Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

Full stop for fraud suits in states? Needed or not, bill likely to pre-empt state class actions

Article Abstract:

Congress is virutally certain to amend the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, a law which limited investor class actions, so that investor class actions are preempted in state court. The Senate version of this amendment is S. 1260. The pressure for pre-emption started in Jan 1997, little more than a year after the override of Pres Clinton's veto of the Reform Act on Dec 22, 1995. Defense lawyers were complaining that plaintiff's lawyers were thwarting the federal law by filing parallel state court suits.

Author: Donovan, Karen
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1998
United States, Class actions (Civil procedure), Class action lawsuits, Securities fraud

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Delaware court hears takeover case third time; the 13-year-old suit, stemming from the acquisition of Technicolor, may lead to a big change in corporate law

Article Abstract:

The Delaware Supreme Court on May 23, 1995, heard arguments for the third time in 12 years in Cinerama v Technicolor, CA 8358. The ruling could potentially change case law on the liability of corporate directors who, in voting to sell their company, neglect their fiduciary duties to shareholders. many of the original principals in the case are now gone, and Ronald Perelman, whose 1982 takeover of Technicolor launched his empire, has since sold it. The case's history and allegations of undue influence are recounted.

Author: Donovan, Karen
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1995
Corporate directors, Acquisitions and mergers, Delaware, Fiduciary duties

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


The arbitration question: why no punitive awards? The high court hears arguments over whether a federal act pre-empts a N.Y. statute limiting arbitrators' powers

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court in Jan 1995 heard oral arguments in the Mastrobuono case, in which former clients of Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc challenged an appellate court's reversal of a punitive damages award in their suit against the firm. The appellate courts held that the arbitrators exceeded their authority by violating a New York law which bars them from awarding punitive damages. The federal government urged the court to rule for the investors.

Author: Donovan, Karen
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1995
Exemplary damages, Punitive damages, Commercial arbitration

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Cases, Exclusive and concurrent legislative powers, Preemption (Legislative power)
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Barr new Attorney General; former deputy A.G. questioned about policies of predecessor, abortion. Reno called tough, honest; AG nominee supports diversion for nonviolent offenders, children's issues
  • Abstracts: To the rescue; organizing the bar to support solo and small-firm practitioners. Has the parade passed us by? Solo practitioners march on through tough times
  • Abstracts: To upgrade, or not to upgrade? ActiveDocs. Just the fax: Genifax, Zetafax and RightFax face off
  • Abstracts: FTC, states still trying to fry spam: spammers remain one step ahead of the law. Stomping out spam: groups band together to stop junk e-mail
  • Abstracts: Poll: more lawyers see O.J. walking; 70 percent now say Simpson will go free. Most say race is a factor
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.