Wahba v. New York University

noting that “burying the facts, or giving them less than significant emphasis” in a proxy statement can deprive shareholders of “full and honest disclosure” | allowing a shareholder of a corporation which merged with another corporation to bring suit against the two corporations under § 14(e) | for Rule 10b-5 purposes, merged corporation's shareholders sold their shares in that corporation and purchased shares in acquiring corporation | “Certainly, it is essential that the recipients of a proxy statement know that a director’s recommendation contained therein is not completely disinterested.” | Fourteenth Amendment due process violation "comes within Bivens' sweeping approbation of constitutionally-based causes of action." | Fourteenth Amendment due process violation "comes within Bivens' sweeping approbation of constitutionally-based causes of action." | "Whether or not the jury misunderstood the charge of the court is not a question to be reexamined after the verdict has been rendered." | Fourteenth Amendment due process violation “comes within Bivens’ sweeping approbation of constitutionally-based causes of action.” | in reviewing district court’s decision, court of appeals not restricted to grounds relied on by lower court | private university’s administration of public health service grants pursuant to statute does not make the university a federal actor | for Rule 10b-5 purposes, merged corporation’s shareholders sold their shares in that corporation and purchased shares in acquiring corporation | repurchase of shares pursuant to a sellout provision of a merger agreement unopposed by management held to be a tender offer | Fourteenth Amendment due process violation “comes within Bivens’ sweeping approbation of constitutionally-based causes of action.” | repurchase of shares pursuant to a sellout provision of a merger agreement unopposed by management held to be a tender offer | “Whether or not the jury misunderstood the charge of the court is not a question to be reexamined after the verdict has been rendered.” | whether or not jury misunderstood the charge of the court is not a question to be reexamined after the verdict has been rendered | receipt of biochemistry grants from National Institute of Health by private university does not convert university’s dismissal of biochemistry professor into state action for first amendment purposes | “[an] adequacy of disclosure is a function of position, emphasis, and the reasonable anticipation that certain future events will occur.” See also McMahan & Co. v. Wherehouse Entertainment, Inc., 900 F.2d 576 (2nd Cir.1990 | private university receiving research grants