1/4/2024 0 Comments Findings of factBased on the evidence presented and the applicable law, the court concludes that plaintiffs have failed to carry the burden of proof entitling them to relief and, therefore, orders that judgment be entered for defendant and against plaintiffs. The case was tried to the court on June 7-10, 14-18, 21-25, 28-30 and July 1, 2004, with closing arguments on July 20, 2004, and further evidentiary proceedings on August 13, 2004. Plaintiffs brought suit on February 26, 2004. Jt Stip of Fact (Doc #128) at 2 Ex P2040. Oracle initiated its tender offer for the shares of PeopleSoft on June 6, 2003. There is no dispute about the court's personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The court has subject matter jurisdiction under 15 USC § 25 and 28 USC §§ 1331, 1337(a) and 1345. ![]() Both companies are publicly traded and headquartered in this district. Plaintiffs allege that the acquisition would violate section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 USC § 18. ![]() The government, acting through the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, and the states of Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, Ohio and Texas, First Amended Complaint (FAC) (Doc #125) 13 at 5-6, seek to enjoin Oracle Corporation from acquiring, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock of PeopleSoft, Inc. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group. To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. ![]() This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content), and PDF (comparable to original document formatting).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |