legal news


Register | Forgot Password

LaPrairie Group Contractors v. CE Casecnan

LaPrairie Group Contractors v. CE Casecnan
02:25:2007

LaPrairie Group Contractors v


LaPrairie Group Contractors v. CE Casecnan


Filed 2/21/07  LaPrairie Group Contractors v. CE Casecnan CA1/1


 


 


 


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


 


California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT


DIVISION ONE







LaPRAIRIE GROUP CONTRACTORS (INTERNATIONAL) LTD.,


            Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


CE CASECNAN LTD., et al.,


            Defendants and Appellants.


      A113589


      (San Francisco County


      Super. Ct. No. CGC-02-409959)


            Appellants challenge the trial court's interpretation of provisions of a Stockholder's Agreement between the parties and findings on inputs made in a Completion Pro Forma which determined the interests of the parties in a joint venture to construct and operate an irrigation system and hydroelectric plant.  We conclude that the trial court properly interpreted the Stockholder's Agreement, and erred in only one of the numerous findings on the Completion Pro Forma inputs.  We therefore reverse the finding on the energy production and sale input, affirm the findings on the remaining inputs disputed in this appeal, and remand the case to the trial court for recalculation of the interests of the parties in light of our conclusions.


STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY


            Late in 1993, the parties to this litigation embarked upon an ambitious venture, referred to as the â€





Description Appellants challenge the trial court's interpretation of provisions of a Stockholder's Agreement between the parties and findings on inputs made in a Completion Pro Forma which determined the interests of the parties in a joint venture to construct and operate an irrigation system and hydroelectric plant. Court conclude that the trial court properly interpreted the Stockholder's Agreement, and erred in only one of the numerous findings on the Completion Pro Forma inputs. Court therefore reverse the finding on the energy production and sale input, affirm the findings on the remaining inputs disputed in this appeal, and remand the case to the trial court for recalculation of the interests of the parties in light of our conclusions.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale