NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION

Transcription

1 GORDON D. LOBINS, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant RAIT FINANCIAL TRUST, v. Plaintiff, EDWARD S. BROWN, BETSY Z. COHEN, DANIEL G. COHEN, SCOTT L.N. DAVIDSON, FRANK A. FARNESI, KENNETH R. FRAPPIER, S. KRISTIN KIM, RAPHAEL LICHT, PLAMEN B. MITRIKOV, DANIEL PROMISLO, JOHN F. QUIGLEY, JACK E. SALMON, JON C. SARKISIAN, SCOTT F. SCHAEFFER, JAMES J. SEBRA, ANDREW M. SILBERSTEIN, and MURRAY STEMPEL, III, and Defendants, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY CIVIL ACTION LAW NOVEMBER TERM 2015 NO RAIT FINANCIAL TRUST, Nominal Defendant. NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF RAIT FINANCIAL TRUST AS OF MARCH 4, 2016, INCLUDING ANY AND ALL OF THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST, PREDECESSORS, REPRESENTATIVES, TRUSTEES, EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS, HEIRS, ASSIGNS OR TRANSFEREES, IMMEDIATE AND REMOTE, AND ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ACTING FOR OR ON BEHALF OF, OR CLAIMING UNDER ANY OF THEM, AND EACH OF THEM. PLEASE READ ALL OF THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS OF THIS LAWSUIT. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THIS LAWSUIT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE FAIRNESS, REASONABLENESS AND ADEQUACY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MATTERS AND FROM PURSUING THE RELEASED CLAIMS (AS DEFINED BELOW IN SECTION VII). PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS LAWSUIT IS NOT A CLASS ACTION AND NO INDIVIDUAL SHAREHOLDER HAS THE RIGHT TO SEEK COMPENSATION AS A RESULT OF THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LAWSUIT.

2 I. PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE The purpose of this Notice is to inform you about the above-captioned shareholder derivative action (the Action ), which is now pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (the Court ) and the proposed settlement (the Settlement ) of the Action. This Notice is being provided pursuant to the Court s Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement. This Notice also informs you of your right to participate in a hearing to be held on June 7, 2016, at 11:00 a.m at the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, City Hall, Room 425, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (the Settlement Hearing ), to determine: (1) whether the Court should approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of RAIT Financial Trust ( RAIT or the Company ) and RAIT s shareholders pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1506(d); (2) whether to enter judgment dismissing the Action with prejudice and release all Released Persons (as defined in Section VII, below) from all Released Claims (as defined in Section VII, below); (3) whether the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and due process have been satisfied in connection with this Notice and the Summary Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Shareholder Derivative Action (the Summary Notice ); and (4) if the Court approves the Settlement whether the Court should approve Plaintiff s Counsel s (as defined in Section II, below) request for the Fee Award (as defined in Section XII, below) as agreed to by the Parties (as defined in Section III, below), as well as to consider such other matters as may properly come before the Court. THE FOLLOWING RECITATIONS ARE MADE BY THE PARTIES TO THE DERIVATIVE ACTION. THE COURT HAS NOT RULED ON THE MERITS OF THE DERIVATIVE ACTION. II. BACKGROUND OF THE LAWSUIT On January 27, 2015, plaintiff Gordon D. Lobins ( Plaintiff ), acting through his counsel, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP ( Plaintiff s Counsel), sent a litigation demand letter (the Demand Letter ) to the Company s Board of Trustees (the Board ) contending that various current and former officers and trustees of RAIT Edward S. Brown, Betsy Z. Cohen, Daniel G. Cohen, Scott L.N. Davidson, Frank A. Farnesi, Kenneth R. Frappier, S. Kristin Kim, Raphael Licht, Plamen B. Mitrikov, Daniel Promislo, John F. Quigley, Jack E. Salmon, Jon C. Sarkisian, Scott F. Schaeffer, James J. Sebra, Andrew M. Silberstein and Murray Stempel, III (collectively, the Individual Defendants ) breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their management and oversight of certain transactions by Taberna Capital Management, LLC ( TCM ), a subsidiary of RAIT, which took place between March 2, 2009 and November 28, In those transactions, TCM received approximately $15 million in restructuring fees from issuers of securities held by securitizations managed by TCM. These restructuring fees were the subject of an investigation (the Investigation ) and subsequent administrative action commenced by the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ). An agreement with the SEC to settle the Investigation by a payment of $21.5 million was reached, which TCM paid on or about September 3, 2015, and RAIT exited the TCM line of business in its entirety. The settlement with the SEC provided that TCM had entered into it without admitting or denying the findings therein. 2

