Legal Opinion

Amella v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 12, 1947PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

'Plaintiffs are not in position to question the fairness of the merger plan, either as allegedly depriving them of elements of value pertaining to their shares of stock by reason of the matters alleged in the complaints, or otherwise, after having accepted payment for their shares at the $135 provided by the plan, or in the amount arrived at by the appraisers. They could not accept the benefit of the merger plan and, at the same time, attack its validity, regardless of whether the appraisers had jurisdiction to take into account the matters alleged in the complaints in evaluating such shares.…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Endicott Johnson Corp. v. BadeNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
  2. Stauffer v. Standard Brands Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1962
  3. Matter of Silverman (Hoe & Co.)New York Court of Appeals · 1953
  4. Stauffer v. Standard Brands Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1962
  5. Kemp v. AngelCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1977

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API