McFARLAND v. MEMOREX CORP.

No. C-79-2007-WAI, C-79-2926-WAI.

493 F.Supp. 631 (1980)

Craig T. McFARLAND, Trustee for Capital Growth Trust, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MEMOREX CORPORATION et al., Defendants. Craig T. McFARLAND, Trustee for Capital Growth Trust, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LEHMAN BROTHERS KUHN LOEB, INC., et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, N. D. California.

February 12, 1980.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

David B. Gold argued, Paul F. Bennett, George Donaldson, David L. Braverman, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff.

Lawrence Calof, J. Michael Brennan argued, Samuel O. Pruitt, Jr., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant Memorex Corp. et al.

Graham B. Moody argued, Boake Christensen, Philip R. Rotner, Stephen C. Garavito, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant Deloitte, Haskins & Sells.

W. Reece Bader, Richard E. Levine, Orrick, Herrington, Rowley & Sutcliffe, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants BankAmerica Foundation, California First Bank, and Bank of California, N. A.

E. Judge Elderkin, Vincent Paul Finigan, Donald W. Brown, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.

Edmund T. King, II, Lawrence A. Hobel, Severson, Werson, Berke & Melchior, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant Crocker Nat. Bank.

Charles A. Legge, Robert J. Stumpf, Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. and General Elec. Credit Corp.

James J. Hagen argued, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, New York City, Douglas M. Schwab, Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb, Inc., and Blyth Eastman Dillon & Co., Inc.


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

INGRAM, District Judge.

In two actions brought on behalf of a class and consolidated by order of this Court, plaintiff has charged defendants with violating virtually every section of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that can be violated and with committing additional common law and state statutory offenses. Defendants have moved to dismiss on numerous grounds. The questions have been briefed and argued...

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