Legal Opinion

In Re Seeburg-Commonwealth United Merger

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Decided May 4, 1970No. Docket 37PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

2Per curiam

There are two principal corporate parties to this multidistrict litigation. They are Commonwealth United Corporation (“Commonwealth” hereinafter) and Seeburg Corporation (“Seeburg” hereinafter). The twelve actions listed on Schedule A have been brought by stockholders of Commonwealth individually, as representatives of a class composed of all stockholders and derivatively on behalf of the corporation itself. 1 Commonwealth and Kleiner Bell & Company, Commonwealth’s investment broker and financial consultant, are defendants in all these actions. Various cf. ficers and…

3Cases cited1 opinion

  1. In re Revenue Properties Co.United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1970

4Cited by12 opinions

  1. Blue Sky L. Rep. P 71,223, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,220 Berry Petroleum Company, an Arkansas Corp. (Dissolved) v. Adams & PeckCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
  2. In Re Equity Funding Corp. of America Securities LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1974
  3. In Re Four Seasons Securities Laws LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1971
  4. In Re San Juan, Puerto Rico Air Crash Disaster LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1970
  5. In re Alsco-Harvard Fraud LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1971

7 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