Legal Opinion
Gaillard v. Natomas Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 23, 1989No. A040647PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
STRANKMAN, J.
I
Statement of the Case
These shareholder derivative actions 1 arise from the merger of Natomas Company (Natomas) into Diamond Shamrock Corporation (Diamond), effective August 31, 1983. By their complaints, appellant Tilly Gaillard, a common stockholder of Natomas, and appellant Vincent J. Ashton, a common stockholder of Diamond, challenge the purported “golden parachute” agreements 2 and other benefits provided for five inside directors of Natomas as part of the merger. 3
Golden parachutes are special termination agreements that shelter executives from the effects of a…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Schreiber v. Burlington Northern, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Walsh v. WalshCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,071 Ann Brown v. Ferro Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1985
- Burt v. Irvine Co.California Court of Appeal · 1965
- Gaillard v. Natomas Co.California Court of Appeal · 1985
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- International Insurance Co., a Corporation v. Alfred M. Johns, James W. McFadden Thomas v. Ogletree, Richard W. Sherman, and G. Paul WhortonCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1989
- Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. BoyleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Stamp v. Touche Ross & Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1993
- Davis v. DysonAppellate Court of Illinois · 2008
- Woo Chul Lee v. Interinsurance Exchange of Automobile ClubCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.