CALIF. PANEL: COMPANY MUST HAVE SEPARATE COUNSEL IN DIRECTOR FRAUD CASE Electro K Inc. v. Karpeles | Secondary Sources | Westlaw

CALIF. PANEL: COMPANY MUST HAVE SEPARATE COUNSEL IN DIRECTOR FRAUD CASE Electro K Inc. v. Karpeles | Secondary Sources | Westlaw

View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, CALIF. PANEL: COMPANY MUST HAVE SEPARATE COUNSEL IN DIRECTOR FRAUD CASE Electro K Inc. v. Karpeles, Secondary Sources
Skip Page Header

CALIF. PANEL: COMPANY MUST HAVE SEPARATE COUNSEL IN DIRECTOR FRAUD CASE Electro K Inc. v. Karpeles

18 No. 10 ANCODLLR 6Andrews Corporate Officers and Directors Liability Litigation Reporter (Approx. 2 pages)

CALIF. PANEL: COMPANY MUST HAVE SEPARATE COUNSEL IN DIRECTOR FRAUD CASE Electro K Inc. v. Karpeles

18 No. 10 ANCODLLR 6Andrews Corporate Officers and Directors Liability Litigation Reporter (Approx. 2 pages)

18 No. 10 Andrews Corp. Off. & Directors Liab. Litig. Rep. 6
Andrews Corporate Officers and Directors Liability Litigation Reporter
December 2, 2002
Dual Representation:
Copyright (c) 2002 Andrews Publications

CALIF. PANEL: COMPANY MUST HAVE SEPARATE COUNSEL IN DIRECTOR FRAUD CASE

Electro K Inc. v. Karpeles

A California appellate court has refused to overturn a ruling that barred a law firm from representing Electro K Inc. and its sole officer and director in a shareholder suit that claimed he and two other principals looted the company. The panel found...
End of Document© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.