Gruss v. Curtis Publishing Company
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BRIEANT, District Judge.
The first cause of action pleads, conditionally, that plaintiff shareholders “could” have been misled, [but cf. |[19] as a result of ambiguous and unclear proxy materials, which failed to define “shareholder” as used therein, and advise that it meant only the “registered owner of shares” or “shareholder of record”, to the exclusion of the “beneficial owner”. Plaintiffs base this claim on Sections 14(a) and 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the rules thereunder, particularly Rule 14(a) (17 C.F.R. 240.14a-101). As to such a claim, our…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- J. I. Case Co. v. BorakSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Colonial Realty Corporation v. Bache & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1966
- Marvine Markham v. City of Newport News, a Municipal CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1961
- Griffith v. Bank of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- Knighton v. Johnston CountyDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1971
3Cited by4 opinions
- Thompkins v. Stuttgart School District 22Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1986
- Vreeland v. Ethan Allen, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1993
- The Mad Room LLC v. The City of MiamiDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2023
- Thompkins v. Stuttgart School DistrictCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1986