Legal Opinion
DeYoung v. Beddome
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided February 21, 1989No. 87 Civ. 3749 (MBM), 87 Civ. 4597 (MBM)PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND OEDEE
MUKASEY, District Judge.
Defendants in these actions are participants in a proposed transaction whereby Amoco Canada Petroleum Company (“AC”), a Canadian subsidiary of Amoco Corporation (“Amoco”), which is an Indiana entity headquartered in Chicago, proposes to buy Dome Petroleum Limited (“Dome”), a Canadian producer of oil and natural gas. The individual defendants, Beddome and MacDonald, are officers and directors of Dome.
Plaintiffs are Dome shareholders whose claims may be briefly summarized as follows: Both plaintiffs assert that the proposed transaction is unfair to Dome…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. GilbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. ReynoSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Hilton v. GuyotSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Koster v. (American) Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- DiRienzo v. Philip Services Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002
- American Bankers Insurance v. Northwestern National InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1999
- DiRienzo v. Philip Services Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2000
- In Re CINAR Corp. Securities LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2002
- Gilstrap v. Radianz Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 2006
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.