IN RE PITTSBURGH & LAKE ERIE R. CO. SEC. & ANTITR. LIT.

M. D. L. Docket No. 134, Civ. A. Nos. 73-2382, 73-2761.

392 F.Supp. 492 (1975)

In re the PITTSBURGH AND LAKE ERIE RAILROAD CO. SECURITIES AND ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

March 13, 1975.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Victor Wright, Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs Edward S. Bristol and others and Mary S. Crowell and others.

Frederick N. Egler, Egler, McGregor & Reinstadtler, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co.

Gilbert J. Helwig, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., for John M. Balliette, R. W. Carroll, Henry G. Allyn, Jr., Edwin Hodge, Jr., C. E. LeSuer, Gordon E. Neuenschwander, R. W. Packer, Willard F. Rockwell, Andrew Van Pelt and Francis Cameron.

Philip H. Strubing, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, Philadelphia, Pa., for William P. Snyder, III and W. Cordes Snyder, Jr.

Joseph Neff Ewing, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for Allison R. Maxwell, Jr.

Thomas M. Kittredge, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., for The Fidelity Bank, Walter H. Geer, K. M. Phillips and T. F. O'Connell.

Eben H. Cockley, Jones, Day, Cockley & Reavis, Cleveland, Ohio, for National City Bank of Cleveland, Ohio, John N. Eustis, Thomas F. Harvey, Edward G. Seaman and Jay Mennell.

Lewis H. Van Dusen, Jr., Drinker, Biddle & Reath, Philadelphia, Pa., for Paul A. Gorman.

Mahlon F. Perkins, Jr., Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, New York City, for Curtis D. Buford and Allan P. Kirby, Jr.

Thomas B. Rutter, Philadelphia, Pa., for A. E. Perlman.

Joseph J. Connolly, Goodman & Ewing, Philadelphia, Pa., for Theodore A. Verlander, Jr. and Robert W. Loder.

John J. McCarty, Raynes, McCarty & Binder, Philadelphia, Pa., for John H. Shaffer.

J. Howe Brown, Fairfax, Va., for Thomas M. Evans.

Co-counsel Neil G. Epstein, Philadelphia, Pa., for Verlander & Loder.


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

GORBEY, District Judge.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for an order that plaintiffs have standing to maintain the derivative actions in the above-captioned cases, the first being an Ohio case and the second a Virginia case.

In the other five antitrust cases consolidated for pretrial purposes by the Multidistrict Panel, No. 72-2479, No. 73-2353, No. 73-2554, No. 73-2413, No. 73-2483, defendants, including The Fidelity Bank in...

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