Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Ferro Corp. v. Cookson Group, PLC, No. 08-3624

By FindLaw Staff on November 06, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In plaintiff's suit against defendant for breach of its duty to defend and indemnify arising from antitrust lawsuits brought against plaintiff, summary judgment for defendants and dismissal of all of plaintiff's claims is affirmed as there are no allegations made against plaintiff in the antitrust complaints or amended complaints based on principles of successor liability, and the antitrust cases do not state claims that potentially or arguably fall within the purview of the asset purchase agreement duty to defend.      

Read Ferro Corp. v. Cookson Group, PLC, No. 08-3624

Appellate Information

Argued: June 19, 2009

Decided and Filed: November 6, 2009


Opinion by Circuit Judge Marbley


For Appellant:  James B. Niehaus, Frantz Ward, LLP., Cleveland, Ohio

For Appellee:  Roxann E. Henry, Howrey LLP., Washington, DC

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard