Legal Opinion
In re Cendant Corp. Derivative Action Litigation
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided August 9, 1999No. CIV.A. 98-1998PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*122OPINION
WALLS, District Judge.
I. Introduction
This matter is before the Court on the motions of Cendant Corporation (“Cendant”), the HFS defendants, the CUC defendants, Bear Stearns, and the individual defendants E. Kirk Shelton, Amy Lipton, and Cosmo Corigliano to dismiss the verified amended derivative complaint (“complaint”) against them. The motion of defendants Shelton and Corigliano to dismiss Count I of the complaint is granted. The motion of defendant Bear Stearns to dismiss the complaint is granted. Defendant Lipton’s motion to dismiss the complaint against her for lack of personal…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Sherman v. RyanAppellate Court of Illinois · 2009
- In Re Veeco Instruments, Inc. Securities LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2006
- P. Schoenfeld Asset Management LLC v. Cendant Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2001
- In Re Cendant Corp. Securities LitigationDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2001
- In Re Cendant Corp. Securities LitigationDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2000
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.