3 Following receipt of the Demand Letter, the Board adopted a resolution ( Resolution ) that established a special committee ( Special Committee ) and delegated to the Special Committee the full and exclusive authority to: (i) investigate and evaluate the claims asserted in the Demand Letter; (ii) determine whether or not it is in the best interest of RAIT to pursue such claims; and (iii) determine whether or not to file, pursue, and/or resolve such claims based on its investigation and evaluation. Pursuant to the Resolution and in accordance with the authority granted to the Special Committee therein, the Special Committee undertook an investigation and evaluation of the claims asserted in the Demand Letter. On November 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed in the Court a Verified Stockholder Derivative Complaint (the Complaint ) asserting claims that were the subject of the Demand Letter. Specifically, the Complaint alleges, inter alia, that the receipt by TCM of approximately $15 million in restructuring fees harmed the Company by, among other things, leading to a payment by TCM to the SEC to settle the SEC administrative action. The Action asserted that this harm resulted from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Individual Defendants and sought an award of damages and equitable relief. III. THE PARTIES SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS While the Special Committee was engaged in its investigation, Plaintiff s Counsel and counsel for RAIT, acting at the direction of management personnel who are not members of the Special Committee but with the knowledge and consent of the Special Committee, began discussing a potential resolution of the Demand Letter. On June 9, 2015, in furtherance of these settlement discussions, Plaintiff s Counsel sent counsel for RAIT a settlement demand. On July 8, 2015, counsel for RAIT responded to Plaintiff s Counsel s settlement demand and set forth a counteroffer. Plaintiff s Counsel and counsel for RAIT subsequently exchanged multiple additional communications relating to the substance of the settlement demand and counteroffer. After Plaintiff filed his Complaint, Plaintiff, the Individual Defendants and RAIT (collectively, the Parties ) reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims, and on December 15, 2015, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding documenting their agreement in principle for the settlement of the Demand Letter and Action. Settlement of the Demand Letter and the Action will be dispositive of all claims raised, or which could have been raised, in the Demand Letter and the Action. IV. CLAIMS OF THE PLAINTIFF AND BENEFITS OF THE SETTLEMENT Plaintiff believes that the claims he has asserted in the Demand Letter and in the Action on behalf of RAIT have merit. Plaintiff, however, recognizes and acknowledges the expense and length of continued proceedings necessary to prosecute the Demand Letter and the Action against the Individual Defendants through trial and appeals. Plaintiff and his counsel have also taken into account the uncertain outcome and the risk of any litigation, especially in complex actions such as the Action, as well as the difficulties and delays inherent in such litigation and the potential difficulties in collecting upon any judgment. Plaintiff and his counsel are also mindful of the inherent problems of proof and possible defenses to the claims asserted in the Demand Letter and the Action. Based on their evaluation, Plaintiff and his counsel have determined that the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated 3

4 February 19, 2016 (the Stipulation ) is in the best interests of RAIT. Plaintiff s Counsel believes that the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate, and confers substantial benefits upon RAIT and its shareholders. Plaintiff s Counsel base this conclusion upon, among other things, their extensive investigation during the development, prosecution and settlement of the Demand Letter and the Action, which included, inter alia: (i) inspecting, reviewing and analyzing the Company s filings with the SEC; (ii) researching corporate governance issues; (iii) researching the applicable law with respect to the claims asserted in the Demand Letter and the Action and the potential defenses thereto; and (iv) a meeting with counsel for the Special Committee. V. DEFENDANTS DENIALS OF WRONGDOING The Individual Defendants and RAIT (collectively, the Defendants ) have denied, and continue to deny, each and all of the claims and contentions alleged by Plaintiff in the Demand Letter and the Action. Defendants maintain that they have breached no fiduciary duty whatsoever (nor have they aided or abetted any breach of fiduciary duty) and have engaged in no wrongful conduct and committed no violations whatsoever in connection with or relating to the conduct underlying the Investigation. Nonetheless, Defendants have also taken into account the uncertainty and risks inherent in any litigation, especially in complex cases like the Action. Defendants have therefore determined that it is desirable that the Demand Letter and the Action be fully and finally settled in the manner and upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation. Defendants believe that the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of, and confers substantial benefits upon, RAIT and its shareholders. THE COURT HAS NOT FINALLY DETERMINED THE MERITS OF PLAINTIFF S CLAIMS OR THE DEFENSES THERETO. THIS NOTICE DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THERE HAS BEEN OR WOULD BE ANY FINDING OF VIOLATION OF THE LAW BY DEFENDANTS OR THAT RECOVERY COULD BE HAD IN ANY AMOUNT IF THE ACTION WERE NOT SETTLED. VI. SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATION In consideration for the Settlement and dismissal with prejudice of the Action, and the releases described herein, the Board has agreed to adopt and implement certain corporate governance initiatives designed to ensure that the allegedly harmful conduct will not be repeated and that the corporation is able to protect itself from similar conduct in the future. These initiatives include creation of a new Board-level Risk Management Committee, implementing a charter substantially in the form attached as Exhibit A to the Stipulation. RAIT has also agreed to insert into its Trust Governance Guidelines the following provision: The Nominating and Governance Committee is expected periodically to review appropriate policies and procedures for providing orientation sessions for newly elected or appointed Trustees, and recommending on an as-needed basis continuing director education programs for Board or committee members. 4

5 Periodically, management will prepare educational sessions for Trustees on matters relevant to RAIT s operations and plans. Trustees are encouraged to participate in continuing education opportunities and attend accredited director education programs at RAIT s expense. Plaintiff and Defendants agree that the aforementioned enhancements to RAIT s internal controls confer a substantial benefit upon RAIT. Plaintiff and Defendants believe that the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of, and confers substantial benefits upon, RAIT and its shareholders. The Special Committee, after reviewing and approving the Stipulation, also determined that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of RAIT and its shareholders and authorized RAIT s counsel to execute the Stipulation on behalf of RAIT. VII. RELEASES If the Court approves the Settlement, the following releases will occur: Upon the Effective Date (as defined below and in the Stipulation) of the Settlement, RAIT, Plaintiff (acting on his own behalf and derivatively on behalf of RAIT), RAIT s shareholders (solely in their capacities as RAIT shareholders), and each of such persons respective heirs, executors, administrators, estates, predecessors in interest, predecessors, successors in interest, successors, and assigns, shall fully, finally, and forever release, relinquish, and discharge the Released Claims (as defined below), including, without limitation: (a) all Released Claims against the Released Persons (as defined below), and (b) any and all claims, including Unknown Claims (as defined below), arising out of the Settlement or resolution of the Action against the Released Persons (except for claims by the Parties to enforce the Settlement). Upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, each of the Released Persons shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment in the Action shall have, fully, completely, finally, and forever released, relinquished and discharged Plaintiff and Plaintiff s Counsel from all claims, including Unknown Claims, arising out of or relating to, the institution, prosecution, settlement, or resolution of the Action (except for claims by the Parties to enforce the Settlement). The releases extend to claims that any of the Releasing Persons do not know or suspect exist in his, her, or its favor at the time of the release of the Released Claims, which if known might have affected the decision to enter into this Settlement (the Unknown Claims ). In granting the releases herein, the Parties have acknowledged that they have read and understand California Civil Code Section 1542, which reads as follows: A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR. The Parties have stipulated and agreed that upon the Effective Date, the Parties and other releasing RAIT shareholders shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Order and Final 5

6 Judgment (as defined below in Section VIII) shall have, expressly waived, relinquished and released all provisions, rights and benefits conferred by or under California Civil Code Section 1542 or any law of the United States or any state of the United States or territory of the United States, or principle of common law, which is similar, comparable or equivalent to California Civil Code Section The Parties acknowledge that they may discover facts in addition to or different from those now known or believed to be true by them with respect to the Released Claims, but it is nonetheless the intention of the Parties to completely, fully, finally, and forever compromise, settle, release, discharge, and extinguish any and all of the Released Claims known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, contingent or absolute, accrued or unaccrued, apparent or unapparent, which now exist, or heretofore existed, or may hereafter exist, and without regard to the subsequent discovery of additional or different facts. The Parties further acknowledge that the inclusion of Unknown Claims in the Released Claims was separately bargained for and was a key element of the Settlement. * * * The following definitions apply to this Notice: (1) The Effective Date shall be the first date by which all of conditions specified in the 6.1 of the Stipulation have been met and have occurred. (2) Person means an individual, corporation, limited liability company, professional corporation, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, association, joint stock company, estate, legal representative, trust, unincorporated association, government or any political subdivision or agency thereof, and any business or legal entity and their spouses, heirs, predecessors, successors, representatives, or assignees. (3) Related Persons means each of a Person s spouses, heirs, executors, estates, beneficiaries, administrators, and each of a Person s present and former parents, subsidiaries (including TCM), attorneys, legal representatives, insurers and assigns, and all of a Person s past and present trustees and their respective counsel (including without limitation the Special Committee and its counsel), directors, officers, agents, representatives, accountants, investment bankers, advisors, employees (including former employee Michael Fralin), affiliates, predecessors, successors, or any other person claiming through or on behalf of any of them. (4) Released Claims means all derivative claims (expressly including Unknown Claims, as that term is defined herein and in the Stipulation) that were the subject of or were asserted in the Demand Letter, the discussions between Plaintiff s Counsel and RAIT s counsel that followed the Demand Letter, or the Action, and all derivative claims that could have been made by Plaintiff arising out of, relating to or in connection with: (i) the Investigation; (ii) any exchange transactions involving TCM and all documentation related thereto; (iii) the exchange transactions involving TCM occurring between March 2, 2009 and November 28, 2012; (iv) all exchange transactions that were a subject of review in the Investigation; (v) the receipt of restructuring fees by TCM; (vi) the action brought by and the settlement with the SEC relating to the Investigation; (vii) the separation agreements entered into between RAIT and its former 6

7 employee Michael Fralin or any of the Individual Defendants; (viii) releases given by RAIT to any of the Individual Defendants; (ix) the delegation by the Board to the Special Committee; or (x) the investigation or determinations of the Special Committee. (5) Released Persons means: (i) each of the Individual Defendants; (ii) RAIT; and (iii) each of the foregoing persons Related Persons. VIII. THE SETTLEMENT HEARING The Court has scheduled the Settlement Hearing to be held on June 7, 2016, at 11:00 a.m at the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, City Hall, Room 425, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, to determine: (1) whether the Court should approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of RAIT and RAIT s shareholders pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1506(d); (2) whether to enter judgment dismissing the Action with prejudice and release all Released Persons from all Released Claims; (3) whether the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and due process have satisfied in connection with this Notice and the Summary Notice; and (4) if the Court approves the Settlement whether the Court should approve Plaintiff s Counsel s request for the Fee Award as agreed to by the Parties, as well as to consider such other matters as may properly come before the Court. The Court may adjourn and reconvene the Settlement Hearing, once or repeatedly, by written order or oral announcement at such hearing or at any time without further notice of any kind to anyone other than the parties to the Action. The Court also may approve the Settlement at or after the Settlement Hearing, enter its judgment, and order the payment of attorneys fees and expenses without further notice to you of any kind. If the Settlement is approved by the Court following the Settlement Hearing as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of Plaintiff, RAIT, and RAIT s shareholders, the Court shall enter an order (the Order and Final Judgment ) which will, among other things: (1) determine that the requirements of Pa. R.C.P. 1506(d) and due process have been satisfied in connection with the Notice and Summary Notice provided to RAIT shareholders; (2) approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of Plaintiff, RAIT, and RAIT s shareholders; (3) dismiss the Action with prejudice on the merits, as against any and all Defendants, without costs except as provided in the Stipulation, and release Defendants or any other of the Released Persons from the Released Claims; and (4) determine any award of attorneys fees and reimbursement of expenses incurred by Plaintiff s Counsel as provided for in Section XII, below. IX. YOUR RIGHT TO OBJECT CURRENT COMPANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT NEED NOT TAKE ANY FURTHER ACTION. Any record or beneficial shareholder of RAIT as of March 4, 2016 who objects to the Settlement, the Order and Final Judgment proposed to be entered, or Plaintiff s Counsel s requested Fee Award, or who otherwise wishes to be heard ( Objector ), may appear, in person or by attorney, at the Settlement Hearing and present evidence or argument that may be proper and relevant, provided, however, that, unless the Court rules otherwise, no Objector shall be heard or entitled to contest 7

