Legal Opinion
Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan v. Oakley, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 13, 2010No. G040727PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ARONSON, J.
A shareholder in a publicly traded company sought substantial attorney fees on the equitable theory of substantial benefit for causing the company to slightly revise a 166-page proxy statement in. connection with a proposed acquisition. The shareholder initially sought to enjoin the acquisition, but dropped the lawsuit when the company made some changes to the final proxy statement. The shareholder filed this appeal after the trial court declined to award attorney fees.
We follow the decisions in Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553 [21 Cal.Rptr.3d 331, 101…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Woodland Hills Residents Ass'n v. City Council of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Trope v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.California Supreme Court · 2005
- Vasquez v. CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
- Choate v. County of OrangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Powell v. Tagami, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Smith v. Szeyller, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Powell v. TagamiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
- Powell v. TagamiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
- Powell v. TagamiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.