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
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: 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
Register to save articles to
your library
Feedback
Feedback to SSRN
If you need immediate assistance, call 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 212 448 2500 outside of the United States, 8:30AM to 6:00PM U.S. Eastern, Monday - Friday.