8 the approval of all or any of the terms and conditions of the Settlement, or, if approved, the judgment to be entered thereon, unless, not later than fourteen (14) days prior to the Settlement Hearing directed herein: (1) a written notice of intention to appear; (2) evidence proving current ownership of RAIT common stock, including the number of shares of RAIT common stock and the date of purchase; (3) a detailed statement of such shareholder s objection to any matters before the Court; and (4) the grounds for such objections and/or the reasons that such Person desires to appear and be heard as well as all documents and writings such Person desires the Court to consider shall have filed with the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas, City Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19107, and served by overnight mail or hand delivery upon counsel listed below: Eric L. Zagar Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA Attorneys for Plaintiff Gordon D. Lobins Dana B. Klinges Duane Morris LLP 30 South 17th Street Philadelphia, PA Attorneys for RAIT Financial Trust Jay A. Dubow Pepper Hamilton LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA Counsel for Defendant Kenneth R. Frappier William M. McSwain Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP One Logan Square, Ste Philadelphia, PA Counsel for Defendant Raphael Licht William P. Thornton Stevens & Lee 1818 Market Street 29th Floor Philadelphia, PA Counsel for Defendants Edward S. Brown, Betsy Z. Cohen, Daniel G. Cohen, Scott L.N. Davidson, Frank A. Farnesi, S. Kristin Kim, Plamen B. Mitrikov, Daniel Promislo, John F. Quigley, Jack E. Salmon, Jon C. Sarkisian, Scott F. Schaeffer, James J. Sebra, Andrew M. Silberstein and Murray Stempel, III 8

9 Unless the Court otherwise directs, any RAIT shareholder who does not make an objection in the manner provided herein shall be deemed to have waived his, her or its objection and shall forever be barred from making any such objection in this Action or contesting the terms of this Settlement in any way in any other action or proceeding. X. STAY PENDING COURT APPROVAL AND INTERIM INJUNCTION Pending Court approval of the Settlement, the Parties have agreed to stay the proceedings in the Action and not to initiate any other proceedings other than those incident to the Settlement itself. Accordingly, pending the Settlement Hearing, all interested persons and any of their respective representatives, trustees, successors, heirs, and assigns, are barred and enjoined from asserting, commencing, prosecuting, continuing, assisting, instigating, or in any way participating in the commencement or prosecution of any action, whether directly, representatively, derivatively, or in any other capacity, asserting any claims that are, or relate in any way to, the Released Claims against any Defendants. XI. FINAL APPROVAL The approval of the Court shall be considered final when the Order and Final Judgment has not been reversed, vacated, or modified in any way and is no longer subject to appellate review, either because of disposition on appeal and conclusion of the appellate process or because of the passage, without action, of time for seeking appellate review. More specifically, it is that situation when: (i) either no appeal has been filed and the time has passed for any notice of appeal to be timely filed in the Action; or (ii) an appeal has been filed and the Superior Court has either affirmed the judgment or dismissed that appeal and the time for any reconsideration or further appellate review has passed; or (iii) a higher court has granted further appellate review and that court has either affirmed the underlying judgment or affirmed the Superior Court s decision affirming the judgment or dismissing the appeal. XII. THE APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES After negotiating the principal terms of the Settlement, Plaintiff s Counsel and counsel for RAIT negotiated at arm s-length the amount of attorneys fees and expenses for which Plaintiff s Counsel might apply to the Court. As a result of these negotiations, Plaintiff and RAIT agreed that Plaintiff s Counsel may seek Court approval of an award of attorneys fees and reimbursement of expenses in an amount not to exceed $250,000 in the aggregate (the Fee Award ), and RAIT will not oppose or object to a requested Fee Award in an amount not to exceed $250,000. The Fee Award shall be paid by RAIT or its insurers. The Parties mutually agree that the Fee Award is fair and reasonable in light of the substantial benefits conferred upon RAIT and its shareholders by the Settlement. The Fee Award shall be paid to Plaintiff s Counsel within thirty (30) business days of the entry of the Order and Final Judgment, notwithstanding the existence of any timely filed objections to the Settlement, or potential appeal, subject to Plaintiff s Counsel s obligation to refund or repay within ten (10) business days any amounts paid if, for any reason, including as a result of any appeal and/or further proceedings or demand, or successful collateral attack, the amount awarded is overturned or reduced. Any failure of the Court to approve the amount of such fees and reimbursement of expenses shall not affect the 9

10 validity of the terms of the Settlement or preclude the Order and Final Judgment from becoming final. XIII. EXAMINATION OF PAPERS AND INQUIRIES The Action is being settled on the terms set forth in the Stipulation. This Notice should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, the text of the Stipulation (and its exhibits), all of which are on file with the Court and also available for review on RAIT s website at For a complete copy of the Stipulation, you are referred to the above website or you may obtain a fuller description of the Action, the claims and defenses that have been asserted by the parties and the terms and conditions of the Settlement by contacting counsel for Plaintiff in the Action: Eric Zagar, Esq. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA (610) DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR RAIT REGARDING THIS NOTICE. For general Court information, such as hours and accessibility, contact (215)