Vega

Vega v. Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue

Bad Law
121 Cal. App. 4th 282·17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 26·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1263·2004 Daily Journal DAR 9475·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7000
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 2, 2004B170659California6,286 words

Opinion

Opinion

Boland, J.

SUMMARY

A shareholder in a company acquired in a merger transaction sued the law firm which represented the acquiring company for fraud. He alleged the law firm concealed the so-called toxic terms of a third party financing transaction, and thus defrauded him into exchanging his valuable stock in the acquired company for “toxic” stock in the acquiring company. The law firm demurred. It contended it made no affirmative misstatements and had no duty to disclose the terms of the third party investment to an adverse party in the merger transaction. We conclude the complaint stated a fraud claim based on nondisclosure. The complaint alleged the law firm, while expressly undertaking to disclose the financing transaction, provided disclosure schedules that did not include material terms of the transaction.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Frank T. Vega (Vega), a 23 percent shareholder in a company known as Monsterbook.com, sued Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue (Jones Day), a law partnership, for fraud and negligent misrepresentation in connection with a merger transaction. In the merger transaction, Jones Day represented Transmedia Asia Pacific, Inc., which acquired Monsterbook.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.