LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

WEISS v NICHOLS Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 17,644, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff: WEISS, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00017644, Gleason, Vestar, Stock, Common Stock, Price, Shareholders, Transaction, Directors, Fiduciary Duties, Proposed Merger, Inadequate, Breach, Relief, Vestar Group, Grossly Inadequate Consideration, Plan, Chancery, Delaware, York, Investment, Outstanding, Reason, Duty, Adequate , ContentID: 120240587

Case Documents
1 1999-12-09 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 101537
7 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 1 document , 7 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
GLEASON
PLAINTIFF
MEMBERS
VESTAR
STOCK
COMMON STOCK
PRICE
LAW
SHAREHOLDERS
TRANSACTION
DIRECTORS
FIDUCIARY DUTIES
BUSINESS
PROPOSED MERGER
INADEQUATE
BREACH
RELIEF
VESTAR GROUP
GROSSLY INADEQUATE CONSIDERATION
PLAN
COURT
CHANCERY
DELAWARE
YORK
INVESTMENT
OUTSTANDING
REASON
DUTY
ADEQUATE
              IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

                                   IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

_________I_______--_--------------------------------------
                                                          X
CAROLINE WEISS,

                 Plaintiff,

                  - against -

SILAS L. NICHOLS, ROBERT L.
SMIALEK, DAVID J. BURNS, J. DAVID                                 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
CARTWRIGHT, JAMES S. GLEASON,
MARTiN L. ANDERSON, JOHN W.
GUFFEY, JR., WILLIAM P. MONTAGUE,
GLEASON CORPORATION and
VESTAR CAPITAL PARTNERS,

                                      Defendants.
--------_------------------------------------------------- X                                  ^  I


                  Plaintiff, alleges upon information and belief, except for paragraph$?;

hereof, which is alleged upon personal knowledge, as follows:

                  1.           Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of the

Court of Chancery individually and ias a class action on behalf of all persons, other than

defendants and those in privity with them, who own the common stock of Gleason

Corporation ("Gleason Corp." or the "Company").

                  2.       Plaintiff has been the owner of the common stock of the Company

since prior to the transaction herein complained of and continuously to date.

                  3.       Gleason Corp. is a corporation duly organized and existing under

the laws of the State of Delaware. The Company is a world leader in the manufacture



of gear production machinery and  rellated equipment. The Company maintains its

principal offices at 1000 University Avenue, Rochester, New York.
SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • CARTWRIGHT, JAMES S. GLEASON,
  • Plaintiff, alleges upon information and belief, except for paragraph$?;
  • defendants and those in privity with them, who own the common stock of Gleason
  • Plaintiff has been the owner of the common stock of the Company
  • since prior to the transaction herein complained of and continuously to date.
  • Defendant Vestar Investment Partners LLC is a New
  • York based investment firm specializing in management buy-outs and growth capital
  • 15% of the Company's outstanding Icommon stock.
  • Directors of the Company.
  • Company's public shareholders, whose fiduciary duties, at all times relevant herein,
  • The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
  • (W There are questions of law and fact which are common to
  • constitutes a breach of the duty of fair dealing with respect to the
  • and all mernbers of the Class, thereby making appropriate injunctive relief and/or
  • and Vestar (hereinafter collectively the "Vestar Group") whereby the Vestar Group will
  • The proposed merger represents an improper attempt to eliminate
  • Gleason Corp.`s valuable business and assets.
  • in Gleason Corp.`s stock price to buy the Company at an inadequate price.
  • proposed plan will, for a grossly inadequate consideration, deny plaintiff and the other
  • By reason of the foregoing,
  • Plaintiff and the Class have no adequate remedy at law.
  •    |