Legal Opinion

Pearson v. Exide Corp.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided April 19, 2001No. CIV. A. 99-4104, CIV. A. 99-4134PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge.

Presently before the court is plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment or, alternatively, preliminary injunction to require the advancement of litigation expenses for four different lawsuits and one upcoming criminal prosecution. Plaintiffs Douglas N. Pearson (“Pearson”) and Alan E. Gauthier (“Gauthier”), former officers of defendant Exide Corporation (“Exide”), a Delaware incorporated company, seek advancement of litigation expenses pursuant to the bylaws of Exide (“Bylaws”) as well as an indemnification agreement (“Indemnification…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. MEYER, Joseph W., Appellant v. RIEGEL PRODUCTS CORPORATION and James River Corporation of VirginiaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
  4. Citadel Holding Corp. v. RovenSupreme Court of Delaware · 1992
  5. Radich v. GoodeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. United States v. SteinDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2006
  2. DRIVER OPPORTUNITY PARTNERS I, LP v. ADAMSDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2023

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API