Susquehanna Corporation v. General Refractories Company, 15787
| Decision Date | 02 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 15787,15791.,15787 |
| Citation | 356 F.2d 985 |
| Parties | The SUSQUEHANNA CORPORATION, (Appellant in No. 15791) v. GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY, D. Emmert Brumbaugh, Harry T. Graham, John E. Hartshorn, Arthur F. Kroeger, David Remer and William B. Walker. General Refractories Company, John E. Hartshorn, and Harry T. Graham, (Appellants in No. 15787). |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Sidney L. Wickenhaver, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants in No. 15,787 (General Refractories Co., John E. Hartshorn and Harry T. Graham) and appellee in No. 15,791 ().
H. Francis DeLone, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant in No. 15,791 (Susquehanna Corp.) and appellees in No. 15,787.
Before McLAUGHLIN, HASTIE and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges.
Decided March 2, 1966, but Jurisdiction retained.
We hold that the basic position of recognizing and accepting jurisdiction in this matter by the District Court is sound and that said jurisdiction has been properly exercised. As to the scope of the relief to plaintiff, The Susquehanna Corporation, we agree that it is entitled at this time to the proxy statements and to copies of the minutes of the directors meetings of the General Refractories Company at which the transaction here involved was considered. We will retain plaintiff's application for certain further specific information in abeyance until after the proxy statements have been made available to plaintiff. In the event the said statements be deemed insufficient by plaintiff it may make application to this Court on notice to the defense for enlargement of the relief allowed. There should be no difficulty in working out a reasonable timetable by and between the parties. If, however, the necessity should arise, either party on notice may bring this element of the case before this Court.
The order of the District Court of February 11, 1966 is affirmed with respect to Paragraphs 1 and 2. Decision is reserved as to Paragraph 3 of said order.
Judge Hastie believes that the plaintiff is not entitled to the preliminary proxy material which the defendant General Refractories Company has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and that its right, if any, to other information should be determined by the District Court after the defendant's proxy material shall have been published and in the light of that publication. Accordingly, Judge Hastie agrees that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stern v. South Chester Tube Company
...Corporation v. General Refractories Co. et al., E.D.Pa., February 14, 1966, 250 F.Supp. 797; aff'd per curiam, 3d Cir. Mar. 2, 1966, 356 F.2d 985, (Hastie, J. dissenting), where a corporation was enjoined from holding a stockholders' meeting unless and until the plaintiff stockholder had be......
-
Meyer v. Ford Industries, Inc.
...and T. Schmidt, Inspection Rights of Corporate Stockholders, 26 U.Fla.L.Rev. 173, 177--78 (1974). But see Susquehanna Corp. v. Gen. Refractories Co., 356 F.2d 985 (3d Cir. 1966); and State ex rel. Jones v. Ralston Purina Company, 358 S.W.2d 772 (Mo.1962).13 ORS 57.246(3) provides that:'* * ......
-
Stern v. SOUTH CHESTER TUBE COMPANY, 15901.
...state law which the diversity court would be bound to apply." The lower court was affirmed by this court in a per curiam opinion at 3 Cir., 356 F.2d 985. It is to be noted here that in Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. Republican Co., D.C., 188 F.Supp. 813, this approach under Erie R. R. v. Tomp......
-
Myers v. Long Island Lighting Co.
...of the threatened loss to the plaintiff. Susquehanna Corp. v. General Refractories Co., 250 F.Supp. 797, 800 (E.D. Pa.), aff'd, 356 F.2d 985 (3d Cir.1966); Weeks v. American Dredging Co., 451 F.Supp. 464 (E.D.Pa.1978); Textron, Inc. v. American Woolen Co., 122 F.Supp. 305, 308 Nonetheless, ......