Knapp

Knapp v. Ernst & Whinney

Good Law
90 F.3d 1431·96 Daily Journal DAR 8834·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 18145·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5415
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 23, 1996Nos. 94-56379, 94-56380 and 94-56381California5,452 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wallace, J.

Ernst & Whinney appeals from a general jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff class (Knapp). Knapp cross-appeals from the district court’s denial of prejudgment interest and the dismissal of various state-law causes of action. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78aa and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

I

ATV Systems, Inc. (ATV) was founded by Philip Gomez, Douglas O’Connor, and Frank Gleason in 1981. The company specialized in point-of-sale microprocessing systems designed for retail applications and also dealt in more generalized data processing and communications equipment for office use. The principals had been involved in the high-tech *1434 field and considered themselves well-versed in “turn-around” techniques. They were experienced in taking troubled companies, slashing waste, increasing productivity, improving the bottom line, and turning the companies into profitable enterprises. There were many businesses in need of such redirection in the early 1980s because interest rates were high and credit was tight. ATVs business plan was to acquire bankrupt companies at bargain…

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.