1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 284 F.Supp.
  5. 284 F.Supp. 521 (1968)
 

BERMAN v. THOMSON

No. 65 C 2051.

284 F.Supp. 521 (1968)

Jeri J. BERMAN, Plaintiff, v. Albert W. THOMSON, A. D. Martin, M. J. Coen, Ralph A. L. Bogan, Jr., Edward D. Boshell, Francis C. Woolard, J. Earle May, Herbert F. Korholz, American Gypsum Company, a New Mexico Corporation and the Susquehanna Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, a Massachusetts corporation, State Mutual Life Assurance Company of America, a Massachusetts corporation, and the First National Bank of Boston, a national banking association, Additional party defendants as of March 15, 1966.

United States District Court N. D. Illinois, E. D.

May 14, 1968.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Arnold I. Shure, L. Louis Karton, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.

Sumner H. Babcock, Boston, Mass., John T. Chadwell, James E. Hastings, Chadwell, Keck, Kayser, Ruggles & McLaren, Chicago, Ill., for First Nat. Bank of Boston.

Joseph A. Sommer, Santa Fe, N. M., for American Gypsum.

Robert Mansell, Chicago, Ill., for Ralph Bogan.

Tom Van Dyke, Kansas City, Mo., for Thomson and Coen, A. D. Martin.

Schiff, Hardin, Waite, Dorschel & Britton, Chicago, Ill., for Ralph A. L. Bogan, Ed. D. Boshell, Francis C. Woolard.

Melvan M. Jacobs, Robert O. Mansell & Joseph O. Kostner, Chicago, Ill., for American Gypsum Co., Herbert F. Korholz and The Susquehanna Corp., and J. E. May.

Robert J. Gareis, David Macdonald, Russell Baker, Chicago, Ill., for Thomson, Martin & Coen.

Owen Rall, William E. Rattner and Peterson, Lowry, Rall, Barber & Ross, Chicago, Ill., for Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. and State Mutual Life Assurance Co.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MAROVITZ, District Judge.

Motion of Defendant First National Bank of Boston to Dismiss.

This is a derivative action, brought on behalf of the Susquehanna Corporation, against certain of its directors and others, to recover for the issuance of a proxy statement alleged to be in violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 78n), and Rule 14a-9 thereunder.

In essence, the plaintiff, a shareholder...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases