Eisenstadt v. Centel Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
113 F.3d 738, 745-746 (1997)
- Written by Eric Maddox, JD
Facts
Centel Corporation (Centel) (defendant) planned its own sale through a competitive auction with the help of two investment-banking firms. After announcing that the firms were assisting with the sale, Centel’s stock price rose from $37 to $48 per share. However, there were no interested bidders for the purchase of Centel. Despite the lack of interest, Centel maintained an optimistic image in regards to the sale by issuing press announcements that described the process as going smoothly. Only seven bids were made for the purchase of Centel, all of which were low and ultimately rejected by Centel. A sale was negotiated with a non-bidder at $33.50 per share. Subsequently, a class action was brought by stock purchasers (plaintiffs), who claimed that investors had been misled by Centel’s optimistic press announcements. The district court granted summary judgment for Centel, and the plaintiffs appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Posner, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.