Legal Opinion
Tyco Laboratories, Inc. v. Cutler-Hammer, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided April 29, 1980No. 78 Civ. 3283PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ROBERT J. WARD, District Judge.
This is an action for a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Plaintiffs, Tyco Laboratories, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, AMBG Corp., (collectively “Tyco”) seek a declaration that they are not liable under section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78p(b), for “short swing” profits realized on a sale of defendant Cutler-Hammer, Inc’s (“C-H”) common stock. Defendant moves pursuant to Rule 12(c), Fed.R. Civ.P., for judgment on the pleadings dismissing Tyco’s complaint and entering judgment on its…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Smolowe v. Delendo CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
- Kern County Land Co. v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Reliance Electric Co. v. Emerson Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Foremost-McKeeson, Inc. v. Provident Securities Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Matthew Madonna v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1989
- Whittaker v. Whittaker Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,488 Texas International Airlines v. National Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1983
- United States v. WeiszDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1996
- David Colan, and Unocal Corporation v. Mesa Petroleum Co., David Colan, and Unocal Corporation v. Mesa Petroleum Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.