M. KLASTORIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
CLYDE C. ROTH ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND GEORGE A. FULLER COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court dismissed the appeal from the denial of a motion for a permanent injunction.
Klastorin sought a permanent injunction against the use of a proxy statement, alleging it violated Section 14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Commis…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM:
The appeal in this instance is from Judge McGohey’s denial of Klastorin’s motion for a permanent injunction.1
For the reasons stated in Richland v. Crandall, 353 F. 2d 183 (2d Cir. 1965), this day decided, we dismiss this appeal.2
Appeal dismissed.
. Klastorin sought a permanent injunction restraining any use of the proxy statement on the ground that on its face it violated Section 14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Commission Act of 1934.
. Since this case is soon to be tried, it is advisable that the District Judge be advised that the S. E. C., as amicus curiae, urges that Judge McGohey, in attaching weight to the inaction of the Commission, misapprehended its function. It argues convincingly that no inference is to be drawn from its inaction respecting the alleged violation of its proxy rules; nor can Fuller urge that the Commission’s action, in any sense, constituted approval of the solicitation material.
Moreover, review by the Commission of the material is informal in nature. Regulation 14, 17 CFR 240.14a-l, et seq.; Securities and Exchange Commission v. Henwood, CCH Fed.See.L.Rep. j[91, 125 (S.D.Cal.1961), modified on other grounds, 298 F. 2d 641 (C.A.9), certiorari denied, 371 Ü.S. 814, 83 S.Ct. 25, 9 L.Ed. 2d 56 (1962). See also J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426 (1964).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Med. Comm. FOR Human Rights v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n (D.D.C. 1970)
-
Richland v. Lou R. Crandall, 353 F.2d 183 (2d Cir. 1965)
Authorities Cited
- J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426 (U.S. 1964)
- Bankers Tr. Co. v. United States, 371 U.S. 814 (U.S. 1962)
- Henwood v. Armogida, 298 F.2d 641 (9th Cir. 1962)
- Richland v. Lou R. Crandall, 353 F.2d 183 (2d Cir. 1965)