Vega v. Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BOLAND, J.
SUMMARY
A shareholder in a company acquired in a merger transaction sued the law firm which represented the acquiring company for fraud. He alleged the law firm concealed the so-called toxic terms of a third party financing transaction, and thus defrauded him into exchanging his valuable stock in the acquired company for “toxic” stock in the acquiring company. The law firm demurred. It contended it made no affirmative misstatements and had no duty to disclose the terms of the third party investment to an adverse party in the merger transaction. We conclude the complaint stated…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp.California Supreme Court · 1983
- Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
- Bily v. Arthur Young & Co.California Supreme Court · 1992
- Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
- Jones v. H. F. Ahmanson & Co.California Supreme Court · 1969
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by52 opinions
- Linear Technology Corp. v. Applied Materials, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2007
- Taylor v. McNicholsIdaho Supreme Court · 2010
- Sanders v. Apple Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2009
- Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2011
- Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2005
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.