Legal Opinion
In Re Amsted Industries, Inc. Litigation
Court of Chancery of Delaware
Decided December 17, 1986No. Civ. A. 8224PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ALLEN, Chancellor.
The pending motion to compel answers to discovery requires an elucidation of the standards that govern the availability and scope of discovery when sought in connection with opposition to the approval of a proposed settlement of a class action.
These consolidated actions were commenced as class actions and sought originally to enjoin or rescind a management sponsored leveraged buyout involving defendant Amsted Industries. Negotiations with certain of the plaintiffs rather rapidly commenced and those negotiations led to an agreement by those plaintiffs permitting the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corporation, Manhattan-Ward, Incorporated v. Grinnell Corporation, 1225 Vine Street Building, Inc. v. Grinnell CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,755, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,074 William B. Weinberger v. James C. Kendrick, Charles M. CoyneCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
- Girsh v. JepsonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
- In Re General Motors Corporation Engine Interchange LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1979
- Polk v. GoodSupreme Court of Delaware · 1986
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- In Re Resorts International Shareholders Litigation AppealsSupreme Court of Delaware · 1990
- In Re AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Stockholder LitigationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2023
- Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System v. McClendonCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2013