Alleghany Corporation v. Kirby
| Decision Date | 12 January 1965 |
| Docket Number | Docket 28397.,No. 154,154 |
| Citation | 340 F.2d 311 |
| Parties | ALLEGHANY CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Allan P. KIRBY, Charles T. Ireland, Jr., and Fred M. Kirby, Defendants-Appellees, Randolph Phillips, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Townley, Updike, Carter & Rodgers, New York City (Stuart N. Updike, J. Howard Carter, Lee W. Meyer, Ronald S. Daniels, Richard J. Barnes, Peter G. Kelly, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, New York City (Granville Whittlesey, Jr., James V. Hayes, Robert M. Loeffler, Walter L. Stratton, John J. McCann, Ben Vinar, New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
Before WATERMAN, MOORE, FRIENDLY, SMITH, KAUFMAN, HAYS, MARSHALL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Subsequent to the filing of the three opinions in this case on May 19, 1964, reported at 333 F.2d 327, plaintiff-appellant petitioned for a rehearing by the full court. This petition was granted on July 22, 1964, Chief Judge Lumbard disqualifying himself and not participating. Later, the court having ordered that the rehearing be without oral argument, briefs were submitted by the parties, the last and final brief in rebuttal having been filed on November 9, 1964.
Upon consideration of the petition and subsequently filed memoranda, the court is evenly divided as to proper disposition of the case, for Judges Moore, Kaufman, Marshall and Anderson would affirm the decision below, reported at 218 F.Supp. 164 (S.D.N.Y.1963, Dawson, J.) and Judges Waterman, Friendly, Smith and Hays would reverse that judgment and would remand the case to the district court for further hearing there.1
Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed.
1 In its reply brief on rehearing in banc appellant points out for the first time that since the claim in the state court suit relating to the exchange of stock was grounded in part on an allegedly false and misleading proxy statement, see § 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78n(a) and SEC Rule X-14A-9, federal jurisdiction existed, see J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 84 S.Ct. 1555, 12 L.Ed.2d 423 (1964), and argues that § 27 of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa, made such jurisdiction exclusive and rendered the state judgment void. We find it unnecessary to rule on the argument. For, apart from any other factors, the issue of jurisdiction was raised in and decided by the New York...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schwartz v. Bowman
... ... Watters & Donovan, New York City, for defendant Alleghany Corp.; James M. Fitzsimons, Thomas D. Wellington, New York City, of counsel ... Kissam & Halpin, New York City, for defendant Allan P. Kirby; Leo T. Kissam, Anthony S. Genovese, New York City, of counsel ... Satterlee, ... & O.), brings this derivative action on behalf of C. & O. against Alleghany Corporation (Alleghany), 244 F. Supp. 53 various persons who are or were officers and directors of either ... ...
-
Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v. MÓvil
... ... Co. v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 757 F.2d 523, 527528 [2d Cir.1985]; Alleghany Corp. v. Kirby, 333 F.2d 327, 333 [2d Cir.1964], adhered to on reh. 340 F.2d 311 [1965] [en ... see Alleghany Corp., 333 F.2d at 328 [enforcing release granted to defendant Kirby by corporation of which he had been an officer( ) and director( )]; Consorcio, 544 F.Supp.2d at 191 [ the policy ... ...
-
Nycal Corp. v. Inoco Plc
... 988 F.Supp. 296 ... NYCAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, ... INOCO PLC and Downshire N.V., Defendants ... No. 96 CIV. 7159 LAK ... United ... 58 This argument was rejected by the Second Circuit as clearly contrary to the rule of Alleghany Corp. v. Kirby, 59 in which the Circuit refused to allow a corporation to escape the preclusive ... ...
-
Nasik Breeding & Research Farm v. Merck & Co.
... ... 1 ... Defendant Merck & Co. ("Merck"), a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, is a health care and ... Alleghany Corp. v. Kirby, 333 F.2d 327, 333 (2d Cir.1964), aff'd on reh'g, 340 F.2d 311 (2d Cir.1965) ( en ... ...
-
CLASS ACTION SQUARED: MULTISTATE ACTIONS AND AGENCY DILEMMAS.
...than class members). (176) Alleghany Corp. v. Kirby, 333 F.2d 327, 347 (2d Cir. 1964), affd on reh'g en banc by an equally divided court, 340 F.2d 311, 312 (2d Cir. 1965); see Coffee, Private Attorney General, supra note 125, at 230 (177) Coffee, Private Attorney General, supra note 125, at......