Filed: Jul. 01, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: _ No. 95-2219 _ Larken Minnesota, Inc.; Larken, * Inc.; Larken Iowa City, Inc., * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Dirk A. Wray; Al Yip, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendants, * * Lenora K. Chen; Pine Hill * Minnesota, Inc.; Pine Hill * Minnesota Investments, Inc.; * Pine Hill Iowa, Inc.; Pine * Hill Iowa Investments, Inc., * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: June 10, 1996 Filed: July 1, 1996 _ Before BEAM and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE
Summary: _ No. 95-2219 _ Larken Minnesota, Inc.; Larken, * Inc.; Larken Iowa City, Inc., * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Dirk A. Wray; Al Yip, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendants, * * Lenora K. Chen; Pine Hill * Minnesota, Inc.; Pine Hill * Minnesota Investments, Inc.; * Pine Hill Iowa, Inc.; Pine * Hill Iowa Investments, Inc., * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: June 10, 1996 Filed: July 1, 1996 _ Before BEAM and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE,..
More
___________ No. 95-2219 ___________ Larken Minnesota, Inc.; Larken, * Inc.; Larken Iowa City, Inc., * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Dirk A. Wray; Al Yip, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendants, * * Lenora K. Chen; Pine Hill * Minnesota, Inc.; Pine Hill * Minnesota Investments, Inc.; * Pine Hill Iowa, Inc.; Pine * Hill Iowa Investments, Inc., * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: June 10, 1996 Filed: July 1, 1996 ___________ Before BEAM and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE,* District Judge. ___________ PER CURIAM. Larken Minnesota, Inc., Larken, Inc., and Larken Iowa City, Inc. (collectively, Larken) appeal the district court's2 order requiring Larken to sell its interests in two hotels to the *The HONORABLE ANDREW W. BOGUE, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation. 2 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. appellees, at the appellees' bid price, pursuant to the deadlock provisions in the partnership agreements. Having reviewed the parties' briefs and submissions, we conclude the judgment of the district court was correct. Accordingly, based upon the well-reasoned opinion of the district court, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-