It was the estate's only asset, and its value fell to a level at which Cadant was worth less than the claims of the bridge lenders and other creditors, with the result that the common shareholders were wiped out. Initially the district court referred the case to the bankruptcy court, but the reference was withdrawn and the case returned to the district court, pursuant to 28 U. The district judge gave two independent grounds for granting judgment as a matter of law for the defendants. First National Bank of Chicago, 148 F.3d 760 (7th Cir.1998).
They brought this case initially as a freestanding suit in federal district court. The first was that there was insufficient evidence of proximate cause to allow a reasonable jury to render a verdict for the plaintiff, and the second was that there was likewise insufficient evidence of a breach of fiduciary duty. (Ordinarily the issue of duty would precede that of cause, but no matter.)The term “proximate cause” is pervasive in American tort law, but that doesn't mean it's well understood. The plaintiff had bought a building in Houston in reliance on what he claimed was the defendant's misrepresentation of its value.
Mcgurk, Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff–Appellant. Cadant had been created in 1998 to develop what are called “cable modem termination systems,” which enable high-speed Internet access to home computers. Morgan received preferred stock in exchange for an investment in the new company that they made at the beginning of 2000. Riblet Products Corp., 79 F.3d 572, 576 (7th Cir.1996); Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws § 309 (1971).
The district judge granted the motion with a brief oral statement of reasons, precipitating this appeal.
Second, there was enough evidence that the bursting of the dot-com bubble did not account for the entire loss to Cadant to make causation an issue requiring factfinding and therefore for the jury to resolve.
The dot-com bubble was primarily in the stocks of firms that marketed their goods or services over the Internet.
Fee Amount $350 (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)).
Though based in Illinois, Cadant initially was incorporated in Maryland and later was reincorporated in Delaware. Eric Copeland, a principal of Venrock, became a member of Cadant's five-member board of directors. The earliest challenged decision by Cadant's board-the decision not to respond to ADC's acquisition offer in April 2000—thus is easily dismissed.
(Mc Clamb, Chantelle) Motion to Approve Plaintiff's Motion for Orders Establishing Streamlined Procedures Governing Adversary Proceedings Brought by Peter Kravitz, as Liquidating Trustee of the RSH Liquidating Trust Pursuant to Sections 502, 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code Filed by Peter Kravitz, as Liquidating Trustee of the RSH Liquidating Trust.
Hearing scheduled for Adversary case 15-51783 Complaint by Peter Kravitz, as Liquidating Trustee of the RSH Liquidating Trust against George Patton Associates, Inc..
Our point is only that the effect of the bubble's bursting on Cadant was a jury issue, not an issue that the judge could resolve because the effect was incontestable.