Schwartzman v. Tenneco Manufacturing Co.

Third Circuit

Schwartzman v. Tenneco Manufacturing Co.

375 F.2d 123

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 31, 1967

DocketNos. 16067, 16068

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 375 F.2d 123 (Schwartzman v. Tenneco Manufacturing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schwartzman v. Tenneco Manufacturing Co., 375 F.2d 123 (3d Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This appeal has been taken from a final order approving a compromise and settlement of certain litigation and dismissing the complaints accordingly. The original plaintiffs were minority stockholders of a corporation who believed that the corporation had been treated unfairly in certain intercorporate agreements and a subsequent merger. After considerable litigation the original plaintiffs joined in the proposed settlement. However, the appellant, an intervening minority stockholder, objected to the proposed settlement and now challenges the order confirming it.

The principal contention now is that the appellant was not permitted to introduce evidence at the hearing during which the court entertained argument for and against the confirmation of the settlement. The record does not substantiate this contention. The appellant did not at any time call a witness to the stand or make any specific tender of proof or object to any ruling concerning evidence. The appellant’s present contention is based solely on a statement by the court during the hearing on the proposed settlement that “we are not going to try the case here”. This is an insufficient basis [125]*125for a charge that the appellant was not permitted to present any testimony.

On the merits the record does not establish that the settlement was inequitable or that its judicial confirmation was error.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This appeal has been taken from a final order approving a compromise and settlement of certain litigation and dismissing the complaints accordingly. The original plaintiffs were minority stockholders of a corporation who believed that the corporation had been treated unfairly in certain intercorporate agreements and a subsequent merger. After considerable litigation the original plaintiffs joined in the proposed settlement. However, the appellant, an intervening minority stockholder, objected to the proposed settlement and now challenges the order confirming it.

The principal contention now is that the appellant was not permitted to introduce evidence at the hearing during which the court entertained argument for and against the confirmation of the settlement. The record does not substantiate this contention. The appellant did not at any time call a witness to the stand or make any specific tender of proof or object to any ruling concerning evidence. The appellant’s present contention is based solely on a statement by the court during the hearing on the proposed settlement that “we are not going to try the case here”. This is an insufficient basis [125]*125for a charge that the appellant was not permitted to present any testimony.

On the merits the record does not establish that the settlement was inequitable or that its judicial confirmation was error.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Charles Schwartzman and Mary Schwartzman v. Tenneco Manufacturing Company (Surviving Corporation After Merger of Cary Chemicals, Inc., With and Into Tenneco Manufacturing Company) and Tenneco Corporation. Hyman L. Rutman, Jack Pallatz v. Tennessee Gas Transmission Company, Tenneco Manufacturing Company, Tenneco Corporation and Cary Chemicals, Inc. Hyman L. Rutman

375 F.2d 123 (Third Circuit, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

375 F.2d 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartzman-v-tenneco-manufacturing-co-ca3-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack