The Delaware Supreme Court reinstated a lawsuit challenging the merger between Bally Entertainment and Hilton Hotels because the Chancery Court dismissal of the suit incorrectly held that it was a derivative action instead of a direct claim attacking the merger’s fairness.

A three-judge panel of the Supreme Court ruled that Bally shareholder Linda Parnes stated a case directly challenging the 1996 stock-for-stock merger between the two corporations.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]