Wednesday, December 15, 2021 - J. Cadish, J. Pickering, J. Herndon
Skarpelos vs. Weiser Asset Mgmt., LTD.
Docket Number: 79425 c/w 79526
Carson City - 10:30 a.m. - J. Cadish, J. Pickering, J. Herndon
These consolidated appeals stem from a civil interpleader action involving competing claims of ownership to a stock certificate. Appellant/respondent Athanasios Skarpelos opened a brokerage account with respondent/appellant Weiser Asset Management (WAM) and funded it with the disputed stock certificate. Skarpelos later had the stock certificate voided and a new certificate issued to him. After a dispute arose over the ownership and sale of the disputed stock, WAM and fellow respondent/appellant Weiser (Bahamas) Ltd., a related entity also referred to as Weiser Capital, (collectively, Weiser) contacted the company that issued the stock certificate, Nevada Agency and Transfer Company (NATCO), demanding that it put the stock certificate in Weiser’s name instead of Skarpelos’. NATCO then filed an interpleader action against Skarpelos and Weiser to establish ownership of the disputed stock, and Skarpelos and Weiser filed crossclaims against each other. The district court dismissed all of Weiser’s claims and awarded declaratory relief and attorney fees to Skarpelos. The district court also awarded restitution in the form of equitable relief to Weiser sua sponte.
ISSUES:
The issues raised on appeal are whether: (1) the district court erred in granting equitable relief to Weiser sua sponte, (2) the district court abused its discretion when it admitted Skarpelos’s WAM account statement—upon which Weiser’s restitution award was based—under NRS 51.135’s business record exception to the hearsay rule, (3) the district court erred in awarding the disputed stock to Skarpelos, and (4) whether the district court abused its discretion when it awarded attorney fees to Skarpelos under NRS 18.010(2)(b).
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
In Re: Newport Corp Shareholder Litig
Docket Number: 80636
Carson City - 11:30 a.m. - J. Cadish, J. Pickering, J. Herndon
This is an appeal from the district court’s (1) order denying appellants’ motion for leave to amend, (2) findings of fact and conclusions of law granting respondents’ motion for summary judgment, and (3) order striking appellants’ jury demand. Appellants are former shareholders of Newport Corporation, a once publicly traded Nevada corporation. Appellants seek reversal of summary judgment, arguing that respondents—Newport’s former board of directors—breached their respective fiduciary duties through fraudulent and intentional misconduct by approving the cash-out merger of Newport with MKS Instruments, Inc., at $23 per share.
ISSUES:
Appellants argue that as a result of the undervalued merger they suffered at least $2.96 per share in damages. Appellants also argue that the district court erred by denying their timely motion to amend and striking their underlying jury demand and seek reversal of these dispositions, as well.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
Stanton vs. Stanton (Child Custody)
Docket Number: 80910
Carson City - 1:30 p.m. - J. Cadish, J. Pickering, J. Herndon
After a district court judge in the Eighth Judicial District found respondent had a diminished mental capacity and appointed her independent counsel, the parties voluntarily dismissed their divorce action in that district and filed a new joint divorce petition in the Fifth Judicial District. A divorce decree was entered in that matter. Respondents’ mother and stepfather were then appointed as guardians of respondent in Arkansas. Without registering the Arkansas guardianship in Nevada, the guardians moved to set aside the Nevada divorce decree. Thereafter, the district court set aside the divorce decree finding it was entered as a result of appellant’s fraud upon the court and sanctioned appellant under NRCP 11.
ISSUES:
Did (1) the guardians have standing to file the motion to set aside the divorce decree, (2) the district court err in setting aside the divorce decree, and (3) the district court abuse its discretion in sanctioning appellant.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
Anselmo (Michael) vs. State
Docket Number: 81382
Carson City - 2:00 p.m. - J. Cadish, J. Pickering, J. Herndon
This is an appeal from a district court order denying appellant’s post conviction petition for genetic marker analysis.
ISSUES:
The issues on appeal are whether: (1) the district court properly concluded that appellant failed to show a reasonable possibility that the district attorney would not have tried him or the jury would not have convicted him had exculpatory evidence been obtained from the genetic marker analysis; (2) judicial estoppel applies to prevent appellant from asserting his innocence given his confession to the crime at a pardons board hearing; and (3) the district court properly determined that the State’s evidence inventory sufficiently described the evidence in the State’s possession.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do