Roundup: Fidelity shareholders to vote on merger; fire engine house for sale
Published: Saturday, Nov. 24, 2012, 12:01 a.m.
Fidelity shareholders to vote on merger with Wesbanco
Shareholders of Fidelity Bancorp Inc., Perrysville, are scheduled to vote Tuesday on the savings bank's pending merger into Wesbanco Inc., according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The West Virginia bank agreed to acquire Fidelity for about $71 million in cash and stock last July. The filing also states the two banks settled on Nov. 16 a shareholder lawsuit that had alleged bank officials breached their fiduciary duties in setting the merger terms. The banks agreed to disclose more details about the merger transaction in exchange for the shareholder dropping the lawsuit. Fidelity operates 13 branches in the Pittsburgh area.
Former fire engine house for sale
The former fire engine house No. 16 in Pittsburgh's Point Breeze neighborhood is available for purchase. The Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh issued a request for development proposals for the structure at Penn and N. Lang avenues. A guided tour of the building will be held at 11 a.m. Nov. 28, followed by a question-and-answer session at 2 p.m. Dec. 6, at the URA's 13th-floor office, 200 Ross St., Downtown. The Point Breeze Development Corp. is participating in the proposal review process. Proposals are due by noon Dec. 13, with a decision by the URA board of directors expected on Feb. 14. For further details, contact Lisa Moses at email@example.com or call 412-255-6566.
— Staff and wire reports
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.