Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2-25-1992

Abstract

Defendants-appellants Maxus Energy Corporation ("Maxus Energy") and Maxus Corporate Company ("Maxus Corporate"), each a Delaware corporation, appeal from a modified declaratory judgment and injunction order entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Pollack, J.). The modified judgment and injunction were entered by the district court after our decision in Kidder, Peabody & Co. v. Maxus Energy Corp., 925 F.2d 556 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2829, 115 L.Ed.2d 998 (1991), in which we remanded the case after partially affirming and partially reversing the district court's original declaratory judgment and injunction order. The declaratory judgments and injunctions entered in this case all involved claims arising out of merger transactions to which the predecessors of appellants were parties. The modified judgment declared, among other 67*67 things, that (i) the exchange ratios relating to the distribution of stock in the merger of a new holding company, Maxus Energy's predecessor, were "not subject to retroactive adjustment," and (ii) appellants "suffered no cognizable injury" in connection with the merger transactions. The modified injunction order enjoined relitigation by appellants of any federal claims, and any claims "embraced by" federal claims, arising from the merger transactions.

Appellants contend that the district court's modified declaratory judgment and injunction order "squarely violate" and "circumvent" the mandate of our Kidder decision. We do not endorse these specific descriptions of the actions taken on remand by the learned district judge. However, we are concerned, for the reasons that follow, that the terms of the modified judgment and injunction reasonably could be interpreted in a manner that might conflict with the mandate of Kidder. Accordingly, the modified declaratory judgment and injunction order are further modified to conform to the requirements of this opinion. The case is remanded to the district court for entry of a judgment and injunction incorporating the additional modifications.

Comments

957 F.2d 65 (1992)

In re IVAN F. BOESKY SECURITIES LITIGATION.

KIDDER, PEABODY & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MAXUS ENERGY CORPORATION; Maxus Corporate Company, Defendants-Appellants, Ivan F. Boesky; John Does 1-10, Defendants, Ivan F. Boesky, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 517, Docket 91-7677. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued December 6, 1991.

Decided February 25, 1992.

New York Law School location: File #1385, Box #129

Download

Share

COinS