ALFRED M. WALPERT, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY BART ET AL., APPELLEES
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 held that summary judgment for the defendants was sound and appropriate.
A minority stockholder sued to rescind a company's acquisition of another company's stock, alleging the acquisition was approved via a false and misle…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sec Rule 14A-9 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Suing as a dissenting minority stockholder of Community Research & Development, Inc. (CRD), Alfred M. Walpert sought to rescind the acquisition by this company of the entire capital stock of J. W. Rouse & Company, Inc. (JWR), both Maryland corporations. The purchase and sale followed an agreement, dated February 8, 1966, between the directors of CRD and all of the stockholders of JWR. On June 10, 1966 it was approved by more than two-thirds of CRD’s stock in compliance with the State law. In addition to CRD itself, the defendants were its directors plus the stockholders of JWR. The premise of the suit is the complainant’s allegations that the favorable vote of CRD’s stockholders was obtained through a solicitation based on “a false and misleading proxy statement”. Damages are also claimed, and reliance for the relief prayed is rested on the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78n (1964), formerly 48 Stat. 895, and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9.
With the District Judge and for the reasons stated in his written opinion, 280 F.Supp. 1006, we think summary judgment for the defendants was sound and appropriate.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. OF Pittsburgh v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 701 F.2d 95 (9th Cir. 1983)
-
Rushing v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 441 F.2d 593 (5th Cir. 1971)
-
Jo v. Seibert, 586 F.2d 949 (2d Cir. 1978)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence