Stimwave Technologies Incorporated v. Laura Tyler Perryman

Court of Chancery of Delaware·Decided July 14, 2022·No. CA No. 2019-1003-SG·Published

Opinion

COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE

SAM GLASSCOCK III VICE CHANCELLOR STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE 34 THE CIRCLE

GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

July 14, 2022

Richard P. Rollo, Esq. Ms. Laura Tyler Perryman Kevin M. Gallagher, Esq. 1521 Alton Rd., Suite 417 Travis S. Hunter, Esq. Miami Beach, FL 33139 Nicole M. Henry, Esq. Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. One Rodney Square 920 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801

RE: Stimwave Technologies Incorporated v. Laura Tyler Perryman, et al., C.A. No. 2019-1003-SG

Dear Counsel and Ms. Perryman:

This matter at its inception involved in part the Plaintiff’s motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.1 A hearing on that motion was scheduled for December 19, 2019. 2 The need for the hearing was obviated by the Defendants, including Laura Perryman, consenting to entry of a Status Quo Order, 3 which (as amended)4 continues to govern this matter. The Status Quo Order (the “Order”) is

1 See Mot. for TRO, Dkt. No. 3.

2 See Letter to Counsel and Litigants – TRO Hr’g Scheduled, Dkt. No. 11.

3 See Status Quo Order, Dkt. No. 21.

4 See Am. Status Quo Order, Dkt. No. 82 [hereinafter “Order”].

attached to this Letter Opinion. The litigants did not seek a preliminary injunctive relief hearing to supplement the Order, but were content to proceed to final relief.5 Via the Order, the parties retained the right to seek amendments to the Order. 6 Ms. Perryman, now pro se, filed an “Emergency Motion to Lift & Vacate the Status Quo Order” on March 29, 2022. 7 I denied that motion, instead staying the matter pending resolution of a purported criminal investigation of Ms. Perryman,8 which according to the Plaintiff was stymieing efforts to depose Ms. Perryman.9 However, I offered to proceed to an evidentiary hearing to reconsider the Order, during pendency of the stay, should Ms. Perryman request such a hearing by June 16, 2022. 10 Instead, Ms. Perryman informed me that she intended to proceed to appellate review. 11 I declined to certify the matter, as explained in my Letter Opinion of June 9th. 12 In any event, Ms. Perryman did not file an interlocutory appeal. She has now

5 See, e.g., Stipulation and Order Governing Case Schedule, Dkt. No. 172 (scheduling trial rather than a preliminary injunction hearing).

6 Order ¶ 13.

7 Emergency Mot. to Lift & Vacate the Status Quo Order, Dkt. No. 455.

8 See Tr. of 5.4.22 Telephonic Rulings of the Ct., Dkt. No. 488.

9 See Mot. to Stay or for Adverse Inference, Dkt. No. 450.

10 Letter Op. and Order, Dkt. No. 492.

11 Letter dated June 14, 2022 from Def. Regarding Resp. to Letter Op., Dkt.

No. 493.

12 Letter Op. and Order, Dkt. No. 492.

filed what she styles an “Ex Parte Motion to Vacate the Status Quo Order.” 13 The matter is fully briefed, and I address it here. 14 Ms. Perryman notes that the Plaintiff is now in bankruptcy,15 but does not explain how that circumstance makes the Order offensive to equity. She does argue, however, that the bankruptcy is part of a conspiracy to “cheat the equity holders,”16 and that Ms. Perryman must have the ability to “expose” the conspiracy and other wrongdoing to “the DOJ, OIG, SEC and FDA,” as well as the Bankruptcy Court.17 Ms. Perryman wishes to be able to “testify” to the DOJ and other regulatory bodies concerning the conspiracy, as well as additional alleged wrongdoing, including knowing manufacturing by the Plaintiff of defective products and Medicare fraud.18 I have carefully reviewed the Order in light of Ms. Perryman’s allegations.

