Legal Opinion
Cahill v. Arthur Andersen & Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided December 17, 1986No. 85 Civ. 10075 (MGC)PublishedCited by 47 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CEDARBAUM, District Judge.
This action arises from a series of events which culminated in plaintiff's sale on January 2, 1981, of approximately 35% of the issued and outstanding shares of Corporate Time-Sharing Services, Inc. (“CTS”). Plaintiff, John Cahill (“Cahill”), alleges that the defendant, Arthur Andersen & Company (“Andersen”), participated in a conspiracy to remove him from his position at CTS as an officer, director and shareholder and to gain unlawful control of the company. Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of one billion dollars. For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Wilson v. GarciaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Ernst & Ernst v. HochfelderSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Commissioner v. SunnenSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- Bankers Trust Company v. Daniel Rhoades, Herman Soifer and Milton BratenCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation v. Empresa Naviera Santa S.A.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Othar Russell v. Sunamerica Securities, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1992
- Citibank, N.A. v. Data Lease Financial Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1990
- Lubrizol Corp. v. Exxon Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.