Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Epstein v. Solitron Devices, Inc.

Epstein v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 388 F.2d 310 (2d Cir. 1968)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1968-01-11
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: We affirm in open court the order of the Southern District denying a motion by Order to Show Cause by Solitron Devices, Inc., for an order directing plaintiff in a stockholder derivative action alleging violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to post security for expenses pursuant to Section 627 of the New York Business Corporation Law, McKinneys’s Consol.Laws, c. 4, for the reasons stated in Judge Bonsai’s opinion. Weitzen v. Kearns, 262 F.Supp. 931 (S.D.N.Y.1966).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Epstein v. Solitron Devices, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
EPSTEIN v. SOLITRON DEVICES, INC.,388 F.2d 310(2nd Cir. 1968)
Nathan EPSTEIN, under a Power of Trust for the benefit of Allen Lee
Epstein, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SOLITRON DEVICES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant, and William Kearns et al., Defendants.
No. 263, Docket 31119.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued January 11, 1968.
Decided January 11, 1968.
Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Dudley B. Bonsal, J., denying defendant corporation's motion for an order directing plaintiff in a stockholder derivative action alleging a violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to post security for expenses pursuant to state law.
Jerome J. Londin, New York City (Carro, Spanbock Londin, Holtzmann, Wise Shepard, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.

Stanley L. Kaufman, New York City (Kaufman, Taylor, Kimmel Miller, Shephard S. Miller, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.Page 311
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and SMITH and HAYS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
We affirm in open court the order of the Southern District denying a motion by Order to Show Cause by Solitron Devices, Inc., for an order directing plaintiff in a stockholder derivative action alleging violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to post security for expenses pursuant to Section 627 of the New York Business Corporation Law, McKinneys's Consol.Laws, c. 4, for the reasons stated in Judge Bonsal's opinion. Weitzen v. Kearns,262 F. Supp. 931(S.D.N.Y. 1966).Page 312