The Order provides, with respect to Ms. Perryman:

1) She shall not act on behalf of Stimwave, other than as a director;

2) She shall not obstruct company operations;

3) She shall not communicate that she controls or has the authority to speak for Stimwave or its subsidiaries;

4) She shall not enter Stimwave property without permission;

5) She shall not assert rights in property removed from and owned by Stimwave;

13 Def. Perryman’s Ex Parte Mot. to Vacate the Status Quo Order, Dkt. No.

497 [hereinafter “Perryman Mot.”].

14 To the extent Ms. Perryman’s reply briefing asserts new grounds in support of her motion, those grounds are waived, and I do not address them here.

15 Id. at 1.

16 Id. at 2.

17 Id. at 2–3.

18 Id. at 8–12.

6) She shall not assert control over certain intellectual property;

7) She shall not destroy Stimwave information;

8) She shall not access or control Stimwave electronic information;

9) She shall yield control of the email domain and server to Stimwave;

10) She shall refrain from accessing the Stimwave bank accounts, credit cards and payment systems;

11) She shall use reasonable best efforts to assist Stimwave in regaining access to its bank accounts, credit cards and payment systems; and 12) She shall assist Stimwave’s compliance with a specific loan security agreement.19

Nothing in Ms. Perryman’s current motion suggests that circumstances have changed such that the Order should be revoked in its entirety, the relief she seeks, or that the Order should even be modified, pending resolution of this matter. I note that I lifted the stay of this action by order of July 7, 2022, 20 and the matter shall proceed to trial.

More to the point, the relief Ms. Perryman seeks—lifting the Order so that she may report to and testify before the Department of Justice, the Bankruptcy Court, and other regulatory bodies—is not necessary by the Order’s own terms. For clarity, I find here that actions consistent with the preceding sentence are not a violation of any terms of the Order, and will not result in a finding of contempt of the Order. To the (unstated) extent that Ms. Perryman is concerned that reporting of accurate facts to, or testimony before, the DOJ, the courts or any regulatory body may violate the

19 See generally Order.

20 Letter Order, Dkt. No. 504.

directive in the Order that she not “obstruct” Stimwave’s operations, such reporting or testimony is not obstruction and is not prohibited by the Order.

Accordingly, Ms. Perryman’s motion is DENIED. To the extent anything in this Letter Opinion requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sincerely,

/s/ Sam Glasscock

Vice Chancellor Glasscock III

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STIMWAVE TECHNOLOGIES ) INCORPORATED, a Delaware ) corporation, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) C.A. No. 2019-1003-SG )

LAURA TYLER PERRYMAN, GARY ) PERRYMAN, MICRON DEVICES ) LLC, a Delaware limited liability ) company, and STIMGUARD MEDICAL ) CORPORATION, a Delaware ) corporation, )

)

Defendants. )

AMENDED STATUS QUO ORDER 21 WHEREAS, on December 16, 2019, plaintiff Stimwave Technologies Incorporated (“Plaintiff” or the “Company”) filed a Verified Complaint against defendants Laura Tyler Perryman, Gary Perryman, Micron Devices LLC and Stimguard Medical Corporation (collectively, the “Defendants” and together with the Plaintiff, the “Parties”);

21 The title “Status Quo Order” is being used solely for convenience and shall not be used to construe or interpret any provision hereof, including the scope of the restraints imposed hereby on the Defendants and those acting under their direction, nor shall it be used to suggest or imply the imposition of any restraints upon the Company.

WHEREAS, on December 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (the “Motion”) against Defendants;

WHEREAS, on December 17, 2019, the Court scheduled a hearing on the Motion for December 19, 2019, at 4:00 p.m. in Georgetown, Delaware;

WHEREAS, the Court heard the Parties on the Motion as scheduled on December 19, 2019; and WHEREAS, the Parties agree to this Status Quo Order, which will remain in effect until the above-captioned action is dismissed or fully resolved by the Court, or the Status Quo Order is modified by the Court;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, this 5th day of February, 2020, that:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Stimwave Technologies Incorporated v. Laura Tyler Perryman, (Del. Ct. App. 2022).

Stimwave Technologies Incorporated v. Laura Tyler Perryman (Stimwave Technologies Incorporated v. Laura Tyler Perryman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.