| |
| | Vega v. Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue (2004) [ Cal.App.4th ] (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08) |
 | | Vega alleges that Jones Day, after telling Heller Ehrman that Transmedia was about to close a $10 million private stock transaction which it wanted to include in its disclosure schedules, prepared a proper disclosure schedule containing the pertinent terms, but provided a "different sanitized version" of the schedule, without the "toxic" stock provisions. |
 | | This is because (1) Vega agreed to exchange his Monsterbook stock for Transmedia stock on March 8, 2000, before the third-party financing transaction arose and before he consented to it, and (2) Vega "concedes" in his complaint that Transmedia "would have gone out of business" without the $10 million investment. |
 | | Vega alleged he first discovered the "toxic" terms of the $10 million financing transaction on December 14, 2000, when a Transmedia press release revealed that the terms of the financing had included a "toxic" stock provision. |
| fsnews.findlaw.com /cases/ca/caapp4th/slip/2004/b170659.html (5229 words) |
|