Stanton v. Republic Bank

1 Citing case

  1. In re Ratner

    146 B.R. 211 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1992)   Cited 5 times

    Although it is undisputed that the Dissenting Shareholders have followed the provisions of section 73 within the required time frames for performance of the various steps they have taken, they have not reduced their rights under section 73 in the Thomson Litigation to a judgment against FCC for the fair value of their shares as of October 23, 1983. This omission is crucial because the Dissenting Shareholders conclude their appraisal rights are "perfected", citing Stanton v. Republic Bank of South Chicago, 202 Ill. App.3d 476, 147 Ill.Dec. 724, 559 N.E.2d 1064 (1st Dist. 1990), even though they have failed to obtain a judgment. Stanton is a case of first impression addressing the sole issue of whether dissenting shareholders were entitled under the Illinois Banking Act to receive stock dividends declared and paid between the merger date, and the date upon which the fair value of the dissenting shareholders' shares were determined. On interlocutory appeal, the Stanton court construed a separate statutory appraisal right under Section 29 of the Illinois Banking Act, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 17, para.