Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OLSON [8479]
EOLSON@MOHTRIAL.COM
KEVIN M. PAULSEN [15219]
KPAULSEN@MOHTRIAL.COM
MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, P.C.
NEWHOUSE BUILDING
TEN EXCHANGE PLACE, SUITE 350
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
TELEPHONE: 801.456.7655
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR
SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
STEPHANIE D. CHARD, individually on
behalf of herself and derivatively on behalf of
TRAINING TABLE RESTAURANTS, INC.,
a Utah corporation,
COMPLAINT
TIER 3
Plaintiffs,
v.
KENT J. CHARD, an individual, PETER M.
ENNENGA, individually and as trustee of
THE KENT JAMES CHARD TRUST DTD
4/13/93, DON SORENSEN, an individual,
SORENSEN VANCE & CO 401K PROFIT
SHARING PLAN, a defined benefit plan of
unknown origin, TT THREE, LLC, a Utah
limited liability company, and TRAINING
TABLE LAND & HOLDING, LLC, a Utah
limited liability company,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Stephanie D. Chard (Stephanie Chard), directly for herself and derivatively as
a 50% shareholder of Training Table Restaurants, Inc. (TTR) (collectively plaintiffs), hereby
complain of defendants Kent J. Chard (Kent Chard), Peter M. Ennenga (Ennenga),
individually and as trustee of The Kent James Chard Trust dtd 4/13/93 (the Kent Chard Trust),
Don Sorensen (Sorensen), Sorensen Vance & Co. 401K Profit Sharing Plan (Sorensen Vance
401K), TT Three, LLC (TT Three), and Training Table Land & Holding, LLC (TTL&H)
and allege as follows:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1.
TTR is a Utah corporation with its principal place of business in Salt Lake
County.
3.
County.
4.
Kent Chard previously owned 50% of the issued and outstanding stock of TTR,
Chard Trust.
6.
Ennenga is a former member of the Utah State Bar who has been disbarred for
County.
8.
Ennenga and Sorensen are longtime advisors of Kent Chard, TTR, and the Chard
family.
2 of 26
COMPLAINT
9.
with the CPA firm of Sorensen Vance & Co., whose principal place of business is in Salt Lake
County.
10.
TT Three and TTL&H are Utah limited liability companies headquartered in Salt
Lake County.
11.
TTR owns and operates the five Training Table restaurants located along the
Wasatch Front.
12.
TT Three and TTL&H collectively own and lease to TTR the five restaurant
buildings operated by TTR (the Buildings) pursuant to written lease agreements (the
Leases), which have been amended over the course of time.
13.
the right a distance of 28.05 feet (Central Angle equals 10 degrees 4244
and Long Chord bears North 81 degrees 5445 East 28.00 feet) to a point
of reverse curvature; Northeasterly along the arc of a 150.00 foot radius
curve to the left a distance of 110.66 feet (Central Angle equals 42 degrees
1607 and Long Chord bears North 66 degrees 0803 East 108.17 feet to
a point of tangency; and North 45 degrees 0000 East 77.22 feet to the
Westerly line of Market Center Drive and the point of beginning.
Parcel 3A:
Together with the rights and benefits contained in that certain Restriction
Agreement and Grant of Easements recorded December 01, 2005, as Entry
No. 9569861, in Book 9224, at Page 9448.
Parcel 3B:
Together with the rights and benefits contained in that certain Restriction
Agreement and Grant of Easement recorded October 19, 2006, as Entry
No. 9881801, in Book 9367, at Page 8708.
Parcel No. 27-32-377-002
13304 South Market Center Drive (also known as 13298 S. Market Center
Dr.)
Riverton, Utah 84065
b.
Parcel 1: Beginning at a point in the center of 2300 East Street, said point
being 253.09 feet South 00730 West and 450.41 feet South 00052
West from the Northwest corner of the Southeast quarter of Section 3,
Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, and
running thence North 863000 East 290.11 feet; thence South 83000
East 78.30 feet; thence South 863000 West 301.73 feet to the center of
2300 East Street; thence along said centerline North 00052 East 78.15
feet to the point of Beginning
Parcel 2: Beginning at a point in the center of 2300 East Street, said point
being 253.09 feet South 00730 West 372.26 feet South 00052 West
from the Northwest corner of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township
2 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian and running thence
North 863000 East 278.50 feet; thence South 83000 East 78.30 feet;
thence South 863000 West 290.11 feet to the center of 2300 East
Street; thence along said centerline North 00052 East 78.15 feet to the
point of Beginning.
4 of 26
COMPLAINT
Beginning at a point on the West line of 400 West Street, said point being
North 895450 East 1278.81 feet along the section line and South
00510 East 126.90 feet from the North Quarter Corner of Section 20,
Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian and
running thence South 001105 West 250.10 feet along the West line of
said 400 West Street; thence South 895450 West 247.51 feet; thence
North 345810 West 70.82 feet; thence North 550150 East 193.09
feet; thence North 001105 East 62.77 feet; thence North 550150 East
32.87 feet; thence North 895450 East 103.54 feet to the point of
beginning.
Parcel No. 10-068-0077
955 North 400 West
Layton, Utah 84041
d.
running thence South 00 degrees 0319 East 82.128 feet along said
Westerly right of way line to a point 53.00 feet perpendicularly distant
Westerly from said control line; thence North 08 degrees 3510 West
20.224 feet to a point 56.00 feet perpendicularly distant Westerly from
said control line; thence North 00 degrees 0319 West 39.772 feet to
along a line parallel with said control line to a point 56.00 feet
perpendicularly distant Westerly from said control line; thence North 09
degrees 1300 West 21.937 feet to the point 59.49 feet perpendicularly
distant Westerly from said control line; thence North 75 degrees 1644
East 6.711 feet to the point of beginning as shown on the official map of
said project on file in the office of the Utah Department of Transportation.
Also less and Excepting that portion of subject property conveyed by that
certain Warranty Deed recorded February 23, 2006 as Entry No. 9644474
in Book 9258 at page 3868 being as follows:
A parcel of land in fee for the widening and reconstruction of the existing
highway State Route 89 known as Project No. SP-0089(88)313, being a
part of an entire tract of property, situate in the Northwesterly ,
Southwesterly of Section 18, Township 3 South, Range 1 East, Salt
Lake Base and Meridian. The boundaries of said parcel of land are
described as follows:
Beginning in the Westerly right of way line of said existing highway State
Route 89 at a point 53.00 feet perpendicularly distant Westerly from the
control line of said project opposite engineer station 79+74.57 which point
is 134.96 feet South 87 degrees 4706 East (134.93 feet South 87 degrees
4905 East by record) to a street monument located in the centerline of
State Street and 10600 South Street, and 406.966 feet South 00 degrees
0319 East along the monumented centerline of State Street, and 53.00
feet West from the West Quarter Corner of said Section 18, and running
thence South 00 degrees 0319 East 16.735 feet along said Westerly right
of way line to a point 53.00 feet perpendicularly distant Westerly from
said control line; thence North 69 degrees 2448 West 8.204 feet to a
point 60.68 feet perpendicularly distant Westerly from said control line;
thence North 02 degrees 5105 West 18.733 feet to a point 61.59 feet
perpendicularly distant Westerly from said control line; thence South 58
degrees 4411 East 10.056 feet to the point of beginning as shown on the
official map of said project on file in the office of the Utah Department of
Transportation.
Parcel No. 27-13-427-058-0000
Parcel No. 27-13-427-059-0000
6 of 26
COMPLAINT
14.
On information and belief, Kent Chard owns 49.5% of the membership units of
Kent Chard had run TTR for many years, but due to his declining health, his lack
of expertise, and other factors, Kent Chard was having difficulty successfully managing the
business.
17.
In the second quarter of 2011, Zions Bank called its loan to TTL&H and TT
18.
Kent Chard borrowed hard money loans to help meet short-term cash flow needs
Three.
of TTR.
19.
In June 2011, Stephanie Chard began working for TTR in an effort to help her
Moorhead (Moorhead) 50% of the issued and outstanding shares of stock in TTR (the Stock
Purchase).
7 of 26
COMPLAINT
21.
funds represented life savings and an inheritance that Stephanie Chard had set aside for medical
school following college.
22.
In making the Stock Purchase, Stephanie Chard was counseled by Kent Chard,
Ennenga, and Sorensen, each of whom urged Stephanie Chard to proceed with the Stock
Purchase.
