Bruce K. Siddle v. Doctor R. Crants, Jr., Doctor R. Crants, Iii, Linda Cooper, George V. Crawford, Iii,…

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a0007n.06
Nos. 10-5858/10-5859
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
BRUCE K. SIDDLE AND SANDRA K.
SIDDLE, individually and as trustees of the
Bruce K. Siddle and Sandra K. Siddle trusts,
d ated Ju ly 16, 2 0 0 3 , a n d PPCT
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DOCTOR R. CRANTS, JR., DOCTOR R.
CRANTS, III, LINDA COOPER, GEORGE V.
CRAWFORD, III, LEE F. BOOTH, and ROY
W. OAKS,
Defendants.
BRUCE K. SIDDLE AND SANDRA K.
SIDDLE, individually and as trustees of the
Bruce K. Siddle and Sandra K. Siddle trusts,
d a t e d Ju ly 16, 2003, an d PPC T
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CONNECTGOV, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
/
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

-- 1 of 3 --

Nos. 10-5858/10-5859
BEFORE: MERRITT, CLAY, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. In these cases consolidated for appeal, Plaintiffs Bruce K. Siddle, Sandra
K. Siddle, individually and as trustees of the Bruce K. Siddle and Sandra K. Siddle Trusts, and PPCT
Management Systems, Inc. (“PPCT”), appeal orders granting summary judgment in favor of
Defendants in both actions.
These cases arise out of a business partnership gone awry. In a 2001 joint venture, Plaintiff
Bruce Siddle agreed to make PPCT, his security management training firm, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Homeland Security Corporation (“HSC”), a business owned by Defendant Doctor R.
Crants, Jr. The agreement aimed to allow HSC to compete for a large contract from the
Transportation Security Agency. In exchange, Siddle took a one-quarter ownership share of HSC
and became a member of HSC’s board of directors. According to Plaintiffs, the venture soured when
Siddle discovered that Crants and his son had carried out various forms of fraud between October
2001 and October 2006.
Amid disagreements among the parties and growing turmoil within HSC, the relevant parties,
including the Siddles and the Crants, executed two agreements that led to Crants’ departure from
HSC. The two agreements, including the April 2006 “Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement”
and the October 2006 “Stock Purchase Agreement,” contained clauses in which Siddle and related
parties released Crants, HSC, and related parties from any and all claims. After entering into both
agreements, Siddle challenged their legal validity, giving rise to these suits. Plaintiffs asserted
several state-law claims and various claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, § 10(b), 15
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Nos. 10-5858/10-5859
U.S.C. § 78j, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b–5, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
18 U.S.C. § 1962, providing the district court with jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
In opinions dated January 25, 2010, and June 22, 2010, the district court concluded that the
agreements were valid and applied to all plaintiffs and defendants in these cases. See Siddle v.
Crants, No. 3:09-0175, 2010 WL 424906 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 25, 2010); Siddle v. Crants, Nos. 3:09-
0175, 3:09-1137, 2010 WL 2570145 (M.D. Tenn. June 22, 2010). After hearing oral argument and
thoroughly reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we determine that the
two cases on appeal before us were correctly decided by the district court in the district court’s well-
written opinions and that a panel opinion of this Court would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We
therefore adopt the reasoning of the district court and AFFIRM on the basis of the district court’s
well-reasoned opinions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --