Robert CASTRO, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
PAINEWEBBER, INC., et al., Defendants.
United States District Court E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
October 5, 1994.
October 5, 1994.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Michael A. Havard, Richard Lyle Coffman, Provost & Umphrey, Beaumont, TX, Michael S. Burg, Houston, TX, for plaintiffs Robert Castro, Jr., Raye Castro, Carl Hanks, Daniel Doiron, Lynda Doiron, Robert Falgout, Harlan Harrison, Peggy Harrison, Edward Kennedy, Carol Kennedy, John McClelland, Lynda McClelland, William Moorhead, Brenda Moorhead, W.T. Stanford, Tommie Mae Stanford, Roy A. White, Carolyn White, James Wise, Sr., Betty Jane Wise, John T. Campbell, Samuel Nuchia, George Ann Nuchia, Charles W. Tupper, Betty R. Tupper, Cecil Broussard, Winnie Broussard.
Richard Lyle Coffman, Provost & Umphrey, Beaumont, TX, for consolidated plaintiffs Edna C. Mattox, Larry Gene Cochran, Eris Elizabeth Cochran, Thomas J. Barland, Geraldine Y. Barland, Frank A. Johnston, Linda K. Johnston.
J. Hoke Peacock, II, Orgain Bell & Tucker, Beaumont, TX, Mitchell A. Karlan, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, New York City, for defendants PaineWebber Inc., PaineWebber Group Inc., Regional S&L Investors Inc.
J. Hoke Peacock, II, Orgain Bell & Tucker, Beaumont, TX, for consolidated defendants William Buchalter, Scott Winter.
Robert L. O'Donnell, Vandeventer Black Meredith & Martin, Norfolk, VA, for defendants Essex Financial Group Inc., Lawrence N. Smith.
John G. Bissell, Strong Pipkin Nelson & Bissell, Beaumont, TX, James J. Wheaton, Willcox & Savage PC, Norfolk, VA, for defendant Essex Financial Partners, LP.
Robert G. Cohen, Ernst & Young, New York City, Ralph I. Miller, Weil Gotshal & Manges, Dallas, TX, for defendant Ernst & Young.
United States District Court E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SCHELL, Chief Judge.
This opinion and order addresses an on-the-record objection to a proposal that certain class members receive additional cash compensation. The objection might not be unusual were it to have come from defense counsel; here, however, it is urged by the firm of Provost * Umphrey, Plaintiffs' counsel in this matter. For the reasons which follow, it is OVERRULED.
BACKGROUND
The...
Let's get started
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.
