Alfred M. Walpert v. Harry Bart

Fourth Circuit

Alfred M. Walpert v. Harry Bart

390 F.2d 877, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 8283

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 25, 1968·No. 11647·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Suing as a dissenting minority stockholder of Community Research & Development, Inc. (CRD), Alfred M. Walpert sought to rescind the acquisition by this company of the entire capital stock of J. W. Rouse & Company, Inc. (JWR), both Maryland corporations. The purchase and sale followed an agreement, dated February 8, 1966, between the directors of CRD and all of the stockholders of JWR. On June 10, 1966 it was approved by more than two-thirds of CRD’s stock in compliance with the State law. In addition to CRD itself, the defendants were its directors plus the stockholders of JWR.

The premise of the suit is the complainant’s allegations that the favorable vote of CRD’s stockholders was obtained through a solicitation based on “a false and misleading proxy statement”. Damages are also claimed, and reliance for the relief prayed is rested on the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78n (1964), formerly 48 Stat. 895, and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9.

With the District Judge and for the reasons stated in his written opinion, 280 F.Supp. 1006, we think summary judgment for the defendants was sound and appropriate.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Suing as a dissenting minority stockholder of Community Research & Development, Inc. (CRD), Alfred M. Walpert sought to rescind the acquisition by this company of the entire capital stock of J. W. Rouse & Company, Inc. (JWR), both Maryland corporations. The purchase and sale followed an agreement, dated February 8, 1966, between the directors of CRD and all of the stockholders of JWR. On June 10, 1966 it was approved by more than two-thirds of CRD’s stock in compliance with the State law. In addition to CRD itself, the defendants were its directors plus the stockholders of JWR.

The premise of the suit is the complainant’s allegations that the favorable vote of CRD’s stockholders was obtained through a solicitation based on “a false and misleading proxy statement”. Damages are also claimed, and reliance for the relief prayed is rested on the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78n (1964), formerly 48 Stat. 895, and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9.

With the District Judge and for the reasons stated in his written opinion, 280 F.Supp. 1006, we think summary judgment for the defendants was sound and appropriate.

Affirmed.

Alfred M. Walpert v. Harry Bart, 390 F.2d 877, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 8283 (4th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

390 F.2d 877 (Alfred M. Walpert v. Harry Bart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related