Kardon v. National Gypsum Co., Civ. A. No. 6203.
| Citation | 83 F. Supp. 613 |
| Decision Date | 15 September 1947 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 6203. |
| Parties | KARDON et al. v. NATIONAL GYPSUM CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Henry Arronson and Simon Pearl, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.
Edward H. Cushman, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Finck & Huber, of Buffalo, N. Y., for National Gypsum, Co.
Robert T. McCracken and Samuel Fessenden, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for Wm. and Leon A. Slavin.
Roger S. Foster, of Washington, D.C., for Securities & Exchange Commission amicus curiæ.
The plaintiffs have presented one, and the defendants two, requests for additional findings of fact. The defendants' requests are merely amplifications of certain findings of fact contained in the opinion and are in nowise in conflict with those findings. All three requests are affirmed.
The defendants' requests for an additional conclusion of law is denied.
The following additional conclusion of law is made:
The plaintiffs are not barred from recovery by the two agreements of April 6, 1946.
Comment: As pointed out in the opinion, the Act is violated when directors with inside information purchase stock without full disclosure. Such conduct constitutes engaging in an "act, practice, or course of business which * * * would operate as a fraud." The plaintiffs' case could be sustained had no representations of any kind as to pending negotiations been made at the meeting at which the sale was consummated. However, it has been found as a fact that such representations were made. Concededly, the subsequent agreement of April 6 cannot as matter of law, by virtue of the parol evidence rule, exculpate the defendants. It may properly be (and has been) considered as evidentiary upon the fact question whether the representations as to the absence of pending negotiations were relied upon by the Kardons in parting with their stock. It does not move me to change my view that the representations were relied upon, although the result would be the same if they had not been. The whole question was presented in substance, though in a different guise, when the question of waiver was pressed at the original argument.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Twomey v. Mitchum, Jones & Templeton, Inc.
...v. Watson (D.Pa.1966) 258 F.Supp. 724, 730; Kardon v. National Gypsum Co. (D.Pa.1947) 73 F.Supp. 798, 800 and 802--803 (as modified in 83 F.Supp. 613); and same case (1946) 69 F.Supp. 512, 513. See also Lowenfels, Implied Liabilities Based upon SEC Rules (1966) 66 Col.L.Rev. 12, 13--16; Fis......
-
Cooper v. North Jersey Trust Company of Ridgewood, NJ
...278 (S.D.N.Y.1963). 18 Plaintiff's Memorandum, p. 25. 19 E. g., Kardon v. National Gypsum Co., D.C., 73 F.Supp. 798, modified, 83 F.Supp. 613 (E.D.Pa.1947); Remar v. Clayton Sec. Corp., 81 F.Supp. 1014 (D.Mass. 20 See Note, Implying Civil Remedies from Federal Regulatory Statutes, 77 Harv.L......
-
Gerstle v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc.
...Hoffman, 233 N.Y. 199, 135 N.E. 243 (1922). Janigan v. Taylor, supra, and Kardon v. National Gypsum Co., 73 F.Supp. 798, modified 83 F.Supp. 613 (E.D.Pa.1947), decided under § 10(b), have both held that damage at the time of the sale of the stock is not an element of the cause of action if ......
-
Eisler v. Stritzler
...which formed the basis for the imposition of liability in Kardon v. National Gypsum Co., 73 F.Supp. 798, pet. for reh'g denied, 83 F.Supp. 613 (E.D.Pa.1947). Subsequent developments in the rules of liability under 10b-5, see SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d 833, 849-57 (2d Cir. 1968)......
-
Rounding the peg to fit the hole: a proposed regulatory reform of the misappropriation theory.
...a private right of action in the context of a contract to sell a company's assets with as yet unrecognized value), supplemented by 83 F. Supp. 613 (E.D. Pa. 1947); Speed v. Transamerica Corp., 71 F. Supp. 457, 457-58 (D. Del. 1947) (finding that an officer violated [sections] 10(b) by buyin......
-
Textualist statutory interpretation kills section 10(b) "aiding and abetting" liability.
...and 78b, 770, and 78t. (4.) 17 C.F.R. [sections] 240.10b-5. (5.) See Kardon v. Nat'l Gypsum Co., 73 F.Supp. 798 (E.D. Pa.), supplemented, 83 F.Supp. 613 (E.D. Pa. 1947), the first case to imply a private right of action under Rule 10b-5, holding that the non-disclosure of material fact in t......