For Your Data Kennecott Copper Corp. V. Curtiss-Wright Corp. Illustration Brief
May 10, 2016
Edit
Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. instance brief summary
584 F.2d 1195 (1978)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff alleged that accused violated securities together with antitrust laws inwards acquiring stock of plaintiff corporation; accused together with plaintiff each alleged improper proxy solicitation past times the other. The courtroom reversed the district court's belongings that defendant's proxy solicitations were faux together with misleading inwards violation of § 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.S. § 78n(a), together with Rule 14a-9(a), 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9(a). The proxy stated that accused had non made a detailed written report together with so properly qualified its opinions.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed the belongings that defendant's acquisition of stock inwards plaintiff corporation was non made past times a tender offer. The courtroom reversed the finding that accused i department of the Clayton Act for lack of proof; the courtroom remanded for a novel lawsuit the enquiry whether accused violated about other department of the Clayton Act; together with it ordered plaintiff to void the election of directors to the board together with concur a novel election.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations together with Business Associations Law
584 F.2d 1195 (1978)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant appealed from a judgment of the United States of America of America District Court for the Southern District of New York, which institute that: (1) defendant, simply non plaintiff, had violated § 14(a) of the Securities together with Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 78n(a); and (2) defendant violated §§ vii together with 8 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 18, 19, together with permanently enjoined accused from voting for sure shares together with proxies of plaintiff corporation.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff alleged that accused violated securities together with antitrust laws inwards acquiring stock of plaintiff corporation; accused together with plaintiff each alleged improper proxy solicitation past times the other. The courtroom reversed the district court's belongings that defendant's proxy solicitations were faux together with misleading inwards violation of § 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.S. § 78n(a), together with Rule 14a-9(a), 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9(a). The proxy stated that accused had non made a detailed written report together with so properly qualified its opinions.
DISCUSSION
- The courtroom reversed together with remanded for a novel lawsuit on the finding that accused violated § vii of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.S. §18, equally accused had inadequate fourth dimension for discovery.
- The courtroom reversed the finding that accused violated § 8 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 19, for lack of proof.
- The courtroom affirmed the finding that defendant's acquisition of stock was non made past times a tender offering requiring a 13D filing amongst the SEC nether the Williams Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 78n(d).
- Because plaintiff had elected a board of directors when accused was enjoined from proxy solicitation, the courtroom ordered plaintiff to concur a novel election.
CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed the belongings that defendant's acquisition of stock inwards plaintiff corporation was non made past times a tender offer. The courtroom reversed the finding that accused i department of the Clayton Act for lack of proof; the courtroom remanded for a novel lawsuit the enquiry whether accused violated about other department of the Clayton Act; together with it ordered plaintiff to void the election of directors to the board together with concur a novel election.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations together with Business Associations Law