COURT: AUDITIONING TO REPRESENT JUNIPER DOESN'T DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF'S FIRM Benchmark Capital Partners v. Vague | Secondary Sources | Westlaw

COURT: AUDITIONING TO REPRESENT JUNIPER DOESN'T DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF'S FIRM Benchmark Capital Partners v. Vague | Secondary Sources | Westlaw

View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, COURT: AUDITIONING TO REPRESENT JUNIPER DOESN'T DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF'S FIRM Benchmark Capital Partners v. Vague, Secondary Sources
Skip Page Header

COURT: AUDITIONING TO REPRESENT JUNIPER DOESN'T DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF'S FIRM Benchmark Capital Partners v. Vague

13 No. 2 ANMALR 6Andrews Mergers & Acquisitions Litigation Reporter (Approx. 3 pages)

COURT: AUDITIONING TO REPRESENT JUNIPER DOESN'T DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF'S FIRM Benchmark Capital Partners v. Vague

13 No. 2 ANMALR 6Andrews Mergers & Acquisitions Litigation Reporter (Approx. 3 pages)

13 No. 2 Andrews Mergers & Acquisitions Litig. Rep. 6
Andrews Mergers & Acquisitions Litigation Reporter
September 2002
Attorneys (Conflict of Interest):
Copyright (c) 2002 Andrews Publications

COURT: AUDITIONING TO REPRESENT JUNIPER DOESN'T DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF'S FIRM

Benchmark Capital Partners v. Vague

A Wilmington law firm that only auditioned to represent Juniper Financial Corp. in an upcoming merger did not have an attorney-client relationship with the banking company and should not be disqualified from serving as plaintiff counsel for investors...
End of Document© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.