23.
Sorensen held himself out as a financial advisor for the Chard family. Kent Chard
Ennenga held himself out as legal counsel for TTR and the Chard family
throughout the time he interacted with Stephanie Chard. Kent Chard identified Ennenga as the
familys attorney and legal counsel, and Ennenga never corrected such statements.
25.
Ennenga knew, but failed to disclose to TTR or Stephanie Chard, that he had been
Ennenga performed legal services for Kent Chard, TTR, and the Chard family
over a period of many years, including the years since he was disbarred from the practice of law.
27.
proceed with the Stock Purchase. Ennenga answered Stephanie Chards questions. Ennenga
provided legal advice to Stephanie Chard in connection with the Stock Purchase.
28.
Ennenga counseled and encouraged Stephanie Chard to make the Stock Purchase.
29.
Ennenga represented the interests of Stephanie Chard, Kent Chard, Gary Chard,
and himself.
8 of 26
COMPLAINT
30.
The interests of TTR, Stephanie Chard, Kent Chard, Gary Chard, and Ennenga
represent.
32.
During the negotiation of the Stock Purchase, Ennenga did not disclose to
Stephanie Chard that he had been disbarred from the practice of law.
34.
During the negotiation of the Stock Purchase, Ennenga did not advise Stephanie
Chard to engage her own independent counsel to represent her interests in the Stock Purchase.
35.
During the negotiation of the Stock Purchase, Ennenga did not seek to procure
from Stephanie Chard a waiver of any conflict of interest arising from his engagement.
36.
Kent Chard, Ennenga, Sorensen knew, but failed to disclose or explain adequately
to Stephanie Chard in connection with the Stock Purchase, numerous material facts pertaining to
the Stock Purchase, including without limitation:
a.
Details regarding the ownership structure of the entities that own the five
restaurant buildings;
b.
The fact that they each directly or indirectly owned an interest in TTL&H
and TT Three;
c.
9 of 26
COMPLAINT
d.
The fact that Kent Chard and Ennenga had drafted and executedthe
same day as the Stock Purchaselease addenda raising the lease rates for the Buildings;
and
e.
37.
Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen in deciding to proceed with the Stock Purchase.
38.
On that same day, Kent Chard, on behalf of TTR, and Kent Chard, on behalf of
TTL&H and TT Three, executed addenda to the Leases increasing the rent for the Buildings and
setting rents at amounts above market value.
39.
On information and belief, Ennenga represented both TTR and TTL&H in these
transactions.
40.
Ennenga knew or should have known that entering into the addenda to the Leases
interest in TT Three.
42.
From the time of the Stock Purchase, Kent Chard was only minimally involved in
However, Kent Chard drew a salary throughout the period of time that he was
Kent Chards salary payments, which were entirely disproportionate to any actual
10 of 26
COMPLAINT
45.
At that time, Stephanie Chard became CEO and President of TTR and took over
Upon Kent Chards return in April 2014, Kent Chard and Ennenga demanded of
Stephanie Chard that TTR pay to Kent Chard a salary through December 2015, even though he
performed no work.
48.
Between 2014 and 2016, Stephanie Chard provided various services and incurred
Stephanie Chard has sent invoices to TTL&H and TT Three to pay for those
During the ensuing months, Kent Chard has failed or refused to attend
In failing to attend shareholder meetings, Kent Chard has made it impossible for
Stephanie Chard to try to implement a Board of Directors that corresponds proportionately with
the stock ownership of the company.
53.
Kent Chard has refused to participate in any meaningful way in assisting with
Stephanie Chards efforts to maintain or increase the cash flow of the business, including without
limitation efforts to secure the financing needed to make the business successful.
11 of 26
COMPLAINT
54.
Kent Chard has refused to participate in any meaningful way in assisting with
Stephanie Chards efforts to perform substantial capital improvements on the Buildings, certain
of which have been and continue to be in disrepair.
55.
Sorensen, Ennenga, and Kent Chard purport to comprise the Board of Directors of
TTR even though there is no documentation suggesting the manner in which or time at which
Sorensen and Ennenga were appointed as board members.
56.
Sorensen, Ennenga, and Kent Chard have scheduled and carried out board
meetings without allowing Stephanie Chard, a 50% stockholder in TTR, to have any meaningful
voice in such meetings, including the opportunity to elect board members.
57.
Recently, Kent Chard, Sorensen, and Ennenga have each engaged in efforts to
terminate the Leases and have expressly or impliedly threatened to evict TTR from the
Buildings.
58.
Kent Chard, Sorensen, and Ennenga have refused to adjust rental rates of the
Leases to fair rental value, have insisted that they receive the rental rates dictated by the addenda
to the Leases that they executed on the same dates as the Stock Purchase, and have refused to
issue a credit to TTR for excess rental payments that have been made to TTL&H and TT Three.
59.
Kent Chard, Sorensen, and Ennenga have been attempting to sell the Buildings,
even though doing so poses the substantial risk of placing TTR out of business.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breaches of Fiduciary Duty and Other Duties)
60.
12 of 26
COMPLAINT
61.
Because of the familial relationship between Stephanie Chard and Kent Chard,
there has been an inherent layer of trust and heightened expectation of honest dealing by
Stephanie Chard with Kent Chard, and also with the Chard familys advisors, Ennenga and
Sorensen.
62.
closely held corporation, Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen owe to Stephanie Chard and to
TTR fiduciary duties and other corporate duties, including a duty of utmost good faith, a duty of
loyalty, and a duty of care.
63.
Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen were obligated not to place their own best
Officers and directors may not personally purchase property under lease to the
Directors are not entitled to profits beyond the earnings on their stock, proper
which officers, directors, and members of the landlordnamely Kent Chard, Ennenga, and
Sorensenalso serve as an officers, directors, or shareholders of the tenant, Kent Chard,
Ennenga, and Sorensen breached their duties owed to Stephanie Chard and TTR.
67.
Stephanie Chard and TTR, as is the case here, Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen have placed
their own interests as landlord before their interests as directors, officers, or shareholders of
TTR, thereby breaching duties they owe to Stephanie Chard and TTR.
13 of 26
COMPLAINT
68.
Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen had a duty to communicate accurately and
Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen were in a position to filter and control the
Kent Chard has taken advantage, for his own benefit, of the familial ties between
Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen have failed to attend a shareholder meeting
as demanded by Stephanie Chard pursuant to Utah Code 16-10a-703. They have done this to
preserve their director appointments within the company.
72.
Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensens conduct outlined herein lacked good faith.
Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen acted without the care that an ordinarily prudent person in a
like position would exercise under similar circumstances. Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensens
conduct was not in the best interest of the corporation.
73.
At least some, if not all, of the breaches and failures to perform of Kent Chard,
Ennenga, and Sorensen were the result of gross negligence, willful misconduct, or an intent to
inflict harm on TTR and Stephanie Chard.
74.
Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen took affirmative steps to prevent the
By virtue of the conduct described above, Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen
have breached their duties owed to TTR and Stephanie Chard in a number of ways.
76.
The conduct of Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen was knowing and intentional,
77.
The conduct of Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen has directly and proximately
Plaintiffs damages include, but are not limited to, the following:
a.
b.
c.
b.
c.
d.
e.
profits;
79.
The conduct of Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen was willful and malicious,
was intentionally fraudulent, or manifested a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a
disregard of, the rights of TTR and Stephanie Chard.
80.
At all times, Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen were aware of their duty to TTR
legally recognized duties owed by Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen to TTR and Stephanie
Chard.
82.
directors, and shareholders in closely held corporations, specifically, from violating their duties
owed to the shareholders and the corporation.
15 of 26
COMPLAINT
83.
The Court should award punitive damages in an amount sufficiently large enough
both to punish Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen and to discourage comparable behavior from
others similarly situated.
84.
As detailed above, Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensens breaches of duty have
irreparably harmed TTR and Stephanie Chard and risks causing further irreparable harm.
85.
Under Rule 65A, TTR and Stephanie Chard are entitled to immediate injunctive
relief as detailed herein and further ordering that Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen be
immediately removed as officers and board members of TTR, and providing such other
injunctive relief as the Court deems fair and equitable.
86.
TTR and Stephanie Chard are further entitled to a judgment and order cancelling
the addenda to the Leases and modifying and reforming the Leases so that they charge a rental
amount no greater than the fair rental value, and making such other modifications as the Court
would deem fair and equitable under the circumstances.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Aiding and Abetting Breaches of Duty)
87.
Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen each knew or should have known that each
Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen each knew or should have known of some or
all of each others respective conduct through which they each breached duties owed to
Stephanie Chard and TTR, and were aware of their roles in furtherance of such activities.
16 of 26
COMPLAINT
90.
Chard in breaching his duties by, among other things, aiding, abetting, participating, assisting,
directing and/or covering up those breaches.
91.
reason to know of each others breaches of duty and their aiding and abetting in the breach of
such duties, Stephanie Chard and TTR are entitled to damages against Kent Chard, Ennenga, and
Sorensen as proven at trial, together with other remedies detailed above.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Court-Ordered Shareholders Meeting)
92.
Kent Chard, and/or Peter Ennenga, trustee of the Kent Chard Trust, hold more
Kent Chard and/or Peter Ennenga, trustee of the Kent Chard Trust, failed and
refused to call a special meeting of the shareholders within 60 days of receiving a proper notice
from Stephanie Chard.
95.
This conduct violates the statutory rights of Stephanie Chard and has harmed and
Stephanie Chard from voting in members of the Board of Directors proportionate to her interest
in TTR to, among other things, renegotiate the Leases, which were knowingly entered into by
Kent Chard in a manner would harm TTR and benefit himself personally, and which are being
used at the present time to harm or threaten to harm TTR.
17 of 26
COMPLAINT
97.
As a result of their refusal to call a special meeting of the shareholders and the
current composition of the TTR Board of Directors, Kent Chard and/or Peter Ennenga, trustee of
the Kent Chard Trust, are in complete control of TTR, even with only 50% ownership of TTRs
stock.
98.
Kent Chard and/or Peter Ennenga, trustee of the Kent Chard Trust, have placed
TTR in an untenable cash position by enriching themselves with the rent revenue far above
market value from TTR. This violates Kent Chards fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty.
99.
The conduct of Kent Chard and/or Peter Ennenga, trustee of the Kent Chard
Trust, has undercapitalized TTR and has made it impossible for TTR, with Kent Chard in control
of the company, to maintain profitability and viability.
100.
But for Kent Chards breaches of his fiduciary duties, Plaintiffs would not be
harmed.
102.
Plaintiffs, as the party to whom Kent Chard owed and continues to owe fiduciary
duties, are foreseeable victims of Kent Chards conduct and therefore Kent Chards conduct is
the proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries and damages.
103.
vote in new directors and members of the Board of Directors to resume control of TTR, TTRs
business is jeopardized.
104.
b.
c.
Ordering that Stephanie Chard and Kent Chard are both entitled to notice
and to attend, participate, and vote pursuant to their respective stock ownership
(Stephanie Chard2500 shares; Kent Chard2500 shares).
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unjust Enrichment)
105.
Utilizing their positions at TTR, TTL&H, and TT Three, Kent Chard, Ennenga,
and Sorensen have knowingly conferred on themselves improper benefits from Stephanie Chard
and TTR, including but not limited to salary, compensation, or other benefits disproportionate to
what they are reasonably or legally entitled; and rent revenue beyond fair market value.
107.
TTR paid attorney fees and costs to Ennenga for providing legal services for TTR
TTR paid fees and costs to Sorensen for providing accounting services for TTR
Stephanie Chard provided services to TTL&H and TT Three in 2014 and 2015.
110.
TTL&H and TT Three have failed to pay Stephanie Chard for the services
rendered.
111.
It would be against equity and good conscience to allow TTL&H and TT Three to
retain the benefit of Stephanie Chards services without paying Stephanie Chard for her services.
19 of 26
COMPLAINT
112.
It would be unjust and inequitable to allow Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen to
retain the fees that TTR paid to them where Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen failed to
properly perform their duties on behalf of TTR.
113.
Stephanie Chard and TTR are therefore entitled to a judgment against Kent
By virtue of the conduct described above, Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen
have engaged in fraudulent or dishonest conduct or gross abuse of authority or discretion with
respect to how they have run TTR.
116.
At all times, Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen knew or should have known that
their conduct was wrongful toward TTR and wrongful toward Stephanie Chard.
117.
At all times, Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensens conduct was both intentional
and grossly negligent and demonstrates a gross abuse of authority and discretion.
118.
The conduct of Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen has damaged TTR, its value,
The conduct of Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen has damaged Stephanie
Chard by depriving her of her rights to meaningfully participate in TTR as a director, deprived
Stephanie Chard of her rights to meaningfully benefit from her status as an equal shareholder of
TTR, and has personally deprived Stephanie Chard of her pro rata share of the profits of TTR.
20 of 26
COMPLAINT
120.
Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an order removing Kent Chard, Ennenga, and
Sorensen as directors of TTR, together with such other relief as the Court deems equitable or
appropriate.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Statutory Duty)
121.
As officers and directors of TTR, under Utah Code 16-10a-840(1), Kent Chard,
Ennenga, and Sorensen had a duty to discharge their duties (a) in good faith; (b) with the care an
ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances; and (c)
in a manner the director or officer reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the
corporation.
123.
perform the duties of their office in compliance with Utah Code 16-10a-840(1). Their breaches
and failures to perform constitute gross negligence, willful misconduct, and intentional infliction
of harm.
124.
directors of TTR, and a judgment against Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen in an amount to be
proved at trial.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Legal MalpracticeBreach of Fiduciary Duty and Professional Negligence)
125.
126.
At all relevant times, Ennenga held himself out as legal counsel for TTR and
Stephanie Chard and provided legal services to TTR and Stephanie Chard in exchange for legal
fees for such services, which Ennenga always accepted.
127.
The attorney-client relationship between Ennenga on the one hand and TTR and
Stephanie Chard on the other hand was ongoing through January 2016.
129.
As TTR and Stephanie Chards attorney, Ennenga owed a fiduciary duty and a
duty of care to TTR and Stephanie Chard and a duty to comply with all ethical standards
required by the Utah Code of Professional Conduct.
130.
and Stephanie Chard constituted a conflict of interest under Rule 1.7(a), Utah Code of
Professional Conduct.
131.
By virtue of the foregoing conduct, which fell below the requisite standards of
care and conduct, Ennenga breached his contractual, fiduciary, and ethical duties to TTR and
Stephanie Chard, committing legal malpractice.
132.
standards of professional competence and taken proper action to protect TTR and Stephanie
Chard, TTR and Stephanie Chard would not have incurred all of the harm detailed in this
complaint.
133.
TTR and Stephanie Chard are entitled to a judgment against Ennenga for damages
resulting from his breaches of duty and his legal malpractice in an amount to be proven at trial.
22 of 26
COMPLAINT
134.
In the event that Ennengas conduct is shown to have been willful and malicious,
TTR and Stephanie Chard are also entitled to an award of attorneys fees that they
By virtue of the conduct described above, Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen
committed securities fraud under Utah Code 61-1-1 and Utah Code Ann. 61-1-22 of the Utah
Uniform Securities Act.
138.
The conduct of Kent Chard, Ennenga, and Sorensen was reckless or intentional,
or was negligent, but involved an investment by a person over whom defendants exercised undue
influence.
139.
and Sorensen for damages and all other available remedies under Utah Code Ann. 61-1-22,
including interest, treble damages, and costs and attorney fees.
23 of 26
COMPLAINT
b.
c.
d.
Ordering that Stephanie Chard and Kent Chard are both entitled to notice
and to attend, participate, and vote pursuant to their respective stock ownership
(Stephanie Chard2500 Shares; Kent Chard2500 Shares); and
e.
Ordering that the votes cast at the meeting shall constitute a quorum for
A judgment and order cancelling the addenda to the Leases and modifying and
reforming the Leases so that they charge a rental amount no greater than the fair rental value, and
making such other modifications as the Court would deem fair and equitable under the
circumstances;
3.
A judgment for damages against defendants including but not limited to the
following:
a.
b.
c.
b.
c.
d.
e.
profits;
4.
demonstrate;
5.
6.
7.
The costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred by TTR and Stephanie Chard;
8.
A judgment for damages and all other available remedies under Utah Code 61-
1-22, including interest, treble damages, and costs and attorney fees; and
9.
Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
25 of 26
COMPLAINT
26 of 26
COMPLAINT