TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Albert Kaufmann v. Mary Wells Lawrence, and Warren J. Kratky

Albert KAUFMANN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary Wells LAWRENCE Et Al., Defendants-Appellees, and Warren J. Kratky Et Al., Defendants

Kaufmann v. Lawrence, 514 F.2d 283 (2d Cir. 1975)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 3, 1975
Docket
Nos. 697, Docket 74-2591
Judges
Friendly, Gurfein, Bartels
Citations
514 F.2d 283

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a denial of a preliminary injunction by Judge Carter against the consummation of a tender offer by Wells, Rich, Green, Inc. (the Corporation) to its own stockholders which the appellant contends amounts to “going private.” Appellant contended that there were omissions in the prospectus which were material, that appellees, directors of the Corporation, were engaged in a fraudulent scheme and device in violation of the 1934 Securities and Exchange Act, and that appellees should have taken other steps to acquaint the public stockholders with facts material for their determination of whether to sell their shares in circumstances that might cause the company to be delisted on the Stock Exchange.

Appellant failed to apply for a stay pending appeal.

The tender offer has been consummated. While this does not necessarily make the case moot so as to prevent the granting of alternative mandatory injunctive relief, we see no reason at this time, however, to upset the carefully considered judgment of Judge Carter in denying a preliminary injunction. A review of the law applicable will, in any event, be more meaningful after a full trial. We trust that Judge Carter’s calendar will permit an expedited trial.

The order denying a preliminary injunction is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1975: 31976: 11977: 11980: 119752026peak 1975 · 3

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list