Cannon v. U.S. Acoustics Corp.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
398 F. Supp. 209 (1975), aff'd in part, 532 F.2d 1178 (1976)
- Written by Jose Espejo , JD
Facts
A group of shareholders (plaintiffs) filed a derivative suit on behalf of U.S. Acoustics Corporation and National Perlite Products, S.A. (collectively, the corporations) against four officer-directors of both corporations (defendants). The shareholders alleged that from 1968 to the present, the four officer-directors violated Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 in regard to illegal stock options that were issued and purchased. Following the filing of the suit, the same law firm entered appearances for the corporations and for the four officer-directors of the corporations. The shareholders filed a motion to strike the appearance of the lawyers of behalf of the corporations. The shareholders argued that the firm could not represent both the corporations and the four officer-directors, because the corporations would benefit if the suit were successful, but the officer-directors would be liable to the corporations and shareholders. The law firm, along with the officer-directors and the corporations, argued that there was no conflict, that the transactions in question were legal, and that the corporations were not truly involved in the lawsuit, but if a conflict should arise, the firm would withdraw its appearance for the officer-directors.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Marshall, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.