The two banks were in court this morning to argue the case, which seeks to bar CB Bancshares from holding the May 28 shareholders' meeting. Circuit Court Judge Victoria Marks will announce her decision at 8:30 tomorrow morning.

The lawsuit is the first move into the courts by either bank as they fight for control of City Bank. Stock analysts and takeover experts have said they expect a tense battle that could become entangled in court and cost tens of millions of dollars if City Bank continues to fight the merger.

Central Pacific, which is offering $275 million in cash and stock to buy City Bank parent CB Bancshares, said the May 28 meeting date, called by City Bank executives to vote on the takeover bid, is too soon to give shareholders enough time to review and vote on the offer.

"We need shareholders to be able to understand what we're offering," said Crystal Rose, a Honolulu attorney and partner in the law firm Bays Deaver Lung Rose & Baba, which is representing Central Pacific in the suit.

Lawyers for City Bank argued in court today that Central Pacific has had ample time to explain its offer to shareholders, and that a later meeting would only serve to disrupt business.

"Because of the ongoing disruption caused by the hostile takeover attempt, we picked the earliest possible date for the meeting," said Bert T. Kobayashi Jr., a Honolulu lawyer and partner with Kobayashi Sugita & Goda, representing CB Bancshares.

Central Pacific, which announced its intent to buy City Bank last month, claims to have won over at least 27 percent of CB shareholders with a $70-per-share buyout offer and a plan to increase revenues and cut costs at the combined bank.

But City Bank executives have rejected two Central Pacific merger offers this month, saying that the offers not only undervalue City Bank, but would harm the community by limiting competition and eliminating hundreds of jobs. Central Pacific says the combined bank would cut about 200 of the banks' combined 1,000 jobs and close 10 of the two banks' 45 branches.

The banks have waged an increasingly bitter public relations war, issuing statements and advertisements promoting their positions and decrying the other's tactics.

The lawsuit came after Central Pacific on April 28 formally requested a City Bank shareholders' meeting to vote on the takeover bid. City Bank set the meeting for May 28, the earliest possible date according to the law.

Central Pacific has complained that doesn't give shareholders enough time to consider the matter. Central Pacific must submit a proxy statement, a government-approved document containing a voting form and prospectus of the proposed deal, to all City Bank shareholders. But Central Pacific lawyers say the complicated process of locating all City Bank stockholders and mailing the proxies means many would not receive the statements until after the meeting.

Further complicating the matter is that Central Pacific on May 9 submitted a revised offer, which slightly shifted the amount of cash and stock that would result from the deal. Central Pacific says the revised offer is materially different enough that City Bank should cancel the May 28 meeting and reschedule it later.

City Bank contends that the offer is not different enough to warrant a new meeting. City Bank on Monday rejected the revised offer and has refused a Central Pacific request to move the meeting to June 26. City Bank lawyers say that if shareholders are too confused to approve the offer, it's Central Pacific's fault.

"We don't think ... (Central Pacific) is entitled to relief from confusion if they caused the confusion themselves," Kobayashi said in court.

Marks asked several questions about Central Pacific's contention that it has filed a new offer and therefore deserves a later meeting date. Marks pointed out that Central Pacific neither changed the ultimate value of the offer, which still stands at about $70 per share, nor filed notice of a new offer with state and federal regulators.

Rose replied that the bank thinks the offer is different enough to warrant a delayed meeting date.

Marks also said she was concerned that Central Pacific could keep submitting slightly revised offers, and requesting later meeting dates, to buy time. "If you don't think you succeed, you could cancel the meeting and do a new one; then cancel the meeting again and do another new one ­ it could go on forever," she said.

Rose said that isn't Central Pacific's intent, and that the bank just wants shareholders to get full information about the takeover offer.