ownership of theeir ownership o
er assets..
and accurate account of its contentsate of it te ts
t e Comp a nt.a nt.
t es conveye to an accepte y P a ntconvey accepte
y regar ng contractua a t es, un er Sg cont t es,Sect on 2.1 ) o t e Se ers D sc osure Scect o o t e
ot er contracts o De en ants not sc oset er contracts e en
sure Sc e u e are Exc u e Contracts ane u e are Exc u eun er t e APA. Among t e Exc u ee APA mong t e E
l Liabilities arising out of, relating to or inLiab sing o ating
er Exc u e Assets.Exc u e As .
ants refer to the APA and the Sellers DisclA and the Sell
ount o t e r respect ve contents an ot erwe r respect
omp a nt.
33. T e contracts ass gne to P a ntT e cts ass gne t
c e u e were a so prov e to P a nt or c e were a so pro o P
diligence efforts prior to the close of thediligenc effor rior to t
RESPONSEPONSE De en ants: ) re er nts:
comp ete an accurate accountn accur
provided to Plaintiff priop
Paragrap 33 o t eParagr
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
10/26
10
34. The Sellers Disclosure Schedule discloses the existence of the Letter Agreement,
which by that time had expired pursuant to its terms. The Operating Agreement was not
disclosed to Plaintiff as part of Plaintiffs due diligence by Defendants or otherwise and is notlisted on the Sellers Disclosure Schedule. The Operating Agreement is therefore an Excluded
Liability under the APA and was not assumed by Plaintiff as part of the Transaction.
RESPONSE: Defendants: (i) refer to the Letter Agreement and the Sellers Disclosure Schedule
for a complete and accurate account of their respective contents; (ii) aver that the first sentence
of Paragraph 34 states a legal conclusion concerning the expiration of the Letter Agreement as to
which no response is required; (iii) refer to the Sellers Disclosure Schedule for a complete and
accurate account of its contents and otherwise deny knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the truth of the allegation in the second sentence of Paragraph 34; (iv) aver that the
third sentence of Paragraph 34 states legal conclusions as to which no response is required; and
(v) otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint.
35. No other agreement or contract with Defendant BHMG apart from the Letter
Agreement was assigned to Plaintiff as part of the APA with Defendants or otherwise.
RESPONSE: Defendants aver that Paragraph 35 states a legal conclusion as to which no
response is required and otherwise deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint.
36. The Letter Agreement has expired under its own terms.
RESPONSE: Defendants: (i) aver that Paragraph 36 states a legal conclusion as to which no
response is required; (ii) refer to the Letter Agreement for a complete and accurate account of its
contents; and (iii) otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint.
37. Plaintiff is not a party to the undisclosed Operating Agreement.
ent,
s notExcluded
on.
Disclosure Schedulehedule
er t at t e rst sentencee rst sen
on o t e Letter Agreement as toetter ement as t
osure Schedule for a complete ande com a d
ow e ge or n ormat on su c ent to ormor n orm c ent to
on sentence o Paragrap 34; v) aver t atsente aragrap
conc us ons as to w c no response s requas to sponse
aragrap 34 o t e Comp a nt.agrap 34 o Comp
ment or contract with Defendant BHMG apent or t with nt B
P a nt as part o t e APA w t De en ana nt as par t e A
ants aver that Paragraph 35 states a legal craph 35 states
re an ot erw se eny now e ge or n or t erw se e
o t e a egat ons n Paragrap 35 o t e Coat o ar
36. T e Letter Agreement as exp r T e Agreement
RESPONSERESP SE Defendants: (i) aver that Pefendants
response s requ re ; ) re er to t eonse s re re
contents; an ) ot erw se en ) o
37. P a nt
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
11/26
11
RESPONSE: Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint.
D. The BHMG Claim
38. Following the close of the Transaction, BHMG forwarded to Plaintiff a copy of
the Operating Agreement, which Defendants had withheld from Plaintiff and which Plaintiff
never before had seen.
RESPONSE: Defendants deny the allegation that they withheld the Operating Agreement from
Plaintiff and otherwise deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint.
39. BHMG claimed the Operating Agreement was entered into at the end of March
2012.
RESPONSE: Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.
40. BHMG further claimed that the Operating Agreement and certain otherundisclosed actions gave BHMG the exclusive right to activate multi-event, year-round
sponsorships for Variety well beyond the single Festival contemplated in the Letter Agreement.
RESPONSE: Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint.
41. BHMG further claimed that BHMGs rights extend beyond the proposed Festival
in Beverly Hills in that the Festival became a platform to activate existing Variety events yearround. BHMG asserted that as a result of the APA and Transaction, Plaintiff became a party to
the Operating Agreement, an agreement it claimed has no expiration date and can only be
canceled by both parties.
RESPONSE: Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.
e
Plaintiff a copy ofy of
an w c P a nt
t e Operat ng Agreement romt ng ment rom
cient to form a belief as to the truthor f as t tr t
Agreement was entere nto at t e en oent w nto at t
e ge or n ormat on su c ent to orm a ege or n orma su c
p 39 o t e Comp a nt.e Co nt.
rt er c a me t at t e Operat ng Agreemene t at t e Operatgave BHMG the exclusive right to activatclusive right
r ety we eyon t e s ng e Fest va contFest v
Defendants deny knowledge or informationts de know
e a egat ons n Paragrap 40 o t e Compn P agra 0 o
41. BHMG urt er c a me t at. BHMG c a
in Beverly Hills in that the Festival becain Beve y Hil in that theroun . BHMG asserte t at as a resuun . BH erte t a
t e Operat ng Agreement, an agreeperat ng nt, a
canceled by both parties.d by both
RESPONSE De en antsDe e
trut o t e a egat onstrut
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
12/26
12
42. BHMG further claimed that the Operating Agreement is a general template, butthe actual written correspondence, and Variety approved decks further clarify our relationship.
RESPONSE: Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint.
43. Following an exchange of communications between Plaintiff and BHMG in late2012 and early 2013 regarding the terms of the Operating Agreement, BHMG, through itsprincipal Bert Bedrosian, asserted that Plaintiff had repudiated the Operating Agreement throughits actions and was therefore in breach of the Operating Agreement. BHMG demanded thatPlaintiff participate in the dispute resolution proceedings set forth in the Operating Agreement.
RESPONSE: Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint.
44. Out of an abundance of caution, and in the spirit of compromise, Plaintiff agreedto mediate the claim asserted by BHMG. Plaintiff and BHMG participated in two mediationsessions with a JAMS mediator on February 21 and April 26, 2013. No resolution was reachedduring the course of the mediation sessions.
RESPONSE: Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint.
45. On April 30, 2013, BHMG filed suit against Plaintiff in the Los Angeles SuperiorCourt, Case No. 507496 based upon its allegations that Plaintiff had repudiated the OperatingAgreement. BHMG alleged claims for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conversion, Breach ofContract, Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and Declaratory Relief. BHMGalleged $10 million in damages and a right to recover punitive damages.
RESPONSE: Defendants refer to the BHMG Complaint for a complete and accurate account of
its contents and otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint.
46. On May 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Answer to BHMGs Complaint generallydenying the allegations thereof and asserting various affirmative defenses and a counterclaimalleging claims for Fraud, Declaratory Relief, Interference, Trademark Infringement, CommonCounts and Unfair Competition.
, buts p.
f as to the
nt an BHMG n ateBHMGnt, BHMG, through its, through its
e Operat ng Agreement t rougg A ent t rougent. BHMG eman e t atG n e at
t forth in the Operating Agreement.the g A e t.
t on su c ent to orm a e e as to t ec ent to e as to
mp a nt.a nt.
ut on, an n t e sp r t o comprom se, P at on, e sp rG. P a nt an BHMG part c pate n twoP a nt an MG p
e ruary 21 an Apr 26, 2013. No reso ury 21 an Apr 26, 201n sess ons.
eny now e ge or n ormat on su c ent tony now e ge n orm
s in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint.the Complaint.
On April 30, 2013, BHMG filed suit again30, 2 3, BHNo. 507496 ase upon ts a egat ons t at6 a po
ent. BHMG a ege c a ms or Breac o Fege c a r Br act, Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fairty of G aith a
ged $10 million in damages and a right to rmillion mages and a ri
RESPONSERESP SE Defendants refer to the Befendants
ts contents an ot erw se eny t eontents a se
46. On May 1, 2Ondenying the allegations ta eg ng c a ms or Fraa eCounts an Un a r Counts
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
13/26
13
RESPONSE: Defendants: (i) admit that on or about May 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Answer to
the BHMG Complaint; (ii) refer to that Answer for a complete and accurate account of its
contents; and (iii) otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint.
47. Upon information and belief, as a result of the terms of the Operating Agreementbetween BHMG and Variety, Inc., BHMG markets and holds itself out as a partner of Plaintiffand an authorized user of the Variety marks, which Plaintiff owns. BHMG now also continuesto disparage Plaintiff in the marketplace and interfere with Plaintiffs business by making falserepresentations to potential sponsors that BHMG is exclusively authorized to activatesponsorships on Plaintiffs behalf pursuant to the Operating Agreement. BHMG also has soughtto register certain trademarks containing the phrase Power of, which are confusingly similar totrademarks owned by Plaintiff as a result of the Transaction.
RESPONSE: Defendants refer to the APA for a complete and accurate account of its contents
and otherwise deny the allegations concerning Plaintiffs ownership of trademarks as a result of
the APA, and deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
remaining allegations in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint.
48. BHMG obtained a single sponsor for the planned Festival. Upon information andbelief, that sponsor paid Variety, Inc. $500,000 in sponsorship money.
RESPONSE: Defendants: (i) admit that Variety Inc. processed receipts totaling $500,000 from
one entity in connection with the planned Festival; (ii) aver that those receipts were then paid to
BHEN Enterprises LLC; and (iii) otherwise deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations in of Paragraph 48 of the Complaint.
49. Upon information and belief, Defendants paid to BHMG $162,500 and theremaining $175,000 to BHEN Enterprises, LLC -- the entity formed by the Operating Agreement-- to offset the costs of activation of the sponsorship. Of that $175,000, $50,000 was paid to anaffiliate of BHMG as a commission for obtaining the sponsor. The remaining $125,000 remainsin a bank account owned and controlled by BHMG.
r to
ts
nt.
e Operat ng Agreemententas a partner o P a ntner o P a
. BHMG now also continuesnow also contins us ness y ma ng a seess ng a se
aut or ze to act vateto a ateAgreement. BHMG also has soughtnt. als so g
er o , w c are con us ng y s m ar toc are s ng y s mct on.
comp ete an accurate account o ts conteomp et curate ac
ng P a nt s owners p o tra emar s as as own ra em
rmat on su c ent to orm a e e as to t eat on su c e orm
47 o t e Comp a nt.e Com nt.
ta ne a s ng e sponsor or t e p anne Fesng e sponsor or td Variety, Inc. $500,000 in sponsorship m0,000 in spons
e en ants: ) a m t t at Var ety Inc. proces: ) a m t
n connect on w t t e p anne Fest va ; )n w e p
Enterprises LLC; and (iii) otherwise deny; and (i erwi
e e as to t e trut o t e a egat ons n oe e o t e trut o at
49. Upon n ormat on an49. ormremaining $175,000 to BHEN Eng $175,-- to offset the costs of activatithe costsa ate o BHMG as a comMGin a bank account ownedt
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
14/26
14
RESPONSE: Defendants deny the first sentence of Paragraph 49 and otherwise deny
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in
Paragraph 49 of the Complaint.
50. Since Variety, Inc. and BHMG elected, prior to the close of the APA Transaction,not to pursue the Festival, Plaintiff has been forced to accommodate the sponsor by providingalternative sponsorship opportunities and activations at Plaintiffs sole cost and expense.
RESPONSE: Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint.
51. Although BHMG has represented that the $125,000 currently maintained by itwould be paid to Plaintiff to reimburse it for the expense of accommodating the sponsor, it hasfailed and refused to remit the money to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has incurred well more than $125,000in expenses in connection with said sponsor.
RESPONSE: Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint.
E. The COP Claim
52. Plaintiff was recently provided with the following amendments in respect of thatcertain Printing Agreement made as of January 1, 2002, by and between Variety, Inc. andCalifornia Offset Printers (collectively, the COP Amendments): (1) Amendment to PrintingAgreement entered into as of July 1, 2005; (2) Letter Amendment to Printing Agreementbetween California Offset Printers, Inc. and Variety, Inc. dated September 23, 2011; and (3)Letter Amendment to Printing Agreement dated July 31, 2012.
RESPONSE: Defendants: (i) admit that Variety, Inc. and California Offset Printers entered into
an agreement on or about January 1, 2002 that was subsequently amended, including by
amendments on or about July 1, 2005, September 23, 2011, and July 31, 2012 (the COP
Agreement); (ii) refer to the COP Agreement for a complete and accurate account of its
contents; and (iii) otherwise deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint.
o t e APA Transact on,on,e sponsor y prov ngr y prov
ole cost and expense.nd expense.
c ent to orm a e e as to t em a e t e
.
that the $125,000 currently maintained by iat the 0 currente expense o accommo at ng t e sponsor,nse o o at ng tintiff. Plaintiff has incurred well more thantiff ha well
sor.or.
ow e ge or n ormat on su c ent to orm ae or n ormat on su c
graph 51 of the Complaint.raph Comp
t was recent y prov e w t t e o owt t egreement ma e as o January 1, 2002, ynt ma e as o
set Printers (collectively, the COP Amendrs (co ctivelyentere nto as o Ju y 1, 2005; 2) Lettero as y 1
Ca orn a O set Pr nters, Inc. an Var etyset nter c. anAmendment to Printing Agreement dated Jrinting emen
ESPONSEE SE De en ants: ) a m t t at VDe en a
an agreement on or a out January 1, 2agreemen a out Jan
amendments on or about July 1,ents on
Agreement); ) re er to t) re
contents; an ) ot econ
truth of the remairuth of t
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
15/26
15
53. Like with the BHMG Operating Agreement, none of the COP Amendments was
included within Section 2.1(d) (the Assigned Contract portion) of the Sellers DisclosureSchedule. While certain other portions of the Sellers Disclosure Schedule did include a
reference to a July 2012 amendment to the COP printing agreement (with no reference to any
other amendments), no such amendments were ever provided by Defendants as part of Plaintiffsdue diligence in connection with the APA and were not included as assigned contracts on the
Sellers Disclosure Schedule. Indeed, Plaintiff never saw any of the COP Amendments until they
were forwarded to Plaintiff by COP after the closing of the acquisition transaction. The mostsignificant of the undisclosed amendments was the amendment dated in September 2011, which
purported to extend the term of the unsigned Printing Agreement until June 2016.
RESPONSE: Defendants refer to the Sellers Disclosure Schedule and the COP Agreement for a
complete and accurate account of their respective contents and otherwise deny the allegations in
the first and second sentences of Paragraph 53, and deny knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint.
54. As a result of Defendants withholding of the COP Amendments, they were notassigned to or assumed by Plaintiff in connection with the APA and, to the extent the COP
Amendments constitute valid agreements and/or binding obligations, they are Excluded
Liabilities, which remain with Defendants.
RESPONSE: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint.
55. California Offset Printers has contended that the COP Amendments are
obligations binding upon Plaintiff and has threatened legal action against Plaintiff for alleged
breaches of the COP Amendments.
RESPONSE: Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint.
A. Defendants Indemnity Obligation
56. The APA provides that:
[T]he Sellers shall jointly and severally indemnify and defend the Purchaser and
its Affiliates, directors, officers, partners, members, equity holders, employees,
agents and representatives, and their respective successors and permitted assigns(collectively, the Purchaser Indemnified Group) against, and shall hold the
Purchaser Indemnified Group harmless from, any and all loss, Liability, claim,
action, suit, proceeding, damage or expense (including reasonable attorneys fees,
ts was
surede a
rence to anyn
s part o P a nt sa nt sd contracts on thethe
Amen ments unt t eyt ey
transact on. T e moston. T ed in September 2011, whichember 2011, wh
unt June 2016.e 201
hedule and the COP Agreement for ad Agr t or
ents an ot erw se eny t e a egat ons not erw se e a egat
n eny now e ge or n ormat on su c eeny e or n o
g a egat ons n Paragrap 53 o t e Comps n Pa o t e
ants w t o ng o t e COP Amen mentw t o ng o t e COPn connect on w t t e APA an , to t e ect on t e APA an ,
agreements and/or binding obligations, theyreem /or bin i atio
t De en ants.De en ants.
ants deny the allegations in Paragraph 54 otions in Parag
California Offset Printers has contended tia Off Printe
n ng upon P a nt an as t reateneon P a
o t e COP Amen ments.men ent
SPONSE De en ants eny now e ge orDe e ts eny now
truth of the allegations in Paragraph 55 otruth o e all ations in
A. Defendants Indemnity ObDefen dem
56. T e APA provT e
T e Se ers s a
ts A ates,
agents and rco ect vec
Purc a
actio
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
16/26
16
court costs and other out-of-pocket expenses) (collectively, Losses) incurred by
any member of the Purchaser Indemnified Group resulting from, arising out of or
in connection with . . . any Excluded Liabilities.
RESPONSE: Defendants refer to the APA for a complete and accurate account of its contents
and otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint.
57. Plaintiff is a member of the Purchaser Indemnified Group as that phrase is defined
by the APA. The claims asserted by BHMG and COP arise from the Operating Agreement and
COP Amendments -- Excluded Liabilities under the APA. Defendants therefore owe Plaintiffindemnification obligations in connection therewith.
RESPONSE: Defendants refer to the APA for a complete and accurate account of its contents
and otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 57 of the Complaint.
58. On March 19, 2013, Plaintiff made demand upon Defendants that Defendants
indemnify Plaintiff and hold Plaintiff harmless from all Losses and other expenses incurred byPlaintiff in connection with the Operating Agreement and COP Amendments, including in
connection with the BHMG mediations and further proceedings.
RESPONSE: Defendants: (i) admit that Michael N. Steuch of Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP,
purportedly on behalf of Plaintiff, sent a letter dated March 19, 2013 to counsel for Defendants;
(ii) refer to that letter for a complete and accurate account of its contents; and (iii) otherwise
deny the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint.
59. On April 5, 2013, Defendants rejected Plaintiffs indemnification demand.
Defendants refusal to acknowledge and adhere to their clear indemnification obligations arisingfrom their failure to disclose the existence of the Operating Agreement and COP Amendments
amount to a breach of the APA.
RESPONSE: Defendants: (i) admit that Sybella Stanley, Corporate Finance Director of Reed
Elsevier, Inc. sent a letter to Paul Woolnough of Variety Media, LLC dated April 5, 2013 in
response to Mr. Steuchs March 19, 2013 letter; (ii) refer to Ms. Stanleys April 5 letter for a
complete and accurate account of its contents; and (iii) otherwise deny the allegations in
Paragraph 59 of the Complaint.
r
o ts contentse ts
roup as t at p rase s e neat p rase s e
t e Operat ng Agreement ant ng ment an
endants therefore owe Plaintiffrefo e ntiff
ete an accurate account o ts contentsaccurate a o ts con
7 o t e Comp a nt.o t e nt.
tiff made demand upon Defendants that Def ma nd upo ts
arm ess rom a Losses an ot er expensem ess rom a osses arat ng Agreement an COP Amen ments,Agreement an COP A
ations and further proceedings.furthe roceedings.
) a m t t at M c ae N. Steuc o Mangea m t t at ae N.
o P a nt , sent a etter ate Marc 19, 20etter ate Ma
etter for a complete and accurate account ofcomplete
egat ons n Paragrap 58 o t e Comp a nt.Para 58
59. On Apr 5, 2013, De en ants reOn 5, 2013, De en
efendants refusal to acknowledge and ade s refusal to wledrom t e r a ure to sc ose t e ex stencerom t r a ure to sc
amount to a reac o t e APA.mount to a o t e A
RESPONSENSE De en ants: ) a
Elsevier, Inc. sent a letter tosent a
response to Mr. Steuc res
comp ete an acccomp ete
Paragraph 5
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
17/26
17
60. Plaintiff has incurred and anticipates that it will continue to incur liability for
Losses resulting from the Excluded Liabilities described above in an amount not yetascertainable including, but not limited to attorneys fees, including in connection with the
BHMG mediations and lawsuit, as well as any potential award made against Plaintiff therein.
RESPONSE: Defendants deny that Plaintiff has incurred liabilities resulting from Excluded
Liabilities and otherwise deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations in Paragraph 60 of the Complaint.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract Against All Defendants)
61. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by this reference each and every
foregoing paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
RESPONSE: Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 60 of the
Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
62. Plaintiff and Defendants are parties to the APA, a validly existing contract underNew York law.
RESPONSE: Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint.
63. Pursuant to the terms of the APA, Defendants are obligated to defend andindemnify Plaintiff against and to hold Plaintiff harmless from all losses, liabilities and claims
resulting from, arising out of or in connection with any Excluded Liabilities.
RESPONSE: Defendants refer to the APA for a complete and accurate account of its contents
and otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint.
64. The Operating Agreement and COP Amendments, as defined above, are ExcludedLiabilities under the APA. Plaintiff has incurred losses and liabilities and is subject to claimsarising from those Excluded Liabilities as alleged above. Accordingly, Defendants owe Plaintiff
indemnification obligations pursuant to the terms of the APA. Plaintiff has demanded that
Defendants recognize and honor such obligations but Defendants refuse to do so.
RESPONSE: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 64 of the Complaint.
or
ith the
nt t ere n.n.
g from Excludeded
orm a e e as to t e trute as to t
CTION
st All Defendants)t fendants)
s ere n y t s re erence eac an everyere n e erence
ere n.
ege their responses to Paragraphs 1 througege t onses t
.
e en ants are part es to t e APA, a vae en ants are t es to
n ants a m t t e a egat ons n Paragrap 6n Para
Pursuant to t e terms o t e APA, De et to rmsy Plaintiff against and to hold Plaintiff harainst d to Pla
ng rom, ar s ng out o or n connect on w tout o or onnec
ESPONSEE SE Defendants refer to the APADefen fer to
an ot erw se eny t e a egat ons n Pn ot erw s t e a eg
64. T e Operat ngT eLiabilities under the APA. Pder thear s ng rom t ose Exc u
n emn cat on o gan
Defendants recogniDefen
RESPONSESP
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
18/26
18
65. Defendants have breached the APA by failing and refusing to honor and satisfy itsindemnification obligation. In addition, Defendants breached the APA by failing to disclose theexistence of the Operating Agreement and COP Amendments as alleged above.
RESPONSE: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 65 of the Complaint.
66. Plaintiff has complied with all of its obligations under the APA, except as excusedby Defendants acts or omissions.
RESPONSE: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint.
67. As a proximate result of Defendants failure to perform as described above,Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial, which amount includes the
principal sum of $10 million.
RESPONSE: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 67 of the Complaint.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Relief Against All Defendants)
68. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by this reference each and everyforegoing paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
RESPONSE: Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 67 of the
Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
69. A justiciable controversy has arisen between Plaintiff and Defendants in thatPlaintiff contends that (1) Defendants are obligated to defend and indemnify Plaintiff against andto hold Plaintiff harmless from all losses, liabilities and claims resulting from, arising out of or inconnection with any Excluded Liabilities; (2) the Operating Agreement and COP Amendmentsare Excluded Liabilities under the APA; (3) Defendants are obligated to defend and indemnifyPlaintiff against and to hold Plaintiff harmless from all losses, liabilities and claims resultingfrom, arising out of or in connection with the Operating Agreement and COP Amendments; and
(4) Plaintiff is not a party to the Operating Agreement or COP Amendments and the contractualobligations arising therefrom remain with Defendants.
RESPONSE: Defendants: (i) admit that Plaintiff purports to enumerate its contentions in this
case; (ii) aver that Paragraph 69 of the Complaint constitutes a legal conclusion as to which no
at s y tssc ose t ee
nt.
e APA, except as excuse, except as
6 o t e Comp a nt.a
ure to per orm as escr e a ove,er orm as e a overoven at tr a , w c amount nc u es t even , w c a
ons n Paragrap 67 o t e Comp a nt.grap omp a
COND CAUSE OF ACTIONCAUSE OF ACTION
ratory Relief Against All Defendants)a ef Aga ll Defend
eges an ncorporates ere n y t s re ereges an ncor tes eough fully set forth herein.set forth herein.
n ants repeat an rea ege t e r responses te r res
u y set ort ere n.t ort ere n.
69. A ust c a e controversy as ar sea e co ersynt conten s t at 1) De en ants are o gen s De en ants ar
o hold Plaintiff harmless from all losses, liao h intiff harml m all lconnect on w t any Exc u e L a t es;connec n w t any Excare Exc u e L a t es un er t e APre Exc u e t es unPlaintiff against and to hold Plaintiftiff agai holdrom, ar s ng out o or n connectr s ng ou
4) P a nt s not a party to ts not aobligations arising therefroising t
RESPONSER De en
case; ) aver t acase; )
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
19/26
19
response is required; (iii) refer to the APA for a complete and accurate account of its contents;
and (iv) otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 69 of the Complaint.
70. Upon information and belief, Defendants deny those contentions.
RESPONSE: Defendants repeat and reallege their response to Paragraph 69 of the Complaint.
71. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a declaration to the effect that (1) Defendants are
obligated to defend and indemnify Plaintiff against and to hold Plaintiff harmless from all losses,
liabilities and claims resulting from, arising out of or in connection with any ExcludedLiabilities; (2) the Operating Agreement and COP Amendments are Excluded Liabilities under
the APA; (3) Defendants are obligated to defend and indemnify Plaintiff against and to hold
Plaintiff harmless from all losses, liabilities and claims resulting from, arising out of or in
connection with the Operating Agreement and COP Amendments; and (4) Plaintiff is not a partyto the Operating Agreement or COP Amendments and the contractual obligations arising
therefrom remain with Defendants.
RESPONSE: Defendants admit that Plaintiff purports to seek a declaration as described in
Paragraph 71 of the Complaint and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to, or that the Court should
grant, any such declaration.
DEFENSES
As and for their affirmative defenses, Defendants allege as follows, without assuming any
burden of pleading or proof that would otherwise rest with Plaintiff, and without waiving and
hereby expressly reserving the right to assert any and all additional defenses at such time and to
such extent as discovery and factual developments establish a basis therefore:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
The Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action against Defendants
upon which relief can be granted.
ts;
ns.
69 o t e Comp a nt.t.
ect t at 1) De en ants are1) De nts are
P a nt arm ess rom a osses,m ro osses,
nection with any Excludedith ludements are Exc u e L a t es un er Exc u a t es un
n emn y P a nt aga nst an to oP a nt n to o
ms resu t ng rom, ar s ng out o or ns r rom, ar
OP Amen ments; an 4) P a nt s not aAmen an 4)ents an t e contractua o gat ons ar s ngt e c o gat
a nt purports to see a ec arat on as ent purpor see a
n eny t at P a nt s ent t e to, or t at tt P a s ent t e to,
.
DEFENSESNSES
or t e r a rmat ve e enses, De en antr a r ve e
o p ea ng or proo t at wou ot erw se r proo t at ot
reby expressly reserving the right to assertressly rese the right t
suc extent as scovery an actua evsuc ext nt a overy an
FIRS
(F
T e Comp a nt ap
upon w c re e caupon
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
20/26
20
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Breach of Agreement)
The relief sought in the Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiffs own
breach of its obligations under the Asset Purchase Agreement.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Lack of Causation)
The relief sought in the Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, because the harm
suffered by Plaintiff, if any, was caused by persons, facts, and circumstances other than those
alleged in the Complaint, including Plaintiffs own conduct.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(No Damage to Plaintiff)
The relief sought in the Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff has not
suffered any damages or harm.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Damages Speculative)
Plaintiffs damages, if any, are speculative, and thus are not recoverable.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Mitigate)
The relief sought in the Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff has
failed to mitigate damages, if any.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Set-Off)
Plaintiffs alleged damages must be set-off and/or reduced by amounts Plaintiff owes to
Defendants.
s own
n part, ecause t e armcause arm
nd circumstances other than thosesta er th os
uct.
ge to Plaintiff)lainti
t s arre , n w o e or n part, ecause P as ar o e o c
IFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSEFT MAT ENS
(Damages Speculative)(Dama Spec
ages, if any, are speculative, and thus are nculative, and t
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DESIXT
(Failure to Mitiga
e relief sought in the Complaint is barred,ht in e C aint
e to m t gate amages, any.gate es, any.
SEVENTH A
P a nt s a ege amageP a nt
Defendants.
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
21/26
21
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Equitable Estoppel)
The relief sought in the Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
equitable estoppel.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Waiver)
The relief sought in the Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff, by its
own acts, errors, and omissions, has waived its rights, if any, to recover against Defendants.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands)
The relief sought in the Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine
of unclean hands.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unjust Enrichment)
The relief sought in the Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine
of unjust enrichment.
COUNTERCLAIM
Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Reed Elsevier, Inc., Variety, Inc., Reed Elsevier Properties, Inc.,
and Reed Business Information, Ltd. (collectively, Counterclaim-Plaintiffs or Reed), by and
through their attorneys, bring this counterclaim against Variety Media, LLC (Variety Media or
Counterclaim-Defendant), and allege as follows:
NATURE OF THIS COUNTERCLAIM
1. Using this suit as an apparent pretense, Variety Media defaulted on its obligation
to pay $1,300,000, plus interest, of the purchase price forVariety that it owes to Reed under the
ine of
n part, ecause P a nt , y tscause t , y ts
, to recover against Defendants.er efe s.
E DEFENSESE
ands)nds
arre , n w o e or n part, y t e equ ta en w o rt, y t e
TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSEFFIRMATIVE DEFE
(Unjust Enrichment)st Enr ent)
t e Comp a nt s arre , n w o e or n parte Comp a nt rre ,
COUNTERCLAI
ounterclaim-Plaintiffs Reed Elsevier, Inc.,Plaint s R lsev
Ree Bus ness In ormat on, Lt . co ect vs ness mat on, Lt . c
t roug t e r attorneys, r ng t s counter t roug e r attorneys,
Counterclaim-Defendant), and allunterclai ant)
A
. Us ng t ss
to pay $1,300,000, pto pay
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
22/26
22
APA. Variety Media agreed to pay this sum as recently as March 15, 2013, long after its
disputes with BHMG and California Offset Printers arose.
2. Variety Media has no valid basis to withhold the remainder of the purchase price
forVariety and Reed respectfully requests that the Court award damages to Reed in the amount
including the agreed upon payment of $1,300,000, plus interest.
PARTIES
3. At all relevant times Counterclaim-Plaintiff Reed Elsevier, Inc. was and is a
Massachusetts corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York.
4. At all relevant times Counterclaim-Plaintiff Variety, Inc. was and is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York.
5. At all relevant times Counterclaim-Plaintiff Reed Elsevier Properties, Inc. was
and is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York.
6. At all relevant times Counterclaim-Plaintiff Reed Business Information, Ltd. was
and is an entity organized and existing under the laws of England.
7. Upon information and belief, Counterclaim-Defendant Variety Media, LLC is a
limited liability company duly organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its
principal place of business in the City and County of Los Angeles.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This Court has jurisdiction over Variety Media by virtue of its filing its Complaint
in this action against Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.
9. Venue is properly laid in this Court under New York Civil Practice Law and
Rules 501.
purc ase pr cepr ce
eed in the amountount
eed Elsevier, Inc. was and is avie as a a
us ness n New Yor , New Yor .New Yo Yor .
-P a nt Var ety, Inc. was an s a De awa nt , Inc. wa
ess n New Yor , New Yor .Yor , .
ounterc a m-P a nt Ree E sev er Propertterc a m-P a Ree
t ts pr nc pa p ace o us ness n New Yopa p o us ness n
nt t mes Counterc a m-P a nt Ree Bus nt mes Counte m-P a
zed and existing under the laws of Englandder the laws o
pon n ormat on an e e , Counterc a m-mat on an
ty company u y organ ze un er t e awany rga
pal place of business in the City and Countess in t ty an
URISDIC
. T s Court as ur s ct. Court a
in this action against Counterclaiction aga
9. Venue s proVen
Ru es 501.Ru
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
23/26
23
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
10. On or about October 9, 2012, Reed, as Sellers, entered into the Asset Purchase
Agreement with Variety Media, as Purchaser.
11. The price that Variety Media agreed to pay Reed to acquire the Variety assets was
based in part on the working capital of Reeds Varietybusiness as of the closing date of the
APA. In order to facilitate the sale while allowing all parties an opportunity to conduct their own
calculation of the working capital, the APA provided for an initial payment at closing based in
part on Reeds estimate of working capital, followed by an adjustment payment to the extent the
closing working capital was later determined to be different than Reeds estimate.
12. Section 2.6 of the Asset Purchase Agreement sets forth the procedure by which
Reed and Variety Media were to come to an agreement regarding the Closing Working Capital
and any adjustment payment. Broadly speaking, that section provides that Reed would deliver
an estimate of Closing Working Capital shortly before closing (the Estimated Working
Capital), upon which the initial payment would be based; Variety Media would prepare its own
calculation within 90 days after closing; Reed would review that calculation in the following 30
days; and the parties would then attempt to reach a good faith agreement or, if that failed, retain a
third party to assist in the final determination of the Closing Working Capital.
13. Section 2.6 of the APA further provides that if the Closing Working Capital (as
finally determined) exceeds the Estimated Working Capital upon which the closing payment was
based, Variety Media shall pay an adjustment payment equal to the difference between the
two, plus interest, within three business days of the parties determination of Closing Working
Capital.
14. Specifically, Section 2.6 (e)(ii) of the Asset Purchase Agreement provides:
rc ase
e Variety assets wasets was
e c os ng ate o t eate o t
opportun ty to con uct t e r owny to c ct t e r o
initial payment at closing based inym osin d n
y an a ustment payment to t e extent t estment pa o t e exte
e erent t an Ree s est mate.ere ee s es
c ase Agreement sets ort t e proce ureement s e proc
to an agreement regar ng t e C os ng Wan agreemen gar n
oa y spea ng, t at sect on prov es t atng, t sect on prov
ng Cap ta s ort y e ore c os ng t e Esng Cap ta s o e or
the initial payment would be based; Varietwould be base
n 90 ays a ter c os ng; Ree wou rev ews a ter c os
e part es wou t en attempt to reac a gooou att
arty to assist in the final determination of the final rmina
3. Sect on 2.6 o t e APA urt. Sect on t e
na y eterm ne ) excee s t e Est mna y eter excee s t
based, Variety Media shall payVariety
two, p us nterest, w t n t r est, w
Cap ta .Cap
4. S
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
24/26
24
Within three Business Days after Closing Working Capital has been finallydetermined pursuant to this Section 2.6 . . . if the Closing Working Capital (asfinally determined) exceeds the Estimated Working Capital, the Purchaser[Variety Media] shall pay to the Sellers [Reed], in the manner and with interest asprovided in Section 2.6(f), an amount of cash equal to the difference between the
Closing Working Capital and the Estimated Working Capital.
15. On March 9, 2013, Reed and Variety Media jointly determined that the Closing
Working Capital exceeded the Estimated Working Capital by $1,300,000 (the Agreed
Adjustment Amount) and agreed to settle all objections relating to the Closing Working Capital
in exchange for a payment from Variety Media to Reed of $1,300,000, plus interest, in
accordance with Section 2.6(f) of the APA.
16. Reed and Variety Medias agreement to the Agreed Adjustment Amount of
$1,300,000 was memorialized in correspondence dated March 9, 2013 between Paul Woolnough
on behalf of Variety Media and Alison Stanworth on behalf of Reed.
17. On March 12, 2013, pursuant to a request from Mr. Woolnough, Reed prepared a
draft settlement letter (the Settlement Letter) and delivered it via email to Variety Media.
18. On March 15, 2013, Mr. Woolnough provided Reed with comments to the
Settlement Letter. That same day, Reed accepted all of the requested changes and provided
Variety Media with a final Settlement Letter reflecting the final agreed-upon terms.
19. Thereafter, in blatant breach of Section 2.6 of the Asset Purchase Agreement, and
contrary to their agreement reflected in the March 9 and March 15 correspondence, Variety
Media failed to pay Reed the Agreed Adjustment Amount.
20. Reed provided Variety Media with updated final Settlement Letters, each revised
to reflect additional computed interest to account for the ongoing delay, on March 18, 2013,
March 22, 2013, March 28, 2013, April 5, 2013, April 12, 2013, April 19, 2013, and May 2,
2013. Variety Media failed to respond to these communications.
saser
rest asween t e
ne t at t e C os ngg
0,000 (the Agreede Agreed
ng to t e C os ng Wor ng Cap tas n or Cap ta
f $1,300,000, plus interest, in, 0, plu rest, in
ement to t e Agree A ustment Amount oto t e ustmen
ondence dated March 9, 2013 between Pauldenc arch
son Stanwort on e a o Ree .nwort on e a o Re
013, pursuant to a request from Mr. Wool13, p to a re Mr
e Sett ement Letter) an e vere t v a eent Letter) an e
arc 15, 2013, Mr. Woo noug prov eug pr
tter. That same day, Reed accepted all of tt same , Ree
e a w t a na Sett ement Letter re ectna tt e Lett
9. T erea ter, n atant reac oT er , n atant r
contrary to their agreement reflected in tcontrar o the agreemen
Me a a e to pay Ree t e Agreea a e e t
20. Ree prov eRee
to reflect additional comt
Marc 22, 2013, MMarc
2013. Var ety3.
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
25/26
25
21. Variety Medias failure to pay Reed the Agreed Adjustment Amount within three
Business Days after it was finally determined constitutes a breach of Section 2.6 of the Asset
Purchase Agreement.
22. Likewise, Variety Medias continued failure to pay Reed the Agreed Adjustment
Amount with interest constitutes a breach of Section 2.6 of the Asset Purchase Agreement.
23. As a proximate result of Variety Medias failure to perform as described above,
Counterclaim-Plaintiffs have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial, which amount
includes the Agreed Adjustment Amount of $1,300,000, together with accrued interest.
24. Counterclaim-Plaintiffs have complied with all of their obligations under the
Asset Purchase Agreement.
FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
(Breach of Contract)
25. Counterclaim-Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this reference
Paragraphs 1 through 24 of the Counterclaim as though fully set forth herein.
26. The Asset Purchase Agreement is a validly existing contract between
Counterclaim-Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendant under New York law.
27. Pursuant to the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement, Counterclaim-Defendant
was required to pay Counterclaim-Plaintiffs the Agreed Adjustment Amount, together with
interest as provided for in the Asset Purchase Agreement, within three Business Days after the
Agreed Adjustment Amount was finally determined.
28. Counterclaim-Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendant reached an agreement on
March 9, 2012 that the Agreed Adjustment Amount was $1,300,000.
29. Counterclaim-Defendant has willfully breached the Asset Purchase Agreement by
its continued failure to pay Counterclaim-Plaintiffs the Agreed Adjustment Amount with interest.
hree
Asset
Agreed Adjustmenttment
urc ase Agreement.greemen .
o per orm as escr e a ove,as e a ove,
t to be proven at trial, which amountov , w m u
0, toget er w t accrue nterest.er w t ac terest.
p e w t a o t e r o gat ons un er t ee w t e r o
IRST COUNTERCLAIMRST COUN CLA
(Breach of Contract)Breach of Contract)
laintiffs reallege and incorporate herein byainti e and ate h
o t e Counterc a m as t oug u y set ortnterc a m as t oug
Asset Purc ase Agreement s a va y ex sa va
-Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendant undand ntercl
7. Pursuant to t e terms o t e Asset Punt to t e ter t e
s requ re to pay Counterc a m-P a nt s tto pay terc a m-P a
interest as provided for in the Asset Purcinterest s pro ed for in
Agree A ustment Amount wase A us oun
28. Counterc a m-PCoun
March 9, 2012 that the A
29. Cou
ts cont nueon
-
7/28/2019 Reed Elsevier Response to Penske Variety Lawsuit
26/26
30. As a proximate result of Counterclaim-Defendants failure to perform as
described above, Counterclaim-Plaintiffs have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at
trial, which amount includes the Agreed Adjustment Amount of $1,300,000, together with
accrued interest.
31. Counterclaim-Plaintiffs have complied with all of their obligations under the
Asset Purchase Agreement.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:
(A) Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint;
(B) Award Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs the costs and attorneys fees
incurred in this action;
(C) Award Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs damages, together with interest as
allowed by law, on their Counterclaim in an amount to be determined at trial;
(D) Award Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
Dated: June 18, 2013New York, New York /s/ Dennis P. Orr
Dennis P. OrrKayvan B. SadeghiMORRISON & FOERSTER LLP1290 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, New York 10104Telephone: (212) 468-8000
Facsimile: (212) 468-7900
Counsel to Defendants and Counterclaim-
Plaintiffs Reed Elsevier, Inc., Variety, Inc.,Reed Elsevier Properties, Inc., and Reed
Business Information, Ltd.
$
oven at
ther with
o gat ons un er t ens un er t
EF
nt s respect u y request t at t e Court:s t u y req
unterc a m-P a nt s t e costs an attorney nte nt s
;
s and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs damages, toterclai aintiffs dama
aw, on t e r Counterc a m n an amount to, on t e r Co rc a m
e en ants an Counterc a m-P a nt s sucounterc a m-P
rt eems ust an proper.ust a
ne 18, 2013New York, New Yorkw York /s/