Add to ORKGTwo actions for damages were brought against officers and directors of a mutual investment fund alleging violations of the Investment Company Act of 1940. These actions, by the fund itself and by a stockholder on behalf of the fund, were consolidated in a federal district court. The court denied defendant\u27s motion to dismiss for want of federal jurisdiction. On an interlocutory appeal by the non-affiliated directors, held, reversed. The Investment Company Act of 1940 does not expressly or by implication create a private right of action cognizable in the federal courts against non-affiliated directors. Brouk v. Managed Funds, Inc., 286 F.2d 901 (8th Cir. 1961), vacated and remanded for dismissal as moot, 82 Sup. Ct. 878 (1952)
Plaintiff, a citizen of New York and the owner of some preferred stock in the defendant Delaware cor...
Ross v. A.H. Robins, 607 F.2d 545 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 946 (1980). The issue resol...
Plaintiff brought a stockholder\u27s derivative suit against the directors of X corporation, allegin...
This Note examines the propriety of implying a cause of action for damages under section 206. Upon c...
Defendants, Mountain States Securities Corporation and former officers of Consolidated American Indu...
Plaintiff, a minority stockholder in the Kaiser-Frazer Corporation, objected to the approval by a fe...
The aim of this paper is to critique some of the key judicial steps, with particular attention to pr...
In Central Bank v. First Interstate Bank, the United States Supreme Court held that private plaintif...
Trustees in reorganization of a corporation brought suit on its behalf to recover damages under sect...
In 1974, two Circuit Courts of Appeals refined a technique used to imply a private right of action o...
Pursuant to section 16 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 an action was commenced by a share...
The trustees of a charitable trust established for the erection and maintenance of a hospital sued t...
The United States Supreme Court held that there is no cause of action for aiding and abetting under ...
Plaintiffs, minority stockholders of defendant corporation, brought an equitable action against cert...
Suits in equity were brought in the federal district courts of Ohio and Pennsylvania against residen...
Plaintiff, a citizen of New York and the owner of some preferred stock in the defendant Delaware cor...
Ross v. A.H. Robins, 607 F.2d 545 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 946 (1980). The issue resol...
Plaintiff brought a stockholder\u27s derivative suit against the directors of X corporation, allegin...
This Note examines the propriety of implying a cause of action for damages under section 206. Upon c...
Defendants, Mountain States Securities Corporation and former officers of Consolidated American Indu...
Plaintiff, a minority stockholder in the Kaiser-Frazer Corporation, objected to the approval by a fe...
The aim of this paper is to critique some of the key judicial steps, with particular attention to pr...
In Central Bank v. First Interstate Bank, the United States Supreme Court held that private plaintif...
Trustees in reorganization of a corporation brought suit on its behalf to recover damages under sect...
In 1974, two Circuit Courts of Appeals refined a technique used to imply a private right of action o...
Pursuant to section 16 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 an action was commenced by a share...
The trustees of a charitable trust established for the erection and maintenance of a hospital sued t...
The United States Supreme Court held that there is no cause of action for aiding and abetting under ...
Plaintiffs, minority stockholders of defendant corporation, brought an equitable action against cert...
Suits in equity were brought in the federal district courts of Ohio and Pennsylvania against residen...
Plaintiff, a citizen of New York and the owner of some preferred stock in the defendant Delaware cor...
Ross v. A.H. Robins, 607 F.2d 545 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 946 (1980). The issue resol...
Plaintiff brought a stockholder\u27s derivative suit against the directors of X corporation, allegin...