Legal Opinion
In Re Cendant Corporation Prides Litigation
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided August 24, 2001No. CIV. 98-2819(WHW)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WALLS, District Judge.
Before the Court is the renewed motion by Chase Manhattan Bank (“Chase”) pursuant to Rule 60(b) for relief from this Court’s January 14, 2000 order, which granted Cendant’s motion to disallow claims made by Chase on behalf of certain funds, Income Fund of America (“IFA”) and Word Growth Fund (“World Growth”) to participate in the settlement of this action. The renewed motion also seeks relief from the initial denial by the Claims Administrator, Valley Forge Administrative Services (“Valley Forge”) of the claim made by Chase on behalf of its Capital Income Builders…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Hagner v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Oppenheimer & Co. v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1995
- Rosenthal v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Rogers v. Hartford Life & Accident InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1999
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- In Re: Cendant Corporation Prides Litigation, Welch & Forbes Inc., an Institutional Investment Manager, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Cendant Corporation Merrill Lynch & Co. Chase Securities, Inc. Henry R. Silverman Walter A. Forbes Cosmo Corigliano E. Kirk Shelton Ernst & Young the Chase Manhattan Bank, as Custodian for Capital Income Builder, Inc. Income Fund of America, Inc. And Capital World Growth & Income, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002
- Cendant Corp. Prides Litigation v. Cendant Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002