May a Shareholder Who Objects to a Proposed Settlement of a Derivative Action Appeal an Adverse Decision? A Report on California Public Employees' Retirement System V. Felzen

26 Pages Posted: 14 Feb 2001  

Roslyn Falk

Andre & Blauftein, LLP

Abstract

In 1996, agricultural products giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) pleaded guilty to criminal antitrust charges and received a $100 million fine, at that time one of the largest fines ever imposed. The corporation also paid $90,000,000 to settle civil antitrust suits by its competitors. Three executives, including Michael Andreas (the vice-president and son of ADM's autocratic chief executive officer), were ultimately convicted of illegal price fixing.

Suggested Citation

Falk, Roslyn, May a Shareholder Who Objects to a Proposed Settlement of a Derivative Action Appeal an Adverse Decision? A Report on California Public Employees' Retirement System V. Felzen. As published in Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, Volume 25, No. 2, Pp. 235-260, 2000. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=258817

Roslyn Falk (Contact Author)

Andre & Blauftein, LLP ( email )

127 Peachtree Street, Suite 700
Candler Building
Atlanta, GA 30303
404-653-3007 (Phone)

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
115
rank
222,707
Abstract Views
878
PlumX