Ione, Calif., sues two land developers over Mello-Roos

Kaplan, David
November 1997
Bond Buyer;11/06/97, Vol. 322 Issue 30268, p4
Trade Publication
Reports that the city of Ione, California has filed a lawsuit under the federal racketeering statute against two development companies the city contends has misled officials and buyers of Mello-Roos bonds involving the financing of a golf and country club. City's claim for compensation on the ground of breach of contract; Allegation against Portlock International Inc.; City's case against Castle Oak Investment Corp. (COIC).


Related Articles

  • Ione suit dismissed. Marois, Michael B. // Bond Buyer;07/10/98, Vol. 325 Issue 30432, p30 

    Reports that the US District Court in Sacramento, California, has dismissed a lawsuit filed against Castle Oak Investment Corp. and Portlock International Inc. by the city of Ione. Case background.

  • California city sues developers on behalf of Mello-Roos investors. Marois, Michael B. // Bond Buyer;12/01/97, Vol. 322 Issue 30282, p1 

    Reports that the small city of Ione, California sued land developers Castle Oak Investment Corporation and Portlock International Incorporated on the behalf of Mello-Roos investors, for defrauding city officials and investors. When the case was filed; Brief information on the companies; Value...

  • When Participation Agreements Go Bad.  // Orange County Business Journal;5/9/2011, Vol. 34 Issue 19, pB51 

    The article offers information on the impact of breach of participation agreements on Lead Bank in Orange County, California.

  • Orkin Exterminating Co. v. DelGuidice.  // Environmental Law Reporter: News & Analysis;Dec2001 Filing Instructions, Vol. 31 Issue 12, p20880 

    Reports on the Florida District Circuit Court's decision on a breach of contract case against a termite company. Cost of repair; Diminution in value.

  • Settlement payment could not be deducted twice.  // Practical Accountant;May96, Vol. 29 Issue 5, p20 

    Reports that the payment to settle a breach of contract has been classified as a nondeductible. Reasons for classification.

  • Brazen v. Bell Atlantic Corp. no. 14,976.  // Delaware Journal of Corporate Law;1998, Vol. 23 Issue 1, p177 

    Presents the case `Brazen v. Bell Atlantic Corp' involving a breach of contract in the merger agreement on the termination of fee provisions in Delaware. Facts of the case; Contentions of opposing parties; Legal principles applied; Decision of the court.

  • Independent Cellular Telephone, Inc. v. Barker no. 15,171.  // Delaware Journal of Corporate Law;1998, Vol. 23 Issue 1, p244 

    Presents the case `Independent Cellular Telephone Inc. v. Barker,' involving fiduciary and contractual duties. Facts of the case; Contentions of opposing parties; Legal principles applied; Decision of the court.

  • Council notice quashed in access formation claim.  // Planning (14672073);2/28/2014, Issue 1977, p22 

    The article focuses on the suspension of an enforcement notice by an investigator inspector after he found no breach of planning control in Oxfordshire, England and also informs about city council's claim stating that removal of gate or fence led to formation of vehicular access.

  • McAllister v. Kallop no. 12,856.  // Delaware Journal of Corporate Law;1996, Vol. 21 Issue 2, p739 

    Presents the case `McAllister v. Kallop,' about the enforcement of a letter agreement promised by the majority stockholders to minority stockholders of McAllister Towing and Transportation Co. Inc., filed at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. Case background and analysis; Breach of